cubsfan6506
Got u
In short it is impossible to evealuate the morality of the crusades haveing a modern viewpoint.
The Ottomans didn't exist until after the Crusades were over. Regardless: so then they're just as justified as all of the Muslim conquests? It's not "territorial gains" so much as it is "territorial reclaiming."
You poor naive full
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade_of_Varna
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crusade_of_Nicopolis&redirect=no
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Belgrade
All crusades intiated by the Pope. And this is without talking about the Holy League
Also, the holy land was populated by Arabs and Muslims of every type having near no connection with Europe aside from Religious shrines. Even if they did convert the populace, Muslim people, families, lives not live there. And some how, the Christans have the right to "reclaim" the land populated by these people, kill, kick or convert the lot.
So again, equally justified as all of the Muslim conquests.
The only thing that could unify all of Europe was religion. So strategically it was brilliant. Are you really bugged out because it was called a "holy war" even though it was really just a military counter-strike?
Oh yes, god wrote in Holy Scripture that Jerusalem MUST be in Christian and allowed them to attack every damn thing in its way.
No, that's like saying "that guy killed my friend and is about to kill my family. It is therefore justified to kill him to prevent my family from dying."
Wow...it makes SOOOO much more sense
I can still understand the first three Crusades
The first one was a counter-attack to get back lost lands. (However instead of giving back the lands to the rightful owner they took it and set up their own states)
The second and third was to try and push back the Muslims (Which ended in failure cause the crusaders were more engross with their own personal wants then to free Jerusalem)
But the next few were just dumb
The 4th one is the "Greatest Scandal of Christemdom" by attacking a fellow christian with gold in mind
The 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th ones were basically ran on nothing but "religious devotion" Attacking not only the Holy land but Tunisia and Egypt
Exactly. Since the First Crusade was fundamentally called to preserve Constantinople from Muslim conquest, it's hardly unjustified.
Also, the holy land was populated by Arabs and Muslims of every type having near no connection with Europe aside from Religious shrines. Even if they did convert the populace, Muslim people, families, lives not live there. And some how, the Christans have the right to "reclaim" the land populated by these people, kill, kick or convert the lot.
Oh yes, god wrote in Holy Scripture that Jerusalem MUST be in Christian and allowed them to attack every damn thing in its way.
The first one was a counter-attack to get back lost lands.
The second and third was to try and push back the Muslims (Which ended in failure cause the crusaders were more engross with their own personal wants then to free Jerusalem)
The 4th one is the "Greatest Scandal of Christemdom" by attacking a fellow christian with gold in mind
You are wrong and are simply imagineing what happened to suit your idealogical beliefs. The crusaders certainly didn't feel bad no matter how much you wanted to be.
LightSpectra said:Scripture also allows war in the circumstance that it is used to defend your people. (Luke 22:36. Romans 13:3-4)
Wow, a first post resurrecting a 6 years old thread?
Wellcome, anyway. But ...a spanish creationist?! That blight has crossed the Atlantic already? Damn, it's just one nearly inexistent border away!
Brutal attempt at creating a double account "Aryann". You can do better than this...
You're reading this out of context. Fundamentalists use it to justify all violence towards non-believers but other parts of the Qur'an say that anyone who kills in the name of Islam is not a true Muslim.
The contemporary religious belief was that Islam was destined to rule the world because it was God's empire. Philosophers showed that it was meant to be ruled through intelligence, not brutal conquest.
Actually, I'm withdrawing that "welcome". I believe jonatas is right...
I've heard some whinning about Muslims conquering Europe...
So I suppose it was all right when the Rome's attempted to conquer all of Europe? Though, this was before Christianity...
If you're gonna cry over one group trying to conquer Europe then whine about the rest.
They however by modern standards were not justified. You however go Christians=good Muslims=evil scary inhuman brown people.
They justify their hero Muhammed marrying a 6 year old when he was like 50 and wife beating.
And that is an historical asessment of Islam?They justify their hero Muhammed marrying a 6 year old when he was like 50 and wife beating. This just shows to me how outdated Islam is even though being created over 600 years after Christianity, whether that quote was right or not.
I don't because their actions are almost universally considered wrong by today's standards. It's the Islamic conquests that are somehow the exception. Nobody has given any clear evidence for why Muslims destroying Europe is somehow acceptable but Christians counter-attacking isn't. Bizarre political correctness?
For me, Destroy means the complete slaughter of inhabitants in the area, in this case Europe.
Evidence from past Islam Empires in Europe show that their is no evidence of sheer slaughter of Europeans. There may be some cases but Christians can be accused of the same. In fact, in Europe the Christians can be named more guity for the death of jews and moors and other such things.
This is clearly not the definition I intend. Muslims at the time were more advanced scientifically and perhaps culturally but an Islamic government would re-define everything it means to be European. It would certainly entail the death of Christianity.
This is clearly not the definition I intend. Muslims at the time were more advanced scientifically and perhaps culturally but an Islamic government would re-define everything it means to be European. It would certainly entail the death of Christianity.