Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-14-2013, 01:27 PM #1
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
What is Wrong With The Crusades?

I've seen a lot of people portray, albeit in no detail whatsoever, the Crusades as a black mark on history. This charge is typically levied against Christianity, specifically Catholicism.

So, help me out here guys. What was so bad about the Crusades?
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 01-14-2013, 01:45 PM #2
Umami
"That guy"
 
Umami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Inside the Beltway
Umami works for a Paintball manufacturer
Umami supports our troops
Christians and Muslims wasting resources killing each other over a piece of dirt. I'm not going to call them bad or evil or anything like that. Just ****ing stupid.

Edit: And since Christians seemed to be the invaders, they're particularly stupid.
__________________
SOG
I am affiliated with Lurker Paintball. My opinions are my own and do not reflect those of LurkerPB.

Last edited by Umami : 01-14-2013 at 01:48 PM.
Umami is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2013, 01:50 PM #3
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Umami View Post
Christians and Muslims wasting resources killing each other over a piece of dirt. I'm not going to call them bad or evil or anything like that. Just ****ing stupid.
It is a bit more than that. Muslim conquest of the region not only cut off Christian access to their holy sites, but led to the desecration of them. Most importantly, it led to the persecution of Christian populations. Retaking Jerusalem also would have served the strategic purpose of halting Muslim expansion. I hardly think it boils down to a simple land dispute and nothing more.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2013, 01:54 PM #4
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Let me be clear, you can disagree ideologically with the Crusades. Im more interested in why they are so heavily criticized.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2013, 05:28 PM #5
SupraSuper
Celebrate Diversity
 
SupraSuper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
You're right about The Church of the Holy Sepulchre being destroyed by Al-Hakim in the early 11th century, but for 300 years before during Muslim rule it remained a Christian Church and Muslims prayed side by side with them inside the Church, literally. Either way, the Crusades began because of the fear of Muslim invasion of Constantinople (which they took eventually anyway)

The Crusades are so heavily criticized because it further polarized two civilizations that had much more to gain if they coexisted peacefully than by waging and fighting endless war.
__________________
Free Palestine
SuperSupra619 Banned Because of Racist Mods, But It's All Good
LA LAKERS | LA DODGERS
SupraSuper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2013, 05:42 PM #6
Treghc
 
 
Treghc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle
Treghc is a Supporting Member
Treghc is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Treghc is a Forum Captain
Killing is what was wrong with the act. War over religion is stupid.
__________________
“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe

Tarsier Slave


We are Sapien
Treghc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2013, 07:39 PM #7
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Nah. I don't think fighting for land, ideas and ways of life is stupid at all. If it were, well the founding of this country was ****-retarded.

Last edited by Iamamartianchurch : 01-29-2013 at 08:04 PM.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2013, 08:08 PM #8
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupraSuper View Post
You're right about The Church of the Holy Sepulchre being destroyed by Al-Hakim in the early 11th century, but for 300 years before during Muslim rule it remained a Christian Church and Muslims prayed side by side with them inside the Church, literally. Either way, the Crusades began because of the fear of Muslim invasion of Constantinople (which they took eventually anyway)
Well the fear certainly was not misplaced. I should have been more specific when I was speaking about constantinople but didn't name any names.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SupraSuper View Post
The Crusades are so heavily criticized because it further polarized two civilizations that had much more to gain if they coexisted peacefully than by waging and fighting endless war.
If I am not mistaken, if it wasn't for the Normans, the Muslims would have expanded much farther into Northern Europe. There's no virility in peaceful coexistence however, so it is really unreasonable to criticize ancient cultures on those grounds.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2013, 08:23 PM #9
spracks21
Zap Rowsdower
 
spracks21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Lincoln, NE
spracks21 plays in the PSP
spracks21 owns a Planet Eclipse Ego
spracks21 supports Team VICIOUS
spracks21 plays in the APPA D3 division
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch View Post
Nah. I don't think fighting for land, ideas and ways of life is stupid at all. If it were, well the founding of this country was ****-retarded.
Much of the fueling, or at least the way in which both sides vilified the enemy, stemmed from their religious differences and hatred. It was a holy war, despite the debatable true/underlying purpose of the conflict.

The Crusades also made many English peasants suffer needlessly, telling them that it was in the name of the one true God's will. Break the people with taxes, and tell them that to resist/rebel is to go against God.

Once again in history, religion was used to control the masses to further the agenda of the ruling class, largely at the expense of those whom the religion (At least modern Christianity) now claims to champion, ie: the poor, sick, hungry.

Also, I'm not so sure that the Crusades are perceived negatively by as many people as you might think. I notice a lot of Christians who like to think of themselves as crusaders (Relating the term to paintball teams, mission trips, church activities, etc.) Many Christians really get off on the idea of being "Christian soldiers" and "Fighting for the Lord God with ones own sword," even if not always in the literal sense.
__________________
Aimless Factory
#21

Last edited by spracks21 : 01-29-2013 at 08:26 PM.
spracks21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2013, 08:25 PM #10
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by spracks21 View Post
Much of the fueling, or at least the way in which both sides vilified the enemy, stemmed from their religious differences. It was a holy war, despite the debatable "true" purpose of the conflict.

The Crusades also made many English peasants suffer needlessly, telling them that it was in the name of the one true God's will. Break the people with taxes, and tell them that to resist/rebel is to go against God.

Once again in history, religion was used to control the masses to further the agenda of the ruling class, largely at the expense of those whom the religion (At least modern Christianity) now claims to champion, ie: the poor, sick, hungry.

Also, I'm not so sure that the Crusades are perceived negatively by as many people as you might think. I notice a lot of Christians who like to think of themselves as crusaders (Relating the term to paintball teams, mission trips, church activities, etc.) Many Christians really get off on the idea of being "Christian soldiers" and "Fighting for the Lord God with ones own sword," even if not always in the literal sense.
Thanks for the response. This is pretty much the jest of what I assumed is the problem. I've shared my feelings and you guys probably have a pretty good idea on my views on war & killing so I'll say nothing.

I meant it in the literal sense.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 05:11 PM #11
SupraSuper
Celebrate Diversity
 
SupraSuper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch View Post
Well the fear certainly was not misplaced. I should have been more specific when I was speaking about constantinople but didn't name any names.



If I am not mistaken, if it wasn't for the Normans, the Muslims would have expanded much farther into Northern Europe. There's no virility in peaceful coexistence however, so it is really unreasonable to criticize ancient cultures on those grounds.
Normans? I thought it was the Franks? I believe if it was not for the Franks the Muslims would have swept through all of Europe. Maybe I'm wrong and/or we're talking about the same thing.

What do you mean there is no virility in peaceful coexistence? Btw, I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with fighting over beliefs and way of life, but the two beliefs that were fighting are practically identical. If both parties declare peace and act justly, there is no reason to fight over anything. The fact of the matter is that the Christian religious/political hierarchy used the peasants of Europe for their own political gain.
__________________
Free Palestine
SuperSupra619 Banned Because of Racist Mods, But It's All Good
LA LAKERS | LA DODGERS
SupraSuper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 10:00 AM #12
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupraSuper View Post
Normans? I thought it was the Franks? I believe if it was not for the Franks the Muslims would have swept through all of Europe. Maybe I'm wrong and/or we're talking about the same thing.

What do you mean there is no virility in peaceful coexistence? Btw, I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with fighting over beliefs and way of life, but the two beliefs that were fighting are practically identical. If both parties declare peace and act justly, there is no reason to fight over anything. The fact of the matter is that the Christian religious/political hierarchy used the peasants of Europe for their own political gain.
It was one of the two, I believe I read Normans but it doesn't really matter all that much.

Peasants are used for gain. Their sole function in life is as workers of the land. don't mistake that for slavery. It's a delicate balance between the different hierarchies of society. All are rewarded for fulfilling their responsibilities.

Unchecked peace and prosperity leads to a loss of virility and a loss of virility leads to decadence. You lament often about the state of western culture. Connect the dots.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 10:45 AM #13
Treghc
 
 
Treghc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle
Treghc is a Supporting Member
Treghc is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Treghc is a Forum Captain
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch View Post
Nah. I don't think fighting for land, ideas and ways of life is stupid at all. If it were, well the founding of this country was ****-retarded.
The founding of this country was about the freedom to choose and individual liberty. Vastly different from the forced conversion of the religious under the penalty of death.
__________________
“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe

Tarsier Slave


We are Sapien
Treghc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 11:36 AM #14
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treghc View Post
The founding of this country was about the freedom to choose and individual liberty. Vastly different from the forced conversion of the religious under the penalty of death.
The only difference is that you value one way over another. I'm not making a value judgement. Either fighting fighting for ideals and ways of life is stupid or it isn't.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 03:41 PM #15
Treghc
 
 
Treghc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle
Treghc is a Supporting Member
Treghc is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Treghc is a Forum Captain
Fighting for the ideal to exterminate humanity is indeed very stupid.
__________________
“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe

Tarsier Slave


We are Sapien
Treghc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 03:50 PM #16
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treghc View Post
Fighting for the ideal to exterminate humanity is indeed very stupid.
Come on dude. Besides we are talking about the act not a particular idea. But since you've already presented a scenario where you believe it is acceptable to fight for a way of life or ideal, I'll take that as you agreeing with me.

Last edited by Iamamartianchurch : 02-01-2013 at 03:53 PM.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 04:28 PM #17
Treghc
 
 
Treghc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle
Treghc is a Supporting Member
Treghc is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Treghc is a Forum Captain
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch View Post
Come on dude. Besides we are talking about the act not a particular idea. But since you've already presented a scenario where you believe it is acceptable to fight for a way of life or ideal, I'll take that as you agreeing with me.
Well, the act is supposed to be justified by the end-product. Means justify the end. In this case, I disagree.

I know it's going off topic. I'm bored as balls. It's SUNNY in Washington for once and I'm stuck in a tiny *** building until the sun sets.

I'm still sticking with the idea that the justification for killing others is circumstantial, even if the root of the cause is an ideal; that ideal is circumstantially sound or it is not. I'm not agreeing with any ideal can be used (justifiably) for a cause of war. Some ideals can be objectively measured, such as the extinction of all life.

Let's save this for another time though. I don't want to derail the thread.
__________________
“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe

Tarsier Slave


We are Sapien
Treghc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 05:18 PM #18
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treghc View Post
Well, the act is supposed to be justified by the end-product. Means justify the end. In this case, I disagree.

I know it's going off topic. I'm bored as balls. It's SUNNY in Washington for once and I'm stuck in a tiny *** building until the sun sets.

I'm still sticking with the idea that the justification for killing others is circumstantial, even if the root of the cause is an ideal; that ideal is circumstantially sound or it is not. I'm not agreeing with any ideal can be used (justifiably) for a cause of war. Some ideals can be objectively measured, such as the extinction of all life.

Let's save this for another time though. I don't want to derail the thread.
This thread is dead and I have 40 minutes before I get to leave the office.

Well sure not every ideal can be used to justifiably go to war. But there's a certain arrogance inherent in writing off ideals that do not respect your values, in practice in other places.

Say for example Eastern Orthodox Russians revolted and established an Orthodox monarchy, discharging every single notion of liberal democracy.

Who are we to judge what is best, what is good, for the Russian circumstance? I really don't think you can, outside of a value judgement.

Even then, who, objectively, do they have to demonstrate their legitimacy to? You? I? Liberal democratic nations? ****ing God?

"The're just killing people who don't believe in the same sky fairy as them"

Yeah? And if it brings national harmony consensus and social stability to them at the expense of some, what the **** say do we have in the matter? As I type this from the land where you can believe whatever you want while locked in endless cultural wars. This nation couldn't come together to decide whether you should loop swoop and pull or do the bunny ears thing to tie your shoes. **** yeah liberty

(I'm not directing my sardonic rant at you by the way)

Back on topic:
You said killing is what was wrong. If there are circumstantially justifiable reasons to kill, killing cannot be wrong and your statement is false.

The second sentence read "war over religion is stupid" my thoughts on that particular instance are above. The tldr of that is, I'm not going to make a value judgement on others with whom I am not related to nor live in proximity to. I will reserve those judgements for my own land and my own people.

Last edited by Iamamartianchurch : 02-01-2013 at 05:25 PM.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 06:39 PM #19
Treghc
 
 
Treghc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Seattle
Treghc is a Supporting Member
Treghc is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Treghc is a Forum Captain
I'm going to be out for the night. I'm hoping to respond later in the evening, but I'll leave this:

Violent coercion of others is not the same as one fighting to protect themselves from being coerced.

I will, it is interesting you see you almost pull in a bit of moral realism in. It doesn't seem like you're much of one to follow it.
__________________
“But men, they say a lot of foolish things. In the end, the only words I can find to believe in are mine." - Joe

Tarsier Slave


We are Sapien
Treghc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 12:10 PM #20
Iamamartianchurch
 
 
Iamamartianchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treghc View Post
I'm going to be out for the night. I'm hoping to respond later in the evening, but I'll leave this:

Violent coercion of others is not the same as one fighting to protect themselves from being coerced.
What?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Treghc View Post
I will, it is interesting you see you almost pull in a bit of moral realism in. It doesn't seem like you're much of one to follow it.
Regardless of how I feel about morality, I really don't give a **** what people or nations do outside of my own. I've believed this for a long time.
Iamamartianchurch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2013, 08:00 PM #21
Mr.Robinson
 
 
Mr.Robinson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch View Post

So, help me out here guys. What was so bad about the Crusades?
I would say it was the back and forth slaughtering of innocent civilians in jerusalem..The Catholics slaughtered all of the Muslims and vice versa, it was genocide. I think the Christian Knights got the worst rep because they acted mostly on individual gain, sacking cities for gold and treasures, raping women, and massacring whole populations all in the name of god. Not very Catholic if you ask me...Best part is they were relieved by their pope for all the sins they had committed, because they were acting in the image of God.
Mr.Robinson is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump