Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Crusades

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Not at all. I'd say it's probably my favorite part of history, though.

    Comment


    • To say the Crusades were justified or not is to politicize them. While the Children's Crusades as well as the campaigns that consisted of slaughtering Jews up and down the Rhine were part of the overall Crusades in the end they were conflicts just like any other where various groups competed over resources.
      Alea iacta est.

      Comment


      • In my honest opinion to ask whether a war fought so long ago is justified tend to be futile excercize. What are your criterion of justification? With what moral code do you judge them? Ours, seven centuries after the fact? Medieval Christians? Medieval Muslims? Are we talking about geopolitical and strategic utility? This kind of question is too hard to pin down.
        All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
        -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

        Comment


        • Was the Arab conquest of the Middle East Justified? Certainly not. (Neither was the Christian conquest of Europe, for that matter, but I'll admit it was slightly more peaceful)

          The Arabs took the land by force, I don't see why they complain when others try to do the same. That goes for today aswell (Israel etc..)

          Doesn't make sense. Why is it one rule for the Arabs/Muslims and another for the rest when it comes to History of that Area? Why is it only the Arabs are always seen as "Innocent"?

          As a neutral, yes, It was justified. On the basis that the Arabs took over the land by force, thus anyone else can try and do the same too. Peaceful religions, yeah right.

          Comment


          • Justified?

            Originally posted by King Six View Post
            Was the Arab conquest of the Middle East Justified? Certainly not. (Neither was the Christian conquest of Europe, for that matter, but I'll admit it was slightly more peaceful)

            The Arabs took the land by force, I don't see why they complain when others try to do the same. That goes for today aswell (Israel etc..)

            Doesn't make sense. Why is it one rule for the Arabs/Muslims and another for the rest when it comes to History of that Area? Why is it only the Arabs are always seen as "Innocent"?

            As a neutral, yes, It was justified. On the basis that the Arabs took over the land by force, thus anyone else can try and do the same too. Peaceful religions, yeah right.

            You have to try and identify a few starting points:

            The Muslim:

            1. All Arabs are not Muslims,
            2. Muslims feel entirely justified in killing non-Muslims,
            3. In the Muslim mind there is no division between religion and government,
            4. To the Muslim all non-Muslims have no claim to human rights in Muslim law,
            5. Muslims renouncing their religion are liable to be killed,
            6. To a Muslim there is no such thing as a neutral person, your either Muslim or not,
            7. To a Muslim there is no assurance of forgiveness of sin,
            8. To a Muslim the only assurance of direct entry into paradise is to die in Jihad or Hadj,

            The Christian:

            1. All Christians are not Christian,
            2. Christians are never justified in killing others,
            3. Christian government is not temporal,
            4. To a Christian all non-Christians may claim rights in Christian law,
            5. Christians renouncing Christianity may do so without physical fear,
            6. To a Christian there is no such thing as a neutral person, you are either a Christian or not,
            7. To a Christian there is full assurance of forgiveness of sin,
            8. Direct entry into paradise is guarenteed on repentance of sin, as recognised in Christian law, and the acceptance of Christ as Saviour.

            Comment


            • I voted yes the crusades were justified but some acts not. Why? a. Muslims invaded Europe and were only stopped at the battle of Tours. b. Christian pilgrims to were being denied access and harrased and robbed on the way to Jerusalem.

              Comment


              • [QUOTE=Arnold123;501383]You have to try and identify a few starting points:





                1. All Christians are not Christian,

                2. Christians are never justified in killing others,
                They can be in law.
                3. Christian government is not temporal,
                Ecclesiastical government would be a disaster.
                4. To a Christian all non-Christians may claim rights in Christian law,
                What laws?
                5. Christians renouncing Christianity may do so without physical fear,
                Correct. Thank secular laws for that.
                6. To a Christian there is no such thing as a neutral person, you are either a Christian or not,
                How many times have christians fought their own kind?
                7. To a Christian there is full assurance of forgiveness of sin,
                Who says so?
                8. Direct entry into paradise is guarenteed on repentance of sin, as recognised in Christian law, and the acceptance of Christ as Saviour.
                You have inspected the guarantee? I've never seen it.
                Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

                Comment


                • I wish Europe kept Thor and Zeus instead of following that Jewish Hippie

                  Comment


                  • Unfortunate view on life

                    Originally posted by King Six View Post
                    I wish Europe kept Thor and Zeus instead of following that Jewish Hippie
                    To denigrate someone you know nothing about shows an extreme lack of principle.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Arnold123 View Post
                      To denigrate someone you know nothing about shows an extreme lack of principle.
                      King Six is young but very cynical and naivee for his age...sad.

                      Comment


                      • Try a little research

                        [QUOTE=glyn;531696]
                        Originally posted by Arnold123 View Post
                        You have to try and identify a few starting points:

                        1. All Christians are not Christian,

                        2. Christians are never justified in killing others,
                        They can be in law.
                        3. Christian government is not temporal,
                        Ecclesiastical government would be a disaster.
                        4. To a Christian all non-Christians may claim rights in Christian law,
                        What laws?
                        5. Christians renouncing Christianity may do so without physical fear,
                        Correct. Thank secular laws for that.
                        6. To a Christian there is no such thing as a neutral person, you are either a Christian or not,
                        How many times have christians fought their own kind?
                        7. To a Christian there is full assurance of forgiveness of sin,
                        Who says so?
                        8. Direct entry into paradise is guarenteed on repentance of sin, as recognised in Christian law, and the acceptance of Christ as Saviour.
                        You have inspected the guarantee? I've never seen it.
                        1. You can call yourself what you want that doesn't prove you are.
                        2. Who's law?
                        3. That is your opinion.
                        4. Christian.
                        5. Has nothing to do with secular law.
                        6. Ref. answer 1.
                        7. God.
                        8. Start reading the Bible.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Arnold123 View Post
                          To denigrate someone you know nothing about shows an extreme lack of principle.
                          What?

                          He was a Jew. He was even called the King of Jews. Also, his lifestyle seemed like a Hippie to me. Some would even call him one of the first Communist/Socialist peoples champion. Whether that's a good or a bad thing depends on your political stance. My heart says it's a good thing but my head knows it isn't.

                          Is it wrong to think that Thor and Zeus are infinitley more cool?

                          Comment


                          • One word: EVOLVE!

                            If we must die, we die defending our rights.
                            Sitting Bull

                            Comment


                            • [QUOTE=Arnold123;532055]
                              Originally posted by glyn View Post

                              1. You can call yourself what you want that doesn't prove you are.
                              2. Who's law?
                              3. That is your opinion.
                              4. Christian.
                              5. Has nothing to do with secular law.
                              6. Ref. answer 1.
                              7. God.
                              8. Start reading the Bible.
                              1. Fair point. Accepted.
                              2. The law in most countries. Self defence is justifiable homicide.
                              3. Give me an example where it wasn't.
                              4. How do you define Christian law in a secular society?
                              5. It has everything to do with it! People were burned at the stake for even doubting the word of an ecclesiastical bigwig. This is civilised? Or Christian?
                              6. That's your answer? Pretty feeble, isn't it?
                              7. Give me proof! In the beginning man created gods.
                              8. Start, dear heart? I have read it many times, and in many versions. :)
                              Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by King Six View Post
                                What?

                                He was a Jew. He was even called the King of Jews. Also, his lifestyle seemed like a Hippie to me. Some would even call him one of the first Communist/Socialist peoples champion. Whether that's a good or a bad thing depends on your political stance. My heart says it's a good thing but my head knows it isn't.

                                Is it wrong to think that Thor and Zeus are infinitley more cool?
                                Cough, cough.

                                I am an atheist, but this is a little more than out of line. Thor and Zeus are interesting gods to read about, but the theology of the Norse or the ancient Greeks is hardly the stuff to inspire conscientious behavior or ethical scruples.

                                Accusing someone of being a Jewish-Bolshevik... well, I am sure that's not how want to come across but take my word for it, please don't do that.
                                All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
                                -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X