Politics

[Tanks]

The Crusades were necessary. It’s another secular myth that they were some kind of evil pursuit by the evil Christians.

Including the Fourth?

Sack of Constantinople - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

Including the Fourth?

Sack of Constantinople - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Let us limit them to the ones against the Muslims. Obviously mistakes have been made throughout history and I’m not justifying them

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

THE problem with sola scriptura is that the Bible itself is a product of Orthodox (to include Roman Catholic) Tradition. There is no way to impugn Tradition without impugning the Bible.

What do Christians actually believe, going back to The Pentecost? Those beliefs are codified in the Nicene, Apostle's, and Athanasian creeds. None of those are in the Bible, and I'm quite uncomfortable with the idea that denominations who do not recite them are actually within Apostolic Succession. But for those non-Orthodox denominations who do recite one of them (usually the Apostle's), it's further acknowledgment of the value and importance of Tradition.

Since we can't emulate The Christ, the best we can do is emulate in belief and deed what the earliest Christians in Jerusalem, Antioch, Greece, Italy, and Egypt did. For myself, I have greater confidence that that's to be found in Orthodoxy, again, including Latin Rite Orthodoxy.

I gather you’re a Catholic? How do you justify Catholic doctrines not found in scripture (excluding apocrypha)? Any belief that isn’t founded on/derived from sound scriptural doctrine is a false teaching.

This isn’t for you but I find it interesting that of the two members who have liked your post one is not a believer and the other semi identifies as a deist/calvinist/presbyterian yet apparently doesn’t believe Christ is the only way to God.

 

[Tanks]

Let us limit them to the ones against the Muslims. Obviously mistakes have been made throughout history and I’m not justifying them

So, a justifiable religious war? Kinda making my point.

 

[sgt_zim]

I gather you’re a Catholic? How do you justify Catholic doctrines not found in scripture (excluding apocrypha)? Any belief that isn’t founded on/derived from sound scriptural doctrine is a false teaching.

This isn’t for you but I find it interesting that of the two members who have liked your post one is not a believer and the other semi identifies as a deist/calvinist/presbyterian yet apparently doesn’t believe Christ is the only way to God.

Eastern Orthodox.

Like the Creeds, there was much passed on from early Christianity that wasn't included in scripture - this is where the idea of Tradition comes from. A large difference with our Catholic brothers and sisters is we do not believe in the ecclesiastical infallibility of any bishop. Even St. Peter was in error over the Jews vs Gentiles question, which he later acknowledged.

 

[Red Leg]

Including the Fourth?

Sack of Constantinople - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I have always thought the aftermath of the First Crusade displayed religious zealotry in its most brutal form. When Jerusalem capitulated in 1099 following a relatively brief siege, the Crusader Army massacred the city's Jewish and Muslim inhabitants. Massacres, rape and pillaging following sieges was not uncommon in the middle ages, but the butchery in Jerusalem of Muslims and Jews was particularly brutal. Period Islamic scholars estimate a total of as many as 70,000, and contemporary historians estimate 40,000 as reasonable considering the refugees in the city.

One can also point to the massacre of Ayyadeih ordered by Richard I during the Third Crusade when he had over two thousand Muslim prisoners beheaded.

I do believe that the initial crusades did also serve political/economic interests as well. Byzantium was weakening and any effort against the Seljuk Turks furthered Byzantine interests. Genoa and Venice were in a multi sided competition for trade dominance in the Eastern Mediterranean. The Crusades furthered those interests.

But necessary? Thanks to the Fourth, the Crusades directly led to the eventual fall of Byzantium, for nearly a thousand years the greatest city of Christendom. Its fall provided the Islamic world security for centuries allowing it to become the largest religious culture on the planet. Echoes of the collapse of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem rebound in Israel's struggles today.

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

So, a justifiable religious war? Kinda making my point.

Why don’t you actually research the history of the Crusades and why they were pursued in the first place and get back with me.

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

I have always thought the aftermath of the First Crusade displayed religious zealotry in its most brutal form. When Jerusalem capitulated in 1099 following a relatively brief siege, the Crusader Army. Massacres following sieges was not uncommon in the middle ages, but the butchery in Jerusalem of Muslims and Jews was particularly brutal. Period Islamic scholars estimate a total of as many as 70,000, and contemporary historians estimate 40,000 as reasonable considering the refugees in the city.

One can also point to the massacre of Ayyadeih ordered by Richard I during the Third Crusade when he had over two thousand Muslim prisoners beheaded.

I do believe that the initial crusades did also serve political/economic interests as well. Byzantium was weakening and any effort against the Seljuk Turks furthered Byzantine interests. Genoa and Venice were in a multi sided competition for trade dominance in the Eastern Mediterranean. The Crusades furthered those interests.

But necessary? Thanks to the Fourth, the Crusades directly led to the eventual fall of Byzantium, for nearly a thousand years the greatest city of Christendom. Its fall provided the Islamic world security for centuries allowing it to become the largest religious culture on the planet. Echoes of the collapse of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem rebound in Israel's struggles today.

They also prevented Christendom from being overrun by the Muslims which would have resulted in massacres of Christians, perpetual second class citizenship and slavery on a mass scale.

 

[sgt_zim]

They also prevented Christendom from being overrun by the Muslims which would have resulted in massacres of Christians, perpetual second class citizenship and slavery on a mass scale.

Well, perhaps the dead ones, but only them.

We should have engaged in the eastern Med in the mid-7th century on the heels of the fall of Jerusalem, or in Iberia and France in the early 8th when the Umayyads started their invasion in AD 711/712.

We were still fighting them in Europe as late as 1683 in Vienna. The Ottomans came within a whisker of winning that one.

 

[Red Leg]

They also prevented Christendom from being overrun by the Muslims which would have resulted in massacres of Christians, perpetual second class citizenship and slavery on a mass scale.

Perhaps a little, but my treatise on the salvation of Christian Europe would begin in Spain and France in the 7th and 8th centuries and then with the sieges of Belgrade in 1456 and of Vienna in 1566 which halted the Ottoman (those Turkish fellows Saladin led) advance into Europe. So persistent and powerful was the Ottoman Empire that it had almost succeeded again when Islamic forces were stopped outside Vienna once more in 1683.

The Crusades were a speed bump that did as much damage to Christian Europe's security as they did to preserve it.

 

[Beaufort]

According to the Encyclopedia of Wars, out of all 1,763 known/recorded historical conflicts, 121, or 6.87%, had religion as their primary cause.

121 wars fought over religion is still a lot.

My 42nd great grandfather was Charles Martel, the Hammer, who fought the invasion of Muslims from Spain at the Battle of Tours in 732. You could argue that the Battle of Tours was fought over expansion of Umayyad-controlled lands, such as Spain, but the end result was the prevention of the Islamization of Western Europe.

 

[sgt_zim]

Perhaps a little, but my treatise on the salvation of Christian Europe would begin in Spain and France in the 7th and 8th centuries and then with the sieges of Belgrade in 1456 and of Vienna in 1566 which halted the Ottoman (those Turkish fellows Saladin led) advance into Europe. So persistent and powerful was the Ottoman Empire that it had almost succeeded again when Islamic forces were stopped outside Vienna once more in 1683.

The Crusades were a speed bump that did as much damage to Christian Europe's security as they did to preserve it.

A curious thing about the participants on the Christian side in 1683. All save Austria are largely or completely disallowing Muslim "refugees" into their countries: Poland and Hungary principally, but from what I can gather the Czechs and Lithuanians as well.

It would seem they know their histories better than western Europe does.

 

[CJW]

They say it's Islamophobia. Nope, I know why I don't like it.

At least she said she's sorry. I'm sure there will be many Muslims in the streets protesting this ridiculous brutality.

Teen who lied about beheaded French teacher's class says 'sorry'

A teenager whose lies about her teacher are accused of contributing to the educator's murder by an Islamist radical apologised to his family in a French court on Tuesday.

www.france24.com