The Crusades

[formerly known as hf]

The crusaders were simply being good Christians:

When Yahweh your God has brought you into the country which you are going to make your own, many nations will fall before you... Yahweh your God will put them at your mercy and you will conquer them. You must put them under the curse of destruction. You must not make any treaty with them or show them any pity.
Instead, treat them like this: tear down their altars, smash their standing-stones, cut down their sacred poles and burn their idols. For you are a people consecrated to Yahweh your God; of all the peoples on earth, you have been chosen by Yahweh your God to be his own people.

Then again, Moses, that guy that told us 'thou shalt not kill' also said:

So kill all the male children and kill all the women who have ever slept with a man; but spare the lives of the young girls who have never slept with a man, and keep them for yourselves

It also says that bethrothed virgins who are raped and don't scream loud enough should be stoned

And people swear by this stuff?

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
Moses gives intructions for Genocide - rendered with LEGO figures

[Stan]

[Pie]

I believ i can counter that, you woefulley stupid beliving in anything against the bible one. (You really should look it up in the bible before posting it.)

Your description of duteronimy is COMPLEATLY FALS(Not compleatly.. most though.)

Deuteronimy 7:2-6 And when the Lord your God has deliverd them over to you and you have defeated them, you must distroy them compleatly. make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. do not intermarry with them. Do not give your doughtes to their sons or take their doughters for your sons, for they will turn your sons away from following me to serv other gods, and the lords anger will burn against you and will quickly distroy you. this is what you are to do to them: breakdoun their alters, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles, and burn their idols in the fire, for you are a people holy to the lord your god. The lord your god has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face ot the earth to be his people, his tresured possetion.


this all rest be explained away. The jews were seen to be the most holy of people, and they were not to be intermarryd within other peoples.. becous.. they would stop serving the lord for one.. and also they would intermarry into ablivion. for they arn't that big, and also, if they didn't distroy them then they WOULD intermarrey into oblivion............. and also, they will not have anyone elses god into this land of theirs, they serv one god, so they wouldn't alow any other god into their land. For, they had to travel to egypt becous of a drought, and there they were inslaved, and then they come back and find... OH NOW!!!! SOMONE TOOK OUR HOME!!! OUR LAND!!!!!!!!! It WAS theres first. Given to Abraham, to pas doun along his geneolagy. Now.. for my secont.. and most refruting.. and better made performanc...

were does it say that? Those who are raped... you are seriously making that up. I haf red all of that chapter and find nothing.

And thus, this is proven fals....

okay, also, the bible says"have you allowd the womon to liv? they were the ones who followed Balaams advice and were the means of turning the israelits away frome the lord in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struk the lords people. Now, kill the boys....."

You must realise, that turning away frome god is the wORST POSIBLE SIN EVER in the tem comandments. so doing this is punishable by stoning(Dude, ime stoned.) not really, it is punishable by a plage, wich i think is the back plage, just to tell you.

Also you must reallise.. that... if i fail to disprove your evidence.. IT STILL DOSENT APPLY TO CRISTIANS. When jesus came.. HE CHANGED THE COMANDMENTS. At the time of moses, the old saying "An eye for eye, toth for tooth " Was still standing, so don't blame cristianaty.

And also, todays cristianaty isn't having alot of raping ans murderings by the way, so it dosent apply to me even more.

Now try to attack crist. I have BOAT LOADS of proof about that. and i didn't even do a serch when finding my evedance.

[Pie]

There are many different ways of interpreting the causes of the First Crusade... but ultimately that line of thought is pointless...

Would I think the world would be better if there had been no crusades? No. Because then I wouldn't be studying medieval history are degree level.

In the words of Pie... I WIN

Oh, can we discuss the Albegensian Crusades? They are far more... pointless.

Burn the heretic!!

I AGREE!!! If you ceep on doing all of this religios discution youll get EVEN MORE BURNED!!! OOOOH!!! H.F. GOT BURNED!!!!



Oh, and H.F. i have to say, going on a crusade WAS actually, being a good cristion.. BUT NOT IN BIBLE TIMES. It was some pope who made the saying "Killing an infadel is the path to heven" So in a sence, you are right, but those bible referances are compleatly fals. Go on... try and through somthing REAL at me.


I'm serious, through somthing at me. Give me somthing to debait. Try and tell me I'm rong, or just say IM STUPID and don't say why or how, just say SOMTHING!!! I'm board.

[Mafia Salad]

Pie, HF's quote of Deuteronomy was from the (Old) King James translation. Yours was from the New International Version. Just because his wasn't in modern English doesn't make his wrong at all. KJ was the common English language version for hundreds of years and the NIV has been around since the 1960's? give or take a couple decades.

As for what HF said.
God has the right to decide who lives and dies, not man. That's why the commandment against murder was written. In the laws written in the old testament, murder is not the same thing as justly killing guilty people. God gave out his law regarding which situations were which, giving the judges the authority of God in their decisions. (later replaced by the new covenant he made with humanity through Jesus) In Deuteronomy that is a specific situation where God had given the Israelites the land that he promised to them. He had already passed judgment on the people already in the land and those instructions to the Israelites were to test their loyalty then and there. Not a thumbs up to all wars everywhere.

I don't see most of the crusaders as being "good Christians" by going on the crusades. Nowhere in the Bible are Christians told to make war against unbelievers. Instead Christians are told to "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations…" (Matthew 28 ) I’m sure some of the crusaders were called by God to the battlefield for some reason or another. But most were going to war for their own reasons.

What I hate about when people talk about the crusades is that refer to the Holy Roman Catholic Church simply as Christians. There were plenty of Christians in it, but because it was such a political power and so rich, there were a lot of power hungry and greedy people who were using the church to glorify themselves in God's name, instead of glorifying God. These people were the sort of people calling a lot of the shots in the time of the crusades. Being a Christian is something personal between you and God, not being part of some organization.

[formerly known as hf]

No, I just want you to realise that the book you so heavily believes in tells you to do some really awful things.

That stoning a virgin, I can't remember where it is, but it's along the lines of 'if a man lies with a betrothed virgin, take them both to the gates of the town, stone him for his sins, and stone her for shouting enough to be heard, being in the town' or some such nonsense

Basically, the bible says:
1) Love they neighbour, be tolerant etc tec.
2) Kill anyone who isn't christian, kill all homosexuals etc. etc.

There are deep contradictions in the teachings, So, people pick and choose what they want from the bible (or the Koran, etc.).

Hence, anything can be justified by a passage in the biuble - it's all down to what you choose and how you interpret something.

Is something this ambiguous and open to abuse really a good basis for morality?

[Pie]

It does not say kill homosexuals. I can give you countles examples were your sources are leaving somthing out or putting somthing in.

It sais we shouldn't be around Homosexuals.. maby.. But it doesen't say to kill them.

It sais to love thy enimy, to turn thy cheketh when slapethed, but not to kill him or her.

It sais ALOT of good things, wich your sources do not give credit to.Such as..the miracles of crist? Not in your source.

Just remember, The Eye for an Eye, Tooth for tooth discritption can explain most things.

[Mafia Salad]

I agree, it's really easy to take passages of the bible out of context and use them for your own purposes, just like you can do with the church structure. It happens to be a very popular pastime where ever Christianity holds power. but that doesn't make the bible wrong.

It's not that hard to find the context either, it's written all around the verses people like to use.

Anyways, their are plenty of topic around here that are for religion (Mostly dealing with Christianity from what I've seen). I'm not going to bring this one any further off topic from the crusades. So if you want to talk about God's or the Churches role in the crusades then it will fit, but if you want to discuss the basis of my religion we can do that in any number of different threads other than this one.

[swymir]

If the bible was "the absolute word of God" it wouldn't be able to be interprutted differently.

[formerly known as hf]

The Bible, if it is the word of God, has been translated down through hundreds of people and languages. Whilst God may be able to say something, and it will mean just solely what he intends, people are unable to do that.
Hence, what is in any version of the Bible, no least an English version, is open to interpretation, by the fact that it has already been interpreted from the original word.
Language has no direct, fixed link to meaning, we give it meaning by writing it, reading it, and using it.

That's all I ask pie, is that you realise that the Bible is so widely open to interpretation that it can be used to justify the killing of anyone, for alomst any reason. As well as give power to those who crave it, and who might not deserve it, and a whole lot of other things.
It can also be a source of good, if people choose the 'right' passages from it. If, as MS seems to have done, you can realise that about it, and still justify it's standing, acknowledging the contradictions, but accepting them, so be it, I can respect that.
What annoys me though, is blind faith in something which is, by virtue of centuries of re-writing, use and abuse, is simply an human interpretation of the 'word', and open to confusion and abuse.

[Pie]

What you fail to realise is that there are many text of the ancient bible. In grees, there are FIVE THOUSAND texes of the gosple. Wile there are only 500 of the iliad. All of these five thousand CORISPOND WITH EACH OTHER. And that's just what i know WITHOUT DOING A SERCH!!!

Also, EVERYTHING CAN BE PROVEN IN THE BIBLE. Perhaps there is a large amount of things that cant... but really... 1% of the world has been archeologicaly scrounded, so really........ Proof is waiting.

As for evolution or science.................... Tuns of holes, even less archeological and logical proof.

[Stan]

If the bible was "the absolute word of God" it wouldn't be able to be interprutted differently.

That makes zero sense. Can you explain why it wouldn't be able to be interpreted differently/wrongly?

I don't want to get deep into this conversation, but for starters Jesus stopped the stoning of a prostitute. He didn't order it.

Context is paramount when you read the Bible. There were instances when God commanded Moses and others to eliminate an ungodly race. That's God's choice. There were other times when God killed off the Israelites (Jews) when He was displeased with them.

He wrote the book and the laws and created everything they apply to.

One of the first lessons the Bible teaches is that Man will try to twist His commands to fit his own purpose. When Satan (the serpent) said to Eve, "Surely you will not die if you eat from that tree. God just doesn't want you to be like him." It was the first time man listened to himself/herself and disobeyed God. Man was trying to make himself Godlike.

It is no different today when people tell you that the Word of God is wrong or false. It is the exact reason Man fell from God's grace. Man will continue to proliferate this lie until the end of days.

But, Jesus came not to condemn, but to save. Jesus says it Himself. The Crusaders, as "well intentioned" as they may have been were not following the Commandments of Christ. The 2 most important being:

1) Love your God with all your Heart, mind and soul and 2) to love your neighbor as yourself.

But, Jesus did not eliminate the laws or the 10 commandments. The laws were given to Moses so that Man could see how much he fails. A person will not ask for forgiveness from God if he doesn't see that he cannot measure up to God. The laws were there to demonstrate to Man that he is weak and not up to God's standards.

Jesus was provided as a Predetermined sacrifice for ALL of those shortcomings. There is no relationship between Jesus and the Crusades besides the purpose of man to justify his actions as he has always done. For Jesus' sacrifice to apply to anyone, all that person has to do is ask. Simple as that. It doesn't mean you won't do things wrong again, though. It just means you're misdeeds are paid for by someone else.

Finally, the main difference between the Israelite slaughter of sinful tribes was that God commanded it directly. The crusades were not commanded directly by God. Not until near the end will man again have prophets that hear and speak for God.

[formerly known as hf]

Ok, so the Crusades weren't commanded by God, but at least we can all rest assured that the war in Iraq is at God's command

[Stan]

No. I don't think so. But, Iraq is not a proclaimed war of the Godly versuss the ungodly. They are two totally different things, dude.

The Iraq war was a war against a regime that spit in the face of the world and had unaccounted for weapons of mass destruction. No one has come in to force a Christian theocracy.

Anyone who claims to be speaking for God or his intentions to explain or justify something is likely a liar or flat wrong. So when Pat Robertson proclaim Sharon was being punished by God, he was wrong or a liar. I can't stand when people pretend to speak for God's intentions.

[formerly known as hf]

Then how to you differentiate between someone like the American President who claims to be going to war on the command of God,
and one (of a number) of events in the Bible when someone who also went to war (and committed mass genocide) similarly under command from God.
Why is it right in Biblical events, but not now? How can you be sure the mass killing of others in the Bible, atrributed to God's command, was attributed correctly?