Posted on 05/27/2019 6:35:51 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
There's nothing a person says that more serves better to convinces me of their ignorance than when they use the "C" word. They use it as if it was a magical talisman that would make us crumble to the ground and eagerly convert to whatever twaddle they're peddling. People who believe the Crusades were somehow "bad" inevitably are completely and unforgivably ignorant of both Christian and Moslem histories, let alone the infamous and barbaric treatment of Christians under invading Moslem armies in Spain, Portugal and France between AD 711-1492.
The Crusades weren't started by Christians or the Church. Instead, they were slow, measured, moral, reasonable and rational responses to violent and unchecked Islamic invasion and colonization. If anything, the Crusades were supremely holy when compared to the egomaniacal, selfish and hate-filled wars started by atheists between the 18th and 21st centuries. The Crusades were started to protect innocent Christians from being killed. Atheists start wars because they hate, are jealous and because they desire power. To be clear, every war started by Moslems has been, indeed a religious-inspired carnage but this doesn't mean that every other war was religious in nature. Islam teaches that war is perfectly in keeping with Allah's capricious and vindictive nature.
By the time the Crusades had started in AD 1099, invading Moslem armies had slaughtered countless thousands of Christians in the Levant, the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Portugal, France and Italy. A full 90% of Christian territory had been unjustly invaded and annexed. And under the lash of their "peaceful" Moslems overlords, Christians were enslaved, raped, forced to pay the extortionist tax known as the jizya, forced to convert to their peaceful religion, summarily executed for no other reason than they were Christians in a formerly Christian country unjustly taken over by evil Moslems.
(Excerpt) Read more at m.ncregister.com ...
Questions folks fail to ask.
Why would the King send Christopher Columbus on a dangerous sea journey to find an alternate route to China, when you had the current land route through mooselimb territory?
I can understand why we have to keep going over this point; but the truth is the muslims were murdering Christians and stealing Christian lands. Articles like this are necessary but they do accept the premise that there is something to dispute - there is nothing to argue about. They attacked and we responded.
I can understand why we have to keep going over this point; but the truth is the muslims were murdering Christians and stealing Christian lands. Articles like this are necessary but they do accept the premise that there is something to dispute - there is nothing to argue about. They attacked and we responded.
This covers it very nicely. The map and timeline give one a great perspective on what was really going on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo
They attacked and we responded.
That was the reason for the Crusades.
But in Muslim history, they omit the first part to justify their victim status.
Islam spread primarily via the sword.
Unfortunately they were not alleged atrocities. There were some pretty brutal acts committed by the Crusaders.
Urban II promised the "forgiveness of sins for those who died in battle.
This is no where supported in Scripture and is a complete deviation from Scripture.
Some historians prefer the version of the speech reported by Robert the Monk in his Historia Iherosolimitana, written in 1107.[18] Robert gives a more vivid account, consisting both of a more elaborate sermon and the "dramatic response" of the audience, bursting into spontaneous cries of Deus vult.[19] In Robert's version, Urban calls the "race of the Franks" to Christian orthodoxy, reform and submission to the Church and to come to the aid of the Greek Christians in the east. As in Fulcher's account, Urban promises remission of sins for those who went to the east.[20] Robert's account of Urban's speech has the rhetoric of a dramatic "battle speech". Urban here emphasizes reconquering the Holy Land more than aiding the Greeks, an aspect lacking in Fulcher's version and considered by many historians an insertion informed by the success of the First Crusade. Both Robert's and Fulcher's account of the speech include a description of the terrible plight of the Christians in the East under the recent conquests of the Turks and the promise of remission of sins for those who go to their aid. Robert's version, however, includes a more vivid description of the atrocities committed by the conquerors, describing the desecration of churches, the forced circumcision, beheading and torture by disemboweling of Christian men and alluding to grievous rape of Christian women.[21] [22] Perhaps with the wisdom of hindsight, Robert makes Urban advise that none but knights should go, not the old and feeble, nor priests without the permission of their bishops, "for such are more of a hindrance than aid, more of a burden than advantage... nor ought women to set out at all, without their husbands or brothers or legal guardians."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Clermont
As scriptural as it gets. Specifically promised by Christ himself...”What you bind....”. I’ll leave the rest of the verses to you to look up. The promises were made first to Peter, and then to the other Apostles AND THEIR SUCCESSORS (see St. Paul as a non-apostle to whom the promises applied).
Protestants ought to actually READ the Scriptura they claim are Sola.
If anyone has reason to complain about the Crusades it would be the Jews. Thousands of innocent Jews were killed in the Crusades.
So a pope can declare anything he wants? If that’s the case I don’t want to hear anymore fussing about Francis.
Just finished a book on this same subject. Read “God’s Battalions” by Rodney Stark. Stark makes a compelling argument for Muslim aggression as the catalyst for the Crusades. Interestingly, he also points out that the so-called Muslim “discoveries and social enrichment” were actually accomplished by dhimmis who were converted at spear point or by treaty.
The declaration of sins forgiven is not "anything he wants", and anything a pope does declare must not be contradictory to either scripture or previously infallibly declared doctrines. The problem with Francis is he fails on both requirements. So your supposed contradiction doesn't exist.
Except what Urban did, did contradict Scripture.
I can only repeat that a binding of remission of sins does not contradict Scripture....Christ himself Instituted the practice and passes the authority on to his properly consecrated successors by his direct spoken Word.....AND IN SCRIPTURE.
Who cares what you do or don't want to hear? I don't want to "hear" the incessant ignorant, idiotic, anti-Catholic twaddle from certain non-Catholics on this forum. Do I get that? No. It's called "Free" Republic for a reason. Your wants are irrelevant. You always have the option of avoiding "Catholic" related threads and discussing other matters.
I can only repeat what Scripture says.
Sins are forgiven because we believe in Christ. That is the only way to have your sins forgiven. Scripture is crystal clear on this.
Scripture no where says sins are forgiven if you go and die in battle or fight in battle.
To argue otherwise shows a lack of knowledge of Christianity and the New Testament.
Apart from faith in Christ there is no forgiveness of sins.
Who cares what you do or don't want to hear?
Apparently you do as you posted a reply.
I don't want to "hear" the incessant ignorant, idiotic, anti-Catholic twaddle from certain non-Catholics on this forum. Do I get that? No. It's called "Free" Republic for a reason. Your wants are irrelevant. You always have the option of avoiding "Catholic" related threads and discussing other matters.
For starters, if you're going to quote me do it correctly.
This is my complete statement.
"So a pope can declare anything he wants? If that’s the case I don’t want to hear anymore fussing about Francis."
So right off the bat you post an inaccurate cut of my post.
You're like the Left-wing media creating fake news. Whatever credibility you may have had just went the way of CNN and Jim Acosta.
If you want to see "anti-Catholic twaddle" I suggest you look at your fellow Roman Catholics who daily post numerous articles against your current pope.
Recommend you get your facts correct before you jump into an argument you will lose.
Now, sit down.
No, I posted the part that matters. The part which suggests (since I cannot read your mind, only read your words) intent to control what other folks can or cannot say.
It's really simple. NOBODY FORCED YOU TO CLICK ON THIS THREAD. NOBODY FORCED YOU TO READ IT. NOBODY FORCED YOU TO RESPOND ON IT. If one does not want to "hear" certain things, one might be well advised to refrain from reading or commenting on threads where those things will be said. Find something else to discuss.
get your facts correct
I did. I didn't ask anybody to like it, though.
Now, sit down.
There you go again.
There is always have the option of not clicking, not reading, not responding.
Protestants who don't want to "hear" Catholics discussing internal Church matters which are really of no relevance to Protestants have those options.
No, I posted the part that matters. The part which suggests (since I cannot read your mind, only read your words) intent to control what other folks can or cannot say.
No. You selectively cut and pasted part of my quote. And you didn't even do it correctly.
You should have used ellipses to indicate there was more to the quote.
It's really simple. NOBODY FORCED YOU TO CLICK ON THIS THREAD. NOBODY FORCED YOU TO READ IT. NOBODY FORCED YOU TO RESPOND ON IT. If one does not want to "hear" certain things, one might be well advised to refrain from reading or commenting on threads where those things will be said. Find something else to discuss.
True. This is an open forum. We can all choose to post or not post. I chose to post. You don't like what I posted...ignore it. Or perhaps you got "triggered" by my post.
>>get your facts correct<<
I did. I didn't ask anybody to like it, though.
Well, no you didn't. But probably in your limited worldview you did.
Protestants who don't want to "hear" Catholics discussing internal Church matters which are really of no relevance to Protestants have those options.
As I noted before, but I'll type it really slow for you:
If you're going to fuss about "anti-Catholic twaddle" suggest you check your fellow Roman Catholic posts against YOUR pope.
Those are the people you have the issue with.
Roman Catholics sure like to complain when non-Roman Catholics say something against their denomination while ignoring the plethora of articles posted on these forums against their current pope.
Might want to get that board out of your eye.
Now, run along. I don't have the time or inclination to continue to correct you on your errors.
So.
SIT
DOWN
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.