The Crusades — excluding the horrendous sack of Constantinople and the entire debacle of the 4th one — were simply a noble war of liberation of the Holy Land, the war that achieved its objective (the Jerusalem Kingdom expired of neglect a century after Saladin agreed to the crusaders’ demands of free pilgrimage routes) and was lead with bravery and according to the norms of military conduct of the time.
One might question the unnecessary brutality of the wars of Reformation, but then one should begin by questioning the so-called reformation itself.
The Holy Inquisition in its full vigor is something modernity sorely lacks, as the scandal of pederast priests demonstrated.
When substantive arguments are lacking, attempts to defame the winning side often ensue. It is no big deal.
Some of them were. But often as not they broke down into petty arguing about who got what. After the First Crusade, they all failed because 1. There was no chain of command that was recognized by all. and 2. There were was no goal that as to what they wanted to accomplish. Many saw it as an way to make money, or adventure.
A lot of the eastern Crusades (to the Holy Land) died out because one guy wanted to attack X, and another Y, and another just to go on a pilgrimage.
Yes... The Albigensian Crusade, The Children's Crusade, The Wendish Crusade, the Prussian Crusade, The Fresian (Stedingers) Crusade, the Russian Crusades, the Argonese Crusade, the Hussite Crusade, and the Swedish Crusades... All noble wars of liberation of the Holy Land (/sarc)
One might question the unnecessary brutality of the wars of Reformation, but then one should begin by questioning the so-called reformation itself.
I would suggest the root of the problem was the one still involved with the killing of the Waldensians at the time, as they had been for centuries, and the selling of indulgences... The brutality was already long underway. The treatment of the Protestants was true to form.
The Holy Inquisition in its full vigor is something modernity sorely lacks [...]
I need only leave that opinion to the imagination of the reader.
When substantive arguments are lacking, attempts to defame the winning side often ensue. It is no big deal.
Burned at the stake, flayed alive, tongue cut out, death in prison, land and home confiscated... No big deal.
Somebody wake up the Reformation secretary and have him or her commit to pen and ink for all posterity Annalex's "ecumenical" desire.
It certainly shows us who's drawing lines and taking up arms.
Why then should we be surprised Ratzinger denies we worship God in our churches and instead tells us our churches are merely social gatherings and perfunctory business meetings unattended by the Holy Spirit?
"The more brightly the light of doctrine shines, so as to press more closely on wicked men, they are driven to a greater pitch of madness." -- John Calvin, The Institutes"Nothing that is attempted in opposition to God can ever be successful"