Conquer Club

Just what is it about the Crusades that earns general acceptance as a legitimate reason to dismiss Christianity?

At one time I bought into the dominant university narrative, I myself, in my younger years, have even said '...but, all that killing in the name of religion, ya know, the Crusades....' yup, end of convo....

I remember the exact moment I bought into it. I was in college late teens maybe 20, but interestingly the decider was based on me completing one of the Wonders on Sid Meyer's Civilization 2. I think many will recognize this photograph specifically. No doubt this picture has achieved universal mental image override, and comes out of the mouth next regarding any or all conversation having to do with Christianity or even religion in general. I can't deny the Crusade narrative had a pretty big impact on how I viewed Christianity, even religion, in the 21st century. Even while understanding I barely knew anything at all about the Crusades except for the killing stuff and perhaps some dates, and King Richard... that was about it.

music - "Dance of the Furies"

The Muslim people invaded Spain, and my great ancestor Carl Martel realized that whatever the level of disputes and independence they enjoyed in Europe, that Europeans did NOT want the Islamic people ruling them. So he orgnaized the concept of feudalism and the concept of a knightly caste and having a standing army ready to come to the defense and drive out those invaders from what then became to be referred to as Chistendom. But say what you like.... most crusades that tried to capture Jerusalem were not successful, and the Islamic state fell from within, not because of the crusades. Infighting of shiites and sunis over whether an elected body or a descendent of Mohammed should set the rules and get the taxes and interpret the Koran is what drove that civilizztion into the dust. Before the despotism they had invented the numbe 0 and built telescopes and had a lot of learning and science and advancement that is too often overlooked in the history books, right up there with the history of Persia and India.

I should add that apart from Christianity which consolidated into the crusades, Europe contained some far more peaceful and humane groups in full support of human rights. Atilla the Hun, Vikings, Roman empirial despots. . ..

Come now Scotty, this is along the lines of people blaming China when a individual Chinese guy hacks someone's computer. Or when the Chinese point out the US's school shootings as a US thing. These were individual acts, but somehow get transposed to the general public.

In the case of the crusades, it was the pope and kings. The general public can't be said to have supported it because they were ignorant of the Bible. The Bible doesn't support this. It's not Christian except that it was done by the Church who claims authority on Christianity.

But if the Columbine killers claimed authority of the opinion of American youth and quoted some of the founding fathers, it wouldn't make their position "American".

Jesus clearly stated not to engage in violence and followed this up with action. Jesus clearly stated that church is wherever people meet to discuss God. Jesus clearly stated that church leaders do and would abuse their position. Jesus stated Peter, who the church claims authority from, would deny him.

But there is no money in such a Jesus, there is no power in letting people freely discuss the Bible on their own. And the Church has no authority from Jesus.

So the individual acts of some power hungry bastards taints the barrel. Just as America's actions condemn me and you and TGD, Saxi, Mets, et al, even though we might strongly disagree with them, we carry the Church's burden in the minds of the unthinking. It's easier to use base logic than to say each group of people has it's assholes but that doesn't discount all the people.

Islam is proven itself to be a violent, barbaric religion. I hope it evaporates from the earth. Christianity is full of love and understanding. It will dominate the earth. Judaism is full of extremely smart, articulate, and humorous people. I hope Judaism accepts Jesus as their Messiah. There can only be one religion for One Almighty God...right? It only makes sense.

_sabotage_ wrote:Come now Scotty, this is along the lines of people blaming China when a individual Chinese guy hacks someone's computer. Or when the Chinese point out the US's school shootings as a US thing. These were individual acts, but somehow get transposed to the general public.

To be clear, I do not subscribe to the blame narrative based on the Crusades. I am questioning it, and how 'but....THE CRUSADES, therefore Christianity bad' has become the collective 'wisdom' of our time. But I did volunteer how at one time in my much earlier life bought into the thoughtless 3rd rate narrative our 'brilliant' president is currently promoting at our National Prayer Breakfast and his comments about 'Terrible Deeds in the Name of Christ'

_sabotage_ wrote:In the case of the crusades, it was the pope and kings. The general public can't be said to have supported it because they were ignorant of the Bible. The Bible doesn't support this. It's not Christian except that it was done by the Church who claims authority on Christianity.

But if the Columbine killers claimed authority of the opinion of American youth and quoted some of the founding fathers, it wouldn't make their position "American".

Are you sure about that? IMO it's a regular thing if someone is found to have done a shooting but made a facebook post at one time that they favor smaller government are immediately labeled as tea party extremists. I would bet everything I own right this minute that if Columbine happened today and they quoted the founders, their position would be turned into a Tea Party position. I understand literally it wouldn't make their position 'America' or 'Tea Party' but that would just be the position to the 2 people who would be dead now. I'm referring to the hundreds of millions of Americans still living, who use narratives to steer the response to the shooting and drum up fear based on juxtaposed 'positions' Just like the way Jared Loughner was repeatedly conjoined with the Tea Party, despite all evidence on the contrary. Remember, while the truth is the truth, a lie travels half way around the world before the truth can even zip up it's pants.

_sabotage_ wrote:Jesus clearly stated not to engage in violence and followed this up with action. Jesus clearly stated that church is wherever people meet to discuss God. Jesus clearly stated that church leaders do and would abuse their position. Jesus stated Peter, who the church claims authority from, would deny him.

But there is no money in such a Jesus, there is no power in letting people freely discuss the Bible on their own. And the Church has no authority from Jesus.

So the individual acts of some power hungry bastards taints the barrel. Just as America's actions condemn me and you and TGD, Saxi, Mets, et al, even though we might strongly disagree with them, we carry the Church's burden in the minds of the unthinking. It's easier to use base logic than to say each group of people has it's assholes but that doesn't discount all the people.

well put

The Jihad was out of control and would have engulfed Europe sooner or later. Europeans did what they had to do, pulled up their socks, put aside their differences, and launched a great counter-offensive. We did what we had to do, under the circumstances.

Duk,

I knew right away that PS was referring to Obama's remark of "in the name of Christ".

As you have just trying to point out, it wasn't in the name of Christ.

I wasn't aware that anyone had blamed christians as a whole (as a group of people) for the crusades.

Thing is, ideas/beliefs can be blamed for events just as much as people can. In fact it is pretty much how we assign blame. Mr Smith committed such and such an atrocity because he thought that such and such a thing justified it. Mr Smith is wrong and the belief he used to justify the action is wrong.

Lets take your small government example (mostly because the christian/crusades one would lead to yet another biblical interpretation argument, though I'll go there if you want). Lets say we have an idea and that idea is expressed as:

- Government is an organisation that by it's nature often restricts the freedoms of citizens in ways that are harmful to society. Government should remain small and be restricted to only acting in X, Y or Z spheres of influence. Citizens have a civic duty to restrict the powers of government to only the essential things that only government can do.

(I'm not saying this is the actual position of anyone btw, just making an example in an effort to crystallise my point)

Now, some nutbag picks up this idea, and blows up a government building killing hundreds of government employees. Is that my fault for having the principle I described above? No of course not. Can we look at the stated belief/idea there vs the action and see if the action is consistent with the belief/idea? Well the bomber, at least in the short term, has reduced the size of the government and restricted the influence it has. Any government actions that were being done through that office by those employees will be heavily disrupted.

Now we could say "but that's not what we meant, we meant people should do this through the democratic process and by non-violent means" but that wasn't in the way we summarily described the idea. And the more we clarify the idea the more other people will clarfiy the idea differently, and you go from a basic well-defined principle or two about small government which a large group of people agree to to a big definitonally-fuzzy thing that some people agree with some bits of and others agree with other bits of and there is nobody left with the ultimate authority to say "this is what the idea is", nobody to tell the nutbag bomber that he definitively has the idea wrong by interpetting it in a certain way.

The authority bit is important, because rightly or wrongly we put people into authority, or at least of influence, on the basis that they represent the ideas. So for small government see Tea Party, the most established small government political movement, and their spokesmen. We look at what their spokesmen have said and we see if it is consistent with what the nutbag bomber says:

http://msteaparty.ning.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network

(edit - link is dead - possibly the staement is removed - but google "MSTP Statement on Obamacare" for it being reliably reproduced by a lot of different sources - trying to find a live link for it now)

(note the official tea party web address, click at your own risk and realiise that I am not straw-manning - emphasis added by me)

When a gang of criminals subvert legitimate government offices and seize all power to themselves without the real consent of the governed their every act and edict is of itself illegal and is outside the bounds of the Rule of Law. In such cases submission is treason. Treason against the Constitution and the valid legitimate government of the nation to which we have pledged our allegiance for years. To resist by all means that are right in the eyes of God is not rebellion or insurrection, it is patriotic resistance to invasion.

Here we have the tea party saying that violent resistance is justified and indeed patriotic. And this is why tea party gets associated with violent anti-government actions. Because they themselves say that such actions are justified.

We can do exactly the same thing with the crusades and papal authority. We can do exactly the same thing with the Nazis and Lutheran anti-semitic protestantism. Nobody is blaming christians for the crusade, but we are justified in blaming christianity. Nobody is blaming Lutherans for the holocaust, but we are justified in blaming lutheran anti-semitism. Nobody is blaming tea party supporters for the violent nutbag, but we are justified in pointing to tea party philosophy...

Phatscotty wrote:I was in college late teens maybe 20, but interestingly the decider was based on me completing one of the Wonders on Sid Meyer's Civilization 2.

Ooooh Sid Meyers Civilization
loved those games, Civilization series were one of the best game series ever made

On-topic: I'm assuming you're referring to some atheists who may have used the crusades as an argument for their anti-theism. Why do you even ask? There are extremists on all sides.

it's not like the Crusades are the only example of violence in the name of Christianity.

Bill Warner, PhD: Jihad vs Crusades



Watch the Islamic battles of offensive Jihad over the centuries.
Then watch the defensive battles of the crusades to reclaim the Holy Land.
One of these things is not like the other
One of these things just doesn't belong

Didn't Bush II declare that the wars in the middle east would be a crusade?

Symmetry wrote:Didn't Bush II declare that the wars in the middle east would be a crusade?

Yea, who did he think he was, the Pope or something?

tzor wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Didn't Bush II declare that the wars in the middle east would be a crusade?

Yea, who did he think he was, the Pope or something?

Probably he considered himself as something similar. Do you think that a crusade has to be started by the Pope?

Symmetry wrote:Probably he considered himself as something similar. Do you think that a crusade has to be started by the Pope?

If you are using it in a historical (as opposed to allegorical) context, yes. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA

The idea of the crusade corresponds to a political conception which was realized in Christendom only from the eleventh to the fifteenth century; this supposes a union of all peoples and sovereigns under the direction of the popes. All crusades were announced by preaching. After pronouncing a solemn vow, each warrior received a cross from the hands of the pope or his legates, and was thenceforth considered a soldier of the Church. Crusaders were also granted indulgences and temporal privileges, such as exemption from civil jurisdiction, inviolability of persons or lands, etc.

tzor wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Probably he considered himself as something similar. Do you think that a crusade has to be started by the Pope?

If you are using it in a historical (as opposed to allegorical) context, yes. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA

The idea of the crusade corresponds to a political conception which was realized in Christendom only from the eleventh to the fifteenth century; this supposes a union of all peoples and sovereigns under the direction of the popes. All crusades were announced by preaching. After pronouncing a solemn vow, each warrior received a cross from the hands of the pope or his legates, and was thenceforth considered a soldier of the Church. Crusaders were also granted indulgences and temporal privileges, such as exemption from civil jurisdiction, inviolability of persons or lands, etc.

So you feel that the blessing of the Catholic Church is the the thing that distinguishes older crusades from a modern one?

Symmetry wrote:

tzor wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Probably he considered himself as something similar. Do you think that a crusade has to be started by the Pope?

If you are using it in a historical (as opposed to allegorical) context, yes. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA

The idea of the crusade corresponds to a political conception which was realized in Christendom only from the eleventh to the fifteenth century; this supposes a union of all peoples and sovereigns under the direction of the popes. All crusades were announced by preaching. After pronouncing a solemn vow, each warrior received a cross from the hands of the pope or his legates, and was thenceforth considered a soldier of the Church. Crusaders were also granted indulgences and temporal privileges, such as exemption from civil jurisdiction, inviolability of persons or lands, etc.

So you feel that the blessing of the Catholic Church is the the thing that distinguishes older crusades from a modern one?

Yes. There is a difference between engaging in a crusade and The Crusades. You are confusing Bush's use of crusade as a verb with the noun Crusade.

patches70 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

tzor wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Probably he considered himself as something similar. Do you think that a crusade has to be started by the Pope?

If you are using it in a historical (as opposed to allegorical) context, yes. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA

The idea of the crusade corresponds to a political conception which was realized in Christendom only from the eleventh to the fifteenth century; this supposes a union of all peoples and sovereigns under the direction of the popes. All crusades were announced by preaching. After pronouncing a solemn vow, each warrior received a cross from the hands of the pope or his legates, and was thenceforth considered a soldier of the Church. Crusaders were also granted indulgences and temporal privileges, such as exemption from civil jurisdiction, inviolability of persons or lands, etc.

So you feel that the blessing of the Catholic Church is the the thing that distinguishes older crusades from a modern one?

Yes. There is a difference between engaging in a crusade and The Crusades. You are confusing Bush's use of crusade as a verb with the noun Crusade.

"This Crusade. This War on Terrorism is gonna take a while". Sorry, that's a noun.

Symmetry wrote:

patches70 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

tzor wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Probably he considered himself as something similar. Do you think that a crusade has to be started by the Pope?

If you are using it in a historical (as opposed to allegorical) context, yes. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA

The idea of the crusade corresponds to a political conception which was realized in Christendom only from the eleventh to the fifteenth century; this supposes a union of all peoples and sovereigns under the direction of the popes. All crusades were announced by preaching. After pronouncing a solemn vow, each warrior received a cross from the hands of the pope or his legates, and was thenceforth considered a soldier of the Church. Crusaders were also granted indulgences and temporal privileges, such as exemption from civil jurisdiction, inviolability of persons or lands, etc.

So you feel that the blessing of the Catholic Church is the the thing that distinguishes older crusades from a modern one?

Yes. There is a difference between engaging in a crusade and The Crusades. You are confusing Bush's use of crusade as a verb with the noun Crusade.

"This Crusade. This War on Terrorism is gonna take a while". Sorry, that's a noun.

Doesn't matter, you are confusing definitions. People use the word crusade all the time and there is a difference in the meaning of those words from The Crusades, i.e. Papal sanctioned military action. Bush's use of the word doesn't mean what you are trying to make it mean. Bush's use is exactly the same as someone using the word crusade in such context as- "We are on a crusade against slavery" or "We are on a crusade against drunk driving".
So the difference between Bush's use of the word and The Crusades of old is Papal sanction. Considering you're sym, I can understand how your having trouble properly defining words. It seems to be a problem of yours. Bush's use of the word just doesn't mean what you are implying.

To have a modern day Crusade as opposed to a crusade, would require that the Pope sanction said Crusade and would be have to be a military nature. It also worth noting that Crusades (note the capital "C") have not always been directed as Muslim incursions. There have been Crusades against normal people, even against people of the same religion or even against other European kingdoms, not just against Muslim lands.

A Crusade (definition 1) has to be sanctioned by the Pope as oppose to a crusade which can be called such by anyone anytime so long as there is passion and emotion involved (definition 3). Definition 1 is generally capitalized and the other definitions are not.
Bush is using definition 3 where as people who cry (as per the OP) "But....The Crusades!" is using definition 1.

There is a difference.

patches70 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

patches70 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

tzor wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Probably he considered himself as something similar. Do you think that a crusade has to be started by the Pope?

If you are using it in a historical (as opposed to allegorical) context, yes. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA

The idea of the crusade corresponds to a political conception which was realized in Christendom only from the eleventh to the fifteenth century; this supposes a union of all peoples and sovereigns under the direction of the popes. All crusades were announced by preaching. After pronouncing a solemn vow, each warrior received a cross from the hands of the pope or his legates, and was thenceforth considered a soldier of the Church. Crusaders were also granted indulgences and temporal privileges, such as exemption from civil jurisdiction, inviolability of persons or lands, etc.

So you feel that the blessing of the Catholic Church is the the thing that distinguishes older crusades from a modern one?

Yes. There is a difference between engaging in a crusade and The Crusades. You are confusing Bush's use of crusade as a verb with the noun Crusade.

"This Crusade. This War on Terrorism is gonna take a while". Sorry, that's a noun.

Doesn't matter, you are confusing definitions.

If it didn't matter, why did you propose it as an argument, and delete the evidence in my post supporting my counter-argument?

Then watch the defensive battles of the crusades to reclaim the Holy Land.

July 14, 1099 - ... after the fall of Jerusalem, the unarmed Jews of the city are defensively burned alive by European knights and the synagogues converted to churches. European knights rape all the women and young boys in the city.

October 2, 1187 ... Saladin the Great and Magnificent expels the Christian knights, restores the synagogues and invites Jews to return. All the defeated Christians are allowed to peacefully evacuate to Cyprus.

[list]as expertly sung by Stefan Gimpel in Crystallion's 2008 album "Hattin" -

Symmetry wrote:
If it didn't matter, why did you propose it as an argument, and delete the evidence in my post supporting my counter-argument?

You had a post that had the Pope sanctioning a war on terror? Sorry, I didn't see it, would you mind posting it again then?

If you are referring to Bush, then someone else already said it best-

tzor wrote:Yea, who did he think he was, the Pope or something?