If ISIS Isn't Islamic, Were Crusaders Christian?

Here it is in the simplest terms...

ISIS is following the teachings of Muhammad, ISIS is Islamic.
Muslims who don't want to kill the infidels are just bad Muslims. Muslims who don't try to kill those who offend Muhammad or his teachings are bad Muslims.

On the other hand there are no teachings of Jesus to support the murder of unbelievers. To be a good Christian you must follow Jesus' teachings. Christian's who commit terror have no Biblical basis for doing so.

The crusades had no Biblical basis and the results showed God did not bless what was done in his name.

Nosaj for the win,

jrrrrr - The trouble is that people throw the word "Crusades" around and only know it from the movies or a 10 second sound bite.

The context of the crusades was that the mohammed was conquering the old byzantine empire and massacring the eastern church members. They asked the western catholic church to come and help them fight off the muslims.
Yes, the crusaders were Christian (catholic) and were barbaric as well. Both groups were barbaric. that's the way they fought wars. Heck, want to see barbaric, read about how the Japanese went through China...

If people would realize that the muslims were attacking the old byzantine empire and would eventually threaten Europe by going into spain, parts of France, venice, attacking eastern Europe, this attacking the crusaders would not be happening.

Obama would not be able to handle someone reminding him that the same reasons that Boka Haran and ISIS gives for how the conduct themselves, is the same reasons that the Barbary pirates give when Thomas Jefferson fought them.
There's peeps like you on both sides. Religion can have a blinding effect that really divides human beings. It's a dangerous phenomenon as history shows us again and again. Phone Post 3.0

jrrrrr - The trouble is that people throw the word "Crusades" around and only know it from the movies or a 10 second sound bite.

The context of the crusades was that the mohammed was conquering the old byzantine empire and massacring the eastern church members. They asked the western catholic church to come and help them fight off the muslims.
Yes, the crusaders were Christian (catholic) and were barbaric as well. Both groups were barbaric. that's the way they fought wars. Heck, want to see barbaric, read about how the Japanese went through China...

If people would realize that the muslims were attacking the old byzantine empire and would eventually threaten Europe by going into spain, parts of France, venice, attacking eastern Europe, this attacking the crusaders would not be happening.

Obama would not be able to handle someone reminding him that the same reasons that Boka Haran and ISIS gives for how the conduct themselves, is the same reasons that the Barbary pirates give when Thomas Jefferson fought them.
In general, the conquering Muslims did not massacre Christians in the Holy Lands. There were deaths, but in Christians there generally preferred Muslim rule to Byzantine rule.

But that doesn't fit your narrative, so carry on I guess. Phone Post 3.0

jrrrrr - The trouble is that people throw the word "Crusades" around and only know it from the movies or a 10 second sound bite.

The context of the crusades was that the mohammed was conquering the old byzantine empire and massacring the eastern church members. They asked the western catholic church to come and help them fight off the muslims.
Yes, the crusaders were Christian (catholic) and were barbaric as well. Both groups were barbaric. that's the way they fought wars. Heck, want to see barbaric, read about how the Japanese went through China...

If people would realize that the muslims were attacking the old byzantine empire and would eventually threaten Europe by going into spain, parts of France, venice, attacking eastern Europe, this attacking the crusaders would not be happening.

Obama would not be able to handle someone reminding him that the same reasons that Boka Haran and ISIS gives for how the conduct themselves, is the same reasons that the Barbary pirates give when Thomas Jefferson fought them.

Not all the crusades were against Muslims.

Surprised?

attjack - 
buzzkil -
attjack - 
mixedmartialfarts - 
whaledog - 
mixedmartialfarts - 

I don't think he's denying that these fuckos are committing acts of terrorism in the name of Islam, he's saying that these terrorist acts shouldn't define the religion as a whole (just as the Crusades shouldn't define Christianity).


He doesn't actually say that the crusades shouldn't define Christianity.  In fact, it's almost the opposite.  He says that Christians should not criticize Mulsims because Christians participated in the crusades so, in effect, they have unclean hands.

 

"So how do we, as people of faith, reconcile these realities -- the profound good, the strength, the tenacity, the compassion and love that can flow from all of our faiths, operating alongside those who seek to hijack religious for their own murderous ends?"

 


That's the sentence right before the statement about Christianity and the Crusades.  Seems pretty clear that he's saying that we shouldn't judge any religion based on their extremists.


How dare you put that in context.

What needs to be put into context is the fact that the crusades happened 1000 years ago.
Yeah but that Christian shooting rampage in Norway happened recently. And we have been bombing the fuck out all kinds of non christian countries consistently for decade after decade. So lets condemn all Christians and see where that gets us. Phone Post 3.0

Those countries weren't non Christian. They were anti American. But the ones we bombed do not represent all anti American countries.

A very valid point OP and VTFU.

sadic1 - That dumb motherfucker has no idea what the Crusades were about. To compare that to people kidnapping, torturing, and murdering innocent people including women and children is beyond moronic and not too surprising. Obama is an atheist in the weakest of Christian clothing.
You mean like the Christians that founded this country did? Phone Post 3.0

The Crusades were a response to Islamic aggression, in 1071 at the Battle of Manzikert, the Eastern Empire suffered a massive defeat at the hands of the Armies of Islam; in 1095 Emperor Alexis called on the Western Empire for aid. So was born the Crusades. See, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo&feature=share&fb_ref=share for a short and to the point examination of the motivation for, and scale of, The Crusades.

ocianain - The Crusades were a response to Islamic aggression, in 1071 at the Battle of Manzikert, the Eastern Empire suffered a massive defeat at the hands of the Armies of Islam; in 1095 Emperor Alexis called on the Western Empire for aid. So was born the Crusades. See, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo&feature=share&fb_ref=share for a short and to the point examination of the motivation for, and scale of, The Crusades.
So that "turn the other cheek" bullshit is a load of crap? Phone Post 3.0

Catholic Western Europe didn't give two shots about the Byzantine Empire, which they considered a rival on many fronts. Just check out the 4th Crusade. However, they were interested in claiming the territory list by the Byzantines. Phone Post 3.0

MisterFixit - 
ocianain - The Crusades were a response to Islamic aggression, in 1071 at the Battle of Manzikert, the Eastern Empire suffered a massive defeat at the hands of the Armies of Islam; in 1095 Emperor Alexis called on the Western Empire for aid. So was born the Crusades. See, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo&feature=share&fb_ref=share for a short and to the point examination of the motivation for, and scale of, The Crusades.
So that "turn the other cheek" bullshit is a load of crap? Phone Post 3.0

Society has a right to defend itself, as does the individual.

Strandman - Catholic Western Europe didn't give two shots about the Byzantine Empire, which they considered a rival on many fronts. Just check out the 4th Crusade. However, they were interested in claiming the territory list by the Byzantines. Phone Post 3.0

How do you speak so authoritatively for "Western Europe?" Are you somehow privy to Western Europe's deep seated feelings over the centuries? In the real world, after the Fall of the the Western Empire, Western Europe was weak and could do little to either threaten the Eastern Empire, or aid it, till approx the 11th century. The Eastern Empire protected the West, the West didn't threaten the East.

ocianain -
MisterFixit - 
ocianain - The Crusades were a response to Islamic aggression, in 1071 at the Battle of Manzikert, the Eastern Empire suffered a massive defeat at the hands of the Armies of Islam; in 1095 Emperor Alexis called on the Western Empire for aid. So was born the Crusades. See, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo&feature=share&fb_ref=share for a short and to the point examination of the motivation for, and scale of, The Crusades.
So that "turn the other cheek" bullshit is a load of crap? Phone Post 3.0

Society has a right to defend itself, as does the individual.
Because from a spiritual perspective, sending those unsaved souls to hell for eternity takes precedence over maintaining a brief moment of life here on this world.

Sounds logical. Phone Post 3.0

Not really. If someone is trying to kill you and yours, you have a right to defend your own.

Captain obvious here... Isis = islamic state of iraq and syria. Its in the fucking name

Also- isil is a bullshit term (islamic state of iraq and the levant)... Because you know we're not fighting syria and want to make that clear... Wait? We arent fighting syria? Just give them money? Phone Post 3.0

For a more balanced view of the Crusades (something other than, "Crusaders Bad"), see, http://www.amazon.com/Crusades-History-Jonathan-Riley-Smith/dp/0300101287/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1424440682&sr=8-8&keywords=the+crusades

ocianain - Not really. If someone is trying to kill you and yours, you have a right to defend your own.
Right.

Because God would want the unsaved soul to spend eternity in hell before receiving the revelation and repenting so that his Christian followers could stay but a moment more on this worldly earth.

Sounds logical. Phone Post 3.0

The crusades happened during the middle ages, a LONG time ago.

People and the world were much a different place then.

To have this type of barbaric treatment of human beings in today’s day and age is wrong no matter how you look at it.

Comparing ISIS to the crusades is like comparing apples to hammers

whaledog -
mixedmartialfarts - 


I don't think he's denying that these fuckos are committing acts of terrorism in the name of Islam, he's saying that these terrorist acts shouldn't define the religion as a whole (just as the Crusades shouldn't define Christianity).



He doesn't actually say that the crusades shouldn't define Christianity.  In fact, it's almost the opposite.  He says that Christians should not criticize Mulsims because Christians participated in the crusades so, in effect, they have unclean hands.

Well in that case nobody should ever criticize anyone for anything... Ever! Phone Post 3.0