Were the crusades justified in the eyes of God, or were they sinful?

Why would you lie on the internet?

Latin massacre happened 1184, sack of Constantinople happened 1204

Of course they are justified. What a question, the popes said so.
But they got defeated because they get away from their initial purpose geographically.
pic related is saint Louis dying from disease in Tunis, far from Jerusalem. He himself saw the failure of his first crusade as a divine chastisement and died in a bed made of ash.

Attached: the_death_of_saint_louis-french_school_19_century_mg_8199.jpg (3449x2259, 1012.66K)

The original point, lets help the byzantines against the turks, and push back the muslim agression, was great.
It turned into a fiasco pretty quickly, though.

Not only were they justified. They are justified today.

...

...

Not sure user, I have only studied the first.
I do know Godfrey of Bouillon was a God fearing and good man.

For the vast majority of people, yes they were. We can't pretend that certain instances were anything less than pure cash-grabs though.

No, they were trying to reclaim Jerusalem for (((their greatest allies)))

...

God will judge. But they were necessary for stopping the military kebab, and reconquering places inhabited by Christians.

It was necessary to kill everyone in Jerusalem? Some of the crusaders were only interested in becoming powerful and rich? I'll say the same about the bad popes. Let God judge each one for their intentions.

If God willed it, it wouldn't have failed.

I once read in some book that you shouldn't do that

I disagree with this conclusion. You can say the same about someone who was crucified.

It'd be mighty embarrassing to go down to earth to die for mankind's sins and not actually get the opportunity to die. I guess you have a solid point if you mean Simon Peter.

It was resisting evil, so no, it was not. It was unchristian and unlawful (to the Law of the Kingdom of God). But God forgives, and He knows what they knew and didn't know, what their reasons for doing what they did were, so it's not for us to judge if it was sin for them or not.

I agree it was a vital geopolitical move to make, considering the Muslims were oppressing and taking land from Christians that were in the Middle East. However, I believe the name of Jesus Christ was misused and abused, and the whole idea of "going on a crusade to have all your sins absolved" was a complete sham perpetrated by the Roman Catholic Church. It should have only been a purely political move, but at the time the Pope was the only figurehead that sat above the petty politics and fiefdoms in Europe at that time and the Crusades was the only political tool the Pope used to unite all of Europe for a common cause.

Of course, it was self defense after Constantinople. It's just a shame the whole operation bungled in the end.

The 4th crusade was despicable, the catholics sacked constantinople, butchered and raped their eastern brothers and the nuns…No it was not "justified" and it solidified the east-west schism, and led to the loss of Constantinople to the ottomans.

...

But Constantinople (Eastern Rome) didn't fall until around 1400 AD

yes but the catholics weakened it and installed their puppet rulers to control it. It lost a lot of power and efficiency because of this.

The "crusaders" that made this have been excommunicated by the pope before even reaching Constantinople, so it's pretty stupid to use this example against the crusades.

So, if the Tutsi were to suddenly march today on Kigali, pillage, rape and massacre everyone in the capital, loot it's wealth, and turn it from a city of 1,3 million to one of 10 thousand, to install some guy that promised them cash as president, it'd be morally justified?

Yes. Sadly they lost their way.

Amazing picture.

Probably even more so.

Just war accroding to Aquinas:
In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary.

First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. Moreover it is not the business of a private individual to summon together the people, which has to be done in wartime. And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them. And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Romans 13:4): "He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil"; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Psalm 81:4): "Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner"; and for this reason Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 75): "The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority."

Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (QQ. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): "A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly."

Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. [The words quoted are to be found not in St. Augustine's works, but Can. Apud. Caus. xxiii, qu. 1): "True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good." For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 74): "The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war."

Check
Check
Check.

They were justified. Hell, they would be justified today if the first requirement was met.

...

That was repaid for with the Sack of Thessalonica already. You didn't need to sack Constantinople, face it.

Killing muslims is always justified.

Just for clarification:

Attached: 1024px-Counquest_of_Jeusalem_(1099).jpg (1024x587, 190.84K)

(checked)
Im sure you do love Vatican 2, satan.

Omg thats so mean. If pope Urban ever posted here the mods should ban him immediately.bigots.

What a racist bigot, I'm glad we're living in the 21st century where we don't have such backwater beliefs anymore.

Attached: cal0423-dba-7.jpg (300x298, 10.3K)

So very good and tolerant. It's about time we had such intelligent discourse and logical thinking on this board.

Attached: 5e2e8078eee28dafa8129fe144450b802eb20076391f6b1916ba97c3997ff7ca.png (23x585, 313)

They were able to prevent the Islamification of Eastern Europe, for a few centuries anyway, which probably saved thousands of souls. Also, I'm pretty sure that passage is more about not taking revenge rather than anything else.

When will these memes end? The empire had been on a downward spiral ever since the end of the Komnenian dynasty. The very fact that the Venetian mercenaries were able to take Constantinople at all is proof of this.

Maybe in the seventh century when the Saracens actually took jerusalem from Christian rulers, but not 400 years later when they actually happened.

Information was sloooooooooooow back then.

Wasn't that slow. Caesar knew about the Roman Senators disdain for him while he was in gaul, as that disdain was growing. Can't have taken that long for news of the fall of jerusalem which by the way is an epicenter of medieval trade, to reach the church.

We are eternally justified in retaking Christian lands because our faith is the right one. This is not a question of diplomacy.

You're not on Reddit anymore, lady.

You cannot be a right wing racist and be a Christian at the same time. How about you fuck off back to Zig Forums with your bigotry? Meanwhile, true Christians will help our Muslim brothers as they escape the warzone that the west caused.

Don't forget that Jesus said to love your neighbors. Oops.

It's just an account of what he said wrote years latter by someone (Foucher de Chartres) who have, maybe, heard the homily of the holy pope Urbain II. One can legitimately say it's falsified, we don't really know what he said.
I'm not against racism but if a race exist it's for a reason, a christian don't want to destroy a race, crusades wasn't about that.

Attached: Le_repos,_by_William-Adolphe_Bouguereau.jpg (4000x1903, 6.73M)

The Sack of Constantinople was wrong in the eyes of the church but very just in the minds of the Catholic knights who did it.
Those knights supported a Byzantine claimant who promised to transport them to the holy land. That Byzantine claimant was however killed in a palace coup whilst the knights camped outside the city. Afraid they were next for supporting the claimant and outraged by the death of him they went mad and destroyed what they thought a city of sinners who murdered their rightful emperor.
t. Dutch scholar Hans Jansen

Aside from that crusades were just, it's really a lack of piety that made them fail eventually.
Many did it just for prestige instead of piety and that signed their doom.

They weren't justified in everything they did, but for some reason a lot of modern Christians conflate a desire for peace, with a need to capitulate.

Adding to this, there are such things as sins of omission, and a soul is worth far more than a life. If a Christian who has the power to do so, is given the burden of deciding whether the lesser of two evils is to take a life, or allow for others to live in ignorance of the lord, then who are we to judge his decision?

I would think that loving your neighbors, would include not importing hordes of rapist, and then dumping them on their doorsteps. Asides from this, you're condemning a Christian based on something you see as sinful, whilst exonerating a people whom have not accepted Christ, and have altered the bible, thus leading millions to damnation.

I have brothers in Christ. Not brothers of some demon Moon god.

Nore like "crusaids"

You can't believe in "racism" as a concept and be a Christian at the same time. It was purpose built by Trotsky to be anti-Christian. And you are dishonestly taking Christ's lessons out of context to suit your own narrative.

I have no muslim neighbors tho.

Neighbors = family and tribe

Except if it's a race of muslims.
If was precisely about that, exterminating the muslims who inhabit the Holy Land.

I can never tell whether you leftists are serious or just trolling when you talk about what you believe in with such ostensible conviction. You really don't see absurd your beliefs are? Anyway, don't get your panties in a twist.

First of all, God doesn't have eyes. Second, nobody here knows what God thinks about historical events. It's all just LARPing like when people claim a hurricane is "God's wrath on X" or whatever.

You're not asking if they were justified in God's eyes, you're asking if they were Zig Forums approved. Which, of course they were because Zig Forums can't pull its head out of Zig Forums's ass long enough to think for themselves. Every post ITT saying "hurr dem muzzies deserved to die" proves it because they ignore that Christians LOST. So if God was on anyone's side, it was the Saracens.

Attached: 0c0985f7dfd8d7f3ca5b434efb744f770df374c81810ec25f3e82620a8853e27.jpg (480x269, 29.57K)

Nice job dodging any sort of rebuttal and blaming everything on Zig Forums.

Pray for them, they just got here from 4cuck.

Attached: Rabbid thread.png (670x615, 260.04K)

Attached: Knights templar.jpg (853x480 32.64 KB, 56.12K)

I'm not even shitposting, what did you mean by this?

I understand the confusion but I don't know how much more clear i can be about this.

Attached: msteps2.jpg (2000x1350, 1.55M)

Is it sinful to defend yourself and your family?

Not at all, but it should be noted that brown people moving into the house next door is not a threat to you or your family.

...

If you think that the Crusades happened because "brown people moved in", then you need to leave this site for 40 days and 40 nights and study the entirety of the Crusades, from the first invasion of the moslems in the 7th century to the few last excursions in the 18th century. There were far more than the Nine to the Levant, and you would benefit by the careful study of them all. The necessity of more expeditions will also become apparent to you after you finish this penance.

*muslims, and yes, it's a threat to my Christian way of life.

If just a single muslim survived it means that the Crusades were too temperate.

As Muslims have largely proven be most like the robbers than even the other two men I raise you

My kingdom is not of this world. I recall reading that somewhere.

No, it's really not a threat to you or your Christian way of life.

Would someone change the channel already?

On what basis do you declare me "apostate"? Because I don't share fear and hatred of Muslims? Christ commands me to love my enemies and pray for those who wrong me. Do you disobey Christ?

What? Muslims wrong you, they're your enemy now? They a threat then? Your lying tongue betrays you as much as your shallow exegesis.

No, they are not my enemy; but you claim them as your enemy. Yet instead of praying for them and forgiving them, you want to wipe them out. You call me an apostate while you disobey Christ's command.

Please remember to keep it charitable, guys. Don't call your brother in Christ an "apostate." We must pray that Muslims come to accept and love our Lord Jesus Christ as he is truly the Son of God. We must never encourage unnecessary violence towards others (all of us are children of the same God), but there are instances where we may defend ourselves (just war).

Rule 2. Interactions must be for the sake of Charity.

Charity is a foundational concept in Christianity. It is the virtue of supreme love for God and others. It is the greatest of the three virtues Paul emphasizes, and governs all Christian conduct. Just because this is an Zig Forums board does not alleviate Christians of their moral duty. All interactions must be done with this in mind.

God bless.

Attached: 10230.jpg (762x960, 203.06K)

pic related

Attached: islam_heres_how_it_works_2.jpg (1500x2500, 819.17K)

I was wrong, i confused the 1700s freemasonry knights templar for the 1000s knights templar. Thanks for calling me out of that, wow i feel stupid.

Here is the source and the archive.is
knightstemplar.org/faq.html#origin
archive.is/jxrRI

Attached: Untitled.png (1379x1553, 717.4K)

We're telling you to love Muslims, not Islam. Admittedly, Islam is an evil ideology. Muslims are people that can be brought to Christ. You're not going to convert anyone by insulting them.

We can take apart Islam for its beliefs, but never insult anyone. I've tried the "Deus Vult" approach for years and it didn't yield any results in attaining souls for Christ, but whenever I take a more compassionate approach people are more responsive (whether I'm talking to a militant atheist, Muslim, Hindu, etc).

God bless, user.

Attached: 17155727_10155111842224204_6473197660655660056_n.jpg (390x390, 17.8K)

These "brown people" don't share my genetics, culture or religion. They're genetically predisposed to being stupid and violent, and for a multitude of reasons they're likely to live as parasites in Western societies. If enough of them come here, they absolutely will threaten their host society. It's simply delusional to think otherwise.

Tell me, who is more American:
Me, whose family came here in the 1920s from Ireland
OR
My brown neighbor, whose family came here in the 1640s from Africa

Why does my pale skin give me more of a claim to this country?

when people cites "Return your sword to its place, for all who will take up the sword, will die by the sword" I dont see it as something ominous and necessarily bad. It's just an admonition of causality. Jesus told us there is a better way (Himself) but in a strict sense you can choose to live and die for something if you think that you don't have any better options.

No, it wasn't.
You can find references to racism as a word and concept in 1890-1900 non-left wing articles written in english.
Stop swallowing neo-nazi urban myths uncritically.

History disagrees with you Zig Forums. Algebra came out of these "parasites of western civilisation" and the philosophies of Aristotle, Plato, and Socratese, among others, wouldn't have survived to the modern day had they not been preserved by these people whom you claim are genetically predisposed to being stupid and violent, these philosophies which by the way, contributed no small part to the enlightenment which defines western civilization to this very day. Never mind the advances in the sciences, modern medicine, astronomy, and so on that came out of the Islamic world. Wow, these are some really stupid people. Might wanna get that pride, and even hubris, under control early before the Lord decides to do it for you.

According to the founding fathers, you are.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790

The classical philosophers were preserved by the Christian monastics in the West and had always been preserved in the Eastern Church. To the extent Islamics preserved classical knowledge is to the extent that they didn't destroy the knowledge that disagreed with their cult. When they took Alexandria, they burned any book which disagreed with the Koran.

Algebra was from India, Islam lays claim of the invention s of the lands they conquered/traded with.
Sure they have achieved some things but they are nowhere near the modern myths we hear about the "Golden Islamic age"

Besides, look at them now. By their fruits.

I told you: "These "brown people" don't share my genetics, culture or religion. They're genetically predisposed to being stupid and violent." It's simply not in the best interest of civilized countries to open their borders to sub-Saharan Africa and the other hell-holes of the planet. You may delude yourself all you want about how we are all equal, how we may look radically different but inside we're all the same, but it is simply not true.

Attached: 1518474592152.jpg (500x752, 61.82K)

Even if you're not completely wrong this post stinks of plebbit virtue-signalling. We come here to get away from that garbage.
go back

It doesn't help that there've been non-stop wars and that they've had what nations they had subverted and undermined, their borders drawn and redrawn over and over again by outside powers for the past couple centuries.

You're slightly misunderstanding the verse. Islam is opposed to Christianity and a false religion, so those that follow it and attempt to apostasize Christians and convert atheists are by definition our enemies.
Christ commands us to love our enemies, and we should be praying for them and forgiving them. But regardless of our conduct, they are certainly our enemies.

Imagine being this stupid

Imagine believing such mental gymnastics, this is written nowhere in the Bible.
You're not going to convert 99.9% of muslims regardless of what you do. "Many are called, but few are chosen"
Because it's goal is not to attain souls for Christ but land for Christians.
I wonder how many muslims you converted mate, probably somwhere around 0.
You too, but wake up to reality.

Not if you use the leftist definition of "racist", you can be a racial realist and still believe in clerical fascism, and it fits a lot better than leftist/communist Christianity.

Kind of ironic, that you're ready to help one enemy yet, you'll send another "enemy" away. Muslims are genuine enemies to Christians, it show soo much ignorance. It reminds of that news report of freemasons praying and conducting blasphemous rituals in a christian church. Yes, Jesus said to you love your enemy and neighbor, but love doesn't mean to give up resistance all together, sometimes love means being harsh with people, when they push lies, and try to enslave or kill you or your family. Before you call me alt-right, a physical attack obviously wouldn't be christian either.