Were the crusades justified?

The first and maybe third crusades alone were justified

Yes, and everyone already told you so.

Attached: saintlouisix.jpg (662x900 200.87 KB, 108.18K)

YES
We will remove kebab and retake Constantinople. Within ten years too , cap these words
Kek bless you all(USER WAS WARNED FOR WORSHIPING A FALSE GOD)

God loves frogs
Frogs eat flies
Flies land on the evil ones
Frogs eat every evil

Attached: IMG_3336.GIF (326x256 18.08 KB, 256.46K)

by secular reasons, there is complete justification, as those lands were Christian until the muslims conquered them.

Were they holy? doubt

Absolutely. A lot of people think it was just to capture Jerusalem, but the catalyst that set the whole thing off was the Eastern Roman Empire requesting help to drive the Seljuk Turks out of their land. Rampant Islamic piracy was also a big factor.

The Israelites were defeated multiple times before they conquered Canaan, but that was because of the sins of the people, not because their overall goal was wrong or unjustified.

Of course not and they went so bad it was almost a divine punishment

Read this
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Ma'arra

Yes but horribly executed

Are there any other series of major military campaigns that span centuries and different areas/different combatants that are lumped together like the crusades?

Israel in the Bible conquering canaan and (((fake israel))) conquering the world/middle east. They tend to get lumped in the same group inspite of spanning centuries and different areas/different combatants.

Yes. Muslims had raped, murdered and pillaged Christians all the way to Vienna. It was a war of self defense. Hell, we were one cavalry charge away from losing everything.

Without the Crusades, there wouldn't have been any Enlightenment. We would all be slapping our heads towards Mecca and blowing ourselves up over trivial shit.

...

Then you're retarded.
Christianity wouldn't even exist anymore.

mark 12:26-27
matthew 16:18

Ok so winnie the pooh the crusades then

Lmao fam. Go back to Zig Forums

Yes. Because we fought back. That's why Christianity still exists today; one desperate last and wildly successful cavalry charge that turned mudslimes into kebabs, during the siege of Vienna.

That's the type of thinking that led to losing multiple Crusades.
God helps those who helps themselves. You can't just say "Screw it" and expect God to do everything for you.

...

Wrong, totally and utterly wrong because you ought to wait on the Lord isaiah 8:12-17
Have an example in wartime in judges 7:1-7
Now the crusades themselves were totally unjustified as Jesus' kingdom is not of this world and we as Christians are ordered not to fight in john 18:36

Removing saracen invaders is a Christian moral duty. They already have enough of their Islamic shitholes to kill themselves in; there is literally no justification for allowing any of them into any non-mudslime country.

You should move to a Muslim country. You'd get to be a martyr, and serve as yet another example in a landfill of reasons to oppose to spread of Islam.

I'm a Baptist. I wouldn't be.

Pick one.

Sorry brother, Baptists likely wouldn't exist if the mudslimes were successful.

You're literally quoting how he didn't want his followers to attack the Romans for crucifying him, and how Jesus didn't want to be treated like some kind of conquering nobility.

You know, like the complete opposite of Mohammad, piss be upon him.

16.6.4 The same Augustuses to Hadrianus, Praetorian Prefect.
We sanction by this law that if any person should hereafter be discovered to rebaptize, he shall be brought before the judge who presides over the province. Thus, the offenders shall be punished by the confiscation of all their property, and they shall suffer the penalty of poverty, with which they shall be afflicted forever. But if their children dissent from the depravity of the paternal association, they shall not forfeit the paternal inheritance. Likewise, if perchance they have been involved in the perversity of the paternal depravity and prefer to return to the Catholic religion, the right to acquire possession of such property shall not be denied them. (A.D. 405 febr. 12)

Also I don't even need to go that far back. The diatribe of Zwingli against the "Catabaptists" in Zurich 1527.

Well of course muslims are liars. But it doesn't change Christians are to do romans 13:1 and submit to the evil satanic barbaric democratic islamic, (((fake jew))) ran powers that be.

Attached: ae6a8b6e7d24f7223945602a3341b889f48666b6daaf5bbd9316fe5d6facc760.jpg (400x377, 36.99K)

Even if your we wuzzery of donatists was true, you realize that decree mostly targeted North Africa, that DID get conquered by the muslims, right?
So any mythical protobaptists that were there DID get islamized all the same

I assume you're the Baptist; I was raised Roman Caholic, so I used 1609 as the start of Baptism. That doesn't change the fact that Baptist law wouldn't matter if you're all beheaded by mudslimes anyway.

That is an utterly disgusting worldview.
In general, turning the other cheek is a good policy when you live in a Christian society, around other Christians.
If you turn your cheek to mudslimes, they'll strike your cheek, strike your other cheek, beheaded you and your family, and then explode.
Context is important.

Any reason for saying this?

Maybe, but there are also primary sources from both Catholics and Protestants claiming that it both survived and they're still trying to deal with it. The first organized denomination attempt in 1609 doesn't mean too much in the grand scheme of things. I'm not trying to downplay it but still.

Yeah and choosing not to resist muslims is the worst possible decision you can make, you are basically allowing genocide of your own nation. If you try to personally benefit from that instead of fighting it's even more damning. I could never see eye to eye with the goals of someone with those kind of beliefs. It's just unnatural, considering what truth is.

Attached: 1519973430653.jpg (506x503 145.53 KB, 49.69K)

The whole "God will take care of it!" mindset reminds me of a "dumb blonde" joke.

Long joke short, she keeps praying to God to win the lottery, over and over again, and eventually God tells her "You have to actually buy a lottery ticket!"

...

Weird cults and independent denoms were mostly there and near the persian border.

Not only was it justified, but it's time for another set.

We lost Constantinople because of the Crusades and they were STILL justified even with that tragedy as part of the equation.

Attached: 1426400116746.png (853x620, 41.3K)

Literally, the best thing you can do for a mudslime is remove them. Double so for "converts". They're too far gone to be reasoned with, and because I love my neighbors, I don't want them to be senselessly run over by a "Truck of Peace".

They already have their own countries where they can, and do that. And we should remove them back to their sandpits, where they can practice their ideology in peace(horrific violence against one another).

What you are unironically stating is "The more dead Christians, the better!"

The only reasonable conclusion I can draw at this point is that you're a filthy mudslime yourself from /Islam/, wanting us to just roll over and die for your pedophile death cult.

If any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith.

As a man in my proper place, I have priorities. I have a higher commission to defend my own from those destructive forces than to simply be pacifist. If my own self were the only person threatened or if it were just my personal enemy, then none of this would apply. However, when a threat is this open and declared, it must be treated as what it is, and I respectfully disagree with absolute pacifism. I'm not a sell out.

That's not the same as actual self defense, I'm afraid. We're talking strictly honest here, no word games, you have to defend your own from an external threat.

"If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men."

Indeed you are correct. But it is relevant as it means the crusades were not approved by Jesus.

I thought you were talking about killing them earlier. I totally agree they should be seperated as 2 corinthians 6:17 exists

When they're invading your country by the millions, then yes, killing them is a moral obligation. They should be separated by a gigantic wall of their corpses.

Then kill yourself.

Come on, user, don't you know that you shouldn't feed the poor and just let them starve to death so they can go to Heaven sooner :^)

Clearly God wasn't on their side if they literally just waited around for God to shove food directly into their stomachs, and died. :0)

Let me give you a very basic example.
I'm Lebanese, and I've been living in Lebanon for most of my life so far. My parents and extended family fought in the civil war that ravaged this country for 15 years. If they, or other Christian men had not fought to protect this country from invading Muslims, then none of us would be here. Lebanon, the land Christ mentioned by name and walked on, would be a Muslim sh*thole. The Muslims started the war through the Palestinians when they came here as refugees in the 60s. They grew in number and became more and more comfortable in the country. They then decided it was a good idea to start kidnapping and harassing our women. The final straw was when they shot up a church where one of the Christian party leaders was attending. They killed two of the man's bodyguards. That was when the Christians had enough. They couldn't take it anymore. They were being killed by the same people they allowed in the country as refugees.

Now tell me, if the Christians hadn't fought back, I, along with most of my friends my age, and possibly even most of the Christian families you see today in the country and in the diaspora, wouldn't even be here today. This land, Lebanon, would just be another Muslim country similar to the other terrible Muslim countries.

I'm sorry. I cannot turn my cheek and standby idle when a group of people are kidnapping, raping, and killing our men and women.

Attached: VID-20180508-WA0008.mp4 (720x526 58.16 KB, 290.46K)

CKII is not a reliable example of how Europeans were back then.
youtube.com/watch?v=CcGzQ3ga5R8
youtube.com/watch?v=mLBws-4kzG8

Attached: Knights Feels.jpg (1806x809 74.53 KB, 407.24K)

TL;DR.

Attached: turning the other cheek.png (881x343, 46.19K)

It has to do with pacifism if it comes at a personal cost only. Your personal enemy. You can't betray others behind their back though, in the name of pacifism.

Like if you conveniently become a pacifist due to fears of what might happen to you personally for resisting, that's actually being complicit in the enemy violence. You can't just ignore a declared threat. People have always known this, this is a fact that's no laughing matter. Don't learn this the hard way.

2 Chronicles 19:2
And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to king Jehoshaphat, Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the LORD? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the LORD.

Attached: ebc1f9a5b73fa9b016453c09192885256dc1e844251fef390027a670246b7464.jpg (255x188, 15.1K)

This. It's specifically talking about the "eye for an eye" passage in Exodus.

Most people have no idea what "the crusades" actually were. Yes they were justified.

...

We're not Jesus. Even with God on our side we, we can still lose and die needlessly even when we justly defend ourselves.

I'm not arguing against the Word of God my man. The Christians did what they did in self defense. Surely the Bible doesn't condemn such an act yes?

...

Luke 22:36
Gosh golly gee, why would Jesus tell his disciples to buy swords if he was against self defense? It's almost like there's context and nuance to scripture.

Swords are tools, they can be used for a variety of things, such as chopping thin brances of wood for fires, doing acts 10:10-16,
they made ready, he fell into a trance,
let down to the earth:

and wood carving for shelter purposes amongst many others. Not just for killing humans who have authority over you as the powers that be which is against romans 13:1 and is witchcraft.

are you catholic?

They could be used for those but very rarely were, especially when you have cheaper and more effective tools like axes and bows for those jobs. By the 1st century swords were almost exclusively used for fighting. They may have been used to kill prey that was already wounded by an arrow, but if that's what Jesus was talking about he would have told the disciples to buy bows too.

Herein lies the problem with your interpretation. You assume that self defense and rising up and overthrowing the government are the same thing. As I said here Matthew 5:38 is talking specifically about a part of the Mosaic Law concerning personal grievances and the victim's right to avenge himself. Jesus is saying not to seek personal revenge. And Romans 13:1 is telling people to obey the government ruling over them, as long as their commands don't conflict with Christian doctrine, and not rebel like the Jews were always trying to do. Neither of these things are the same as defending yourself and the people around you. The Bible does not teach that self defense is wrong, the Church Fathers do not teach that it is wrong(St. Augustine wrote extensively about just warfare) and the majority of early Christians did interpret it that way. Look at how many of them were soldiers in the Roman army. Cornelius, George, Mercurius etc.

You don't understand authority at all.

Holy wordsalad batman

That's a lot of effort to convince someone to do nothing. Not one part of that word salad has anything to do with The Lord commanding you to accept slavery, murder, or worse.

What's going on big guy?

How can someone who has the bible memorized like a muslim worshiping the Koran simultaneously be so shit at interpreting it? That passage is obviously about compromising on God's law to save your hide in cowardice, not saving your life in general, and it's an exercise in Talmudic reasoning to say that those other passages condemn self defense. If anything, the final passage is totally contrary to your position, guess who organised the armies of the Crusades? That's right, the secular powers whom you yourself said we are prohibitted from EVER resisting (as if that's what the passage is saying lol, but shit interpretation strikes again).

"The leaders were bad Christians because they didn't submit to Satan, who is of God". Breathtaking Talmudic lawgic. Truly the word is dead if you have not the spirit.

Can we just admit we're being trolled by a mudslime who wants us to roll over and die, and not an actual Christian?

I'm not convincing you to do anything 1 corinthians 3:1-7, it is God that giveth the increase. Beleive what God says in His word the Bible.

taking God at his word literally since His speech is: Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil mathew 5:37, is shit interpretation
Why do you call what God says literally in the Bible, shit? Not a arguement.

I am not a mudslime or a muslim. I am simply a Christian. And I'm not trolling/jesting/joking you against ephesians 5:4. I am completely dead serious and literal for my yea is yea and my nay is nay matthew 5:37. The apostles didn't take Christ at His word when He said mark 9:31-32
But Jesus quite literally died and rose the third day.

Yes. including the 4th

The ones against the muslims: Yes
The ones against other Christians: No

You are deliberately trying to conflate these two things. Defending yourself from people that trying to hurt you and those around is not the same thing as attacking a person or group of people because to take revenge for something they did to you.
Yes, but it's evident that's what it meant because Jesus and the disciples frequently disobeyed the powers over them for the sake of spreading the Gospel and working miracles, or was Jesus not being a good Christian?
Now I'm convinced you're trolling. Filtered.
On the off chance that you're not trolling, please find a preacher or a priest(that isn't something stupid like a Quaker or a Unitarian) and ask him to help you understand the Bible better because your interpretation is deeply, deeply flawed. Not because you take things literally, but because you completely miss what's actually being said. Seriously find help before you pluck out your eye and cut off your hand because of Matthew 5:29-30.

Why are you telling me this?

Attached: rhodok superiority.jpg (564x735, 74.56K)

I am not trolling I am dead serious.
This is why I said Jesus submitted to the higher powers, because God is the highest power. Jesus was perfect and sinless, His flesh was not serving the law of sin that is mentioned in romans 7:25. Therefore He was just to obey the Highest power when lower powers disagreed with what God said. We on the other hand are sinners who are screwed to serve the law of sin in our flesh and God in the spirit. Hence the example of chain of command in john 19:11 where the person above pilate had the "greater sin" as they receieved the glory for sinning against Jesus not a good thing. Now instead of just filtering me because I quote the Bible, why not refute my arguements completely using the word of God? Or do you fall under john 8:43-47?

Attached: 505647897f975d76f08662d3ca4a3a0e88e8b6566c9bb05abc68ca291091bc96.jpg (846x846, 90.85K)

Rhodoks fags out!

Attached: I love to eat shit t rhodok_7bb23b_6547296.jpg (1200x877, 233.03K)

...

The rest of us aren't quite so lucky.
If you want to get your head chopped off by Saracens, go right the winnie the pooh ahead. We'll count down 72 to see if you're that lucky.
Otherwise, the very foundations of civilization need to be protected.

Why are you telling me this? Isn't that what was in the post I posted?

Hey bro, do you know the name of the song playing in that video you posted?

Attached: pols knot.png (1024x1024, 77.48K)

Better the Muhammadan yoke than the Zionist yoke

Attached: 1526714877577.png (900x900, 237.44K)

Care to elaborate?
Zig Forums has degenerated into foolishness, what are you saying?

Attached: zionistsbtfo.webm (704x377, 7.91M)

What reference is that chibi? Looks cool asf

The Kataeb Party and the Lebanese Forces allied themselves with Israel during the Lebanese Civil War. The Lebanese government before the war was controlled by the Maronites, who are Catholic. Eventually Palestinians started coming to Lebanon in waves and the Syrians were getting involved to, so a war broke out between government forces lead by Michel Aoun, Maronite radicals Kataeb/LF, a Shi'ite/leftist alliance (supported by Syria, for a while), and the Palestinians. There's more to it, but it was overall a giant mess, so it would be impossible to explain in 1-2 paragraphs.
The Syrian Social Nationalist Party (or SSNP) was obviously on the pro-Syrian side. The majority of it's members are Greek Orthodox.

That's cute. Bachir only allied with the Israelis because the Christians didn't have enough weapons and ammunition, and no other country, especially Muslim countries, were willing to help them. It was either ally with the Israelis for a while or suffer extinction from the Muslim hordes. One more thing, you claim that the kataeb and mainly Bachir were Zionist. In all of his speeches, Bachir clearly says that he wants to be President of ALL the Lebanese. To add to that, Israel wanted a peace treaty with Lebanon when Bachir became president. Bachir didn't want to sign this treaty. The next day he was killed. Tell me again he was a Zionist puppet.

Also, check pic related and tell me what you see.

Attached: IMG-20180403-WA0015.jpg (600x389, 36.06K)

It was nice to stop the goat rapers, but it ended up being the first cases of "Die for Israel, goyim!"

Look at how Armenians are like now (especially the voice of Satan, Anita Sarkeesian) and tell me they were all murdered. If they were all murdered, then why did they spread and started to promote degeneracy?

...

Faggot.

Nice try Mustafa

by far the most retarded post in the entire thread

>I'd rather have the Muslims have control of the land vs the (((Zionists)))

Tbh, this isn't as bad as it seems.

Crusaders literally slaughtered Jews what are you talking about

yes
deus vult