I have not subscribed so I can't read the whole story.

I do find the comments interesting though.

Celeste Williams Apr 28, 2014
Thank you for this wonderfully clear and truthful portrayal of the Crusades. It appears the Muslims are desperately trying to revise history, and of course, we find that even deceit is encouraged as a weapon to wage war on non muslims in their perpetual unholy war on four fifths of humanity. Clearly Islam is an offense to Western civilisation and is something to be resisted for it spreads destruction and vice.

Celeste Williams Apr 28, 2014
Thank you for this clear and truthful account of the Crusades. Indeed, it appears that we are reviling the Crusaders when they are in fact to be honoured and appreciated for if it were not for them we would have a very different world today. And it is clear that Christians and Jews are once more being forced into defending themselves against the Muslim warfare on our civilisation and lives. It is evident that the story of the Crusades needs to be spoken of more and not assigned to a dark corner of false guilt, and fearful of embracing our history and acknowledging that we are at war with Islam, just as Ayaan Hirsi Ali has the courage to publicly stand up and say, despite the muslims ire and hatred and threat that she faces. We really need more people to stand up and tell the truth about Islam.

Celeste Williams Apr 28, 2014
Thank you for this wonderfully clear and truthful portrayal of the Crusades. It appears the Muslims are desperately trying to revise history, and of course, we find that even deceit is encouraged as a weapon to wage war on non muslims in their perpetual unholy war on four fifths of humanity. Clearly Islam is an offense to Western civilisation and is something to be resisted for it spreads destruction and vice.

I also like reading the author's profile from the wiki.

He is considered one of the foremost medieval scholars and experts on the Crusades, and was often called upon as a historical consultant after the events of September 11, to discuss the connections between Jihad, the medieval Crusades and modern Islamic terrorism.

Okay, I found another link that gives the full text.

http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/madden/03463.html

Interesting this part shows that he's very objective and non-bias, an opinion which shared equally with some sites like Jihad Watch.

Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity – and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion – has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.

With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed's death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt – once the most heavily Christian areas in the world – quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.

Very interesting indeed. But then I guess the author probably subscribe to different sets of rules. I mean it's obviously wrong for Islam to be spread by the sword but it's no issue if they were done by Christians.

Well done !

Which is correct. That's why the Crusade conflict with Christian doctrine. We don't spread by the sword. Jesus is against that and said that himself.

The Crusade is political in nature, it happened because Moslems were threatening to wipe us out by the sword.

ps: Neither have I subscribed, you can read the full story, no need to be afraid.

This post has been edited by unknown warrior: Jul 10 2015, 11:49 AM

So you really do believe that sword in Matthew 10:34 is spiritual sword ?

Anyway, since you admit that crusades happened (which we can finally have an agreement with), christian doctrine or not, it's time to get back on topic.

So ism't it true that the invasion of Malacca by the Portuguese were part of the crusades too ? After all, they were still within a generation of the reconquistas.

aliesterfiend,

I hope that you can at least first respect that we Christians understand the Bible more than you Moslems.

I mean we need to establish this base first before proceeding otherwise whatever we tell you, you'll just brush it off, it's pointless to explain Bible theology.

Yes.

Read Matthew 10:34 in context. If it's truly a physical sword, it's it pointless for God to put in the following verse, verse 35.

What Jesus means is the conflict of the corrupted Flesh against God, meaning that there are some people who love sin more than righteousness and rather not believe that there is a God and that He is the long awaited Messiah. There lies the conflict.

The word of God is God himself. When his word is spoken to people, it convicts.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've already said, The portuguese came here primarily to expand their kingdom. It was a pioneering era because they're seafarers.

They spread the Gospel because they are Christians. It doesn't make sense to talk about the crusade because the Crusade in essence is about retaking back land conquered by the moslems in Christian land of that time and era.

This post has been edited by unknown warrior: Jul 10 2015, 12:05 PM

What about the sword that Jesus asked Peter to put down in that garden when they saw that rather than some Jewish rabble with stick, those who came were were Roman legionaries (more probably the auxiliary cohorts though since no roman legion were station there yet).

But then I'll leave Christian matters to Christians. Doesn't really interest me except when it involve roman history.

Well the Northern crusades was not about retaking the formerly Christian lands too but from people who worshop Thunor, Freya and many other pagan dieties. Don't forget that Christians, especially once they have established in the Roman empire have taken pagan lands too but I don't think it will be fair to you if we go back that far since the original pagan did took the lands from other earlier pagans too, just like the Hebrews took Judea from the Canaanites and only God who the Canaanites took the land from. Maybe Moabites ?

Nah. Forget about that. What's important is that what you think is right. What important is that no Arab (read Muslims) should take other people's land by sword. That is wrong. Just don't forget that the highest number of muslims in the world until today happened to be where no single Arab/Muslim army has ever set for upon and I'm pretty sure it's something worth to consider ?

This post has been edited by aliesterfiend: Jul 10 2015, 12:21 PM

can use as next assasin creed's new plot

If the portugese wanted to trade, they would have follow other merchants who were profit minded.. But historian Craig Lockard wrote the portugese didnt act like the other peaceful asian merchants. They violated local customs and antoganize local officials. They considered the Sultan treacherous for not welcoming them. Not behaviours of traders concerned with profit. The book noted the Sultan felt the intention of the portugese were unclear.

as Craig Lockard wrote "..crusade against Muslims (is) designed to break the Islamic control over the East-West maritime trade". It is not that they just want to trade with malacca. They want to conquer malacca to break Islamic control over the maritime trade.They want to see Mecca and Cairo ruined as a result.

Their religious fanaticism got in the way of profit even after they conquered malacca. Orders were given to drive out the Moors (Muslims) from the country (Malacca), the invaders slaughtered the population and forced religious conversion. a profit primary operation would avoid destroying the population to gain maximum returns. Craig Lockard wrote due to high tax and hostility against non Christians, tradeships avoided malacca. Inlstead of making profit, portugal because of their religious fanaticism saw malacca declined as a world port

Similar anti Muslims objectives is not directed to China and Japan well cause they are not Moors (Muslims).

This post has been edited by rolling2014: Jul 10 2015, 01:20 PM

religions very sensitive topics, if want discuss need open minded a bit.
if talking based on facts, hinduism buddhism first to come to south east asia. then follow up islam, then christians. some of the areas convert to islam and the more isolated areas like philippines become christians. so basically the human traders bring their beliefs to these areas.

Exactly the point. Jesus said, Put away your sword, those who live by the sword will die by the sword. (Matthew 26:52) Putting away means, our God does not approve physical aggression or violence. This therefore debunks whatever notion you think Crusade is.

With regards to the extension of crusade, the persecution of Pagans and whatnot, Yes, if you bother to read the article I gave you, it did highlight the wrongs of Crusade as well. In Fact History.com recorded this quite well. Heck, the whole doctrine of the crusade is wrong if not heretic. Bias and Selective view you say? If it's bias, we wouldn't highlight the wrongs of it, would we? You're just afraid of your shadow.

What happened in the past is history. Just because it happened does not mean it's what Christianity encourages or teaches. However because it already happened in the course of history, there's nothing we can do but accept it as history, only God is the rightful judge and knows exactly what happened.

Honestly I don't know what's your point in your last sentence.

LOL. Please lah. Come on.

The point is that you only look at the crusade from the point of Christian vs Islam which is only a part of the whole crusades. The point is that you keep talking about how Christian is suppose to be 'turn the other cheek' kind of thing when face with your enemy but then as history shows since the very beginning a Christian nation came into existence they have been crusading (if not the actual word is used but still the deeds are the same) from the 4th century until the very modern 20th century, those Christians have no qualms about fucking their enemy in the ass once they turn their back and only suddenly when no modern (western) nation openly wants to declare themselves Christians, their brutal acts simply replace God wills it to democracy will it. They might mean nothing to you seeing that you're on their side but to me they look pretty hypocritical and intellectually dishonest.

So, if the actions for the past 2000 years were not Christian in nature, when Christianity started to exist ? 21st century ? If you are right then the 2000 year old history of Christianity is wrong and there were no Christians then since none of the actions done in the name of God and Jesus for the past 2000 years were not Christian.

However, what if they are the true Christian since the book was written and re-written by them ? If they are the true Christians, those crusaders and the conquiatadors were the true Christians then what are you ?

Please what? Look at the hints, you're trying to tell us below.

Oh you mean to say ALL the Christians in the world at that point of time and era was only confined to the Crusaders.

LOL. Nice Logic you have there.

This post has been edited by unknown warrior: Jul 10 2015, 02:52 PM

Doesn't matter that you can't see.

To be honest I'm pretty tired playing your games and I've already posted all my points especially regarding what this thread about. You can agree to disagree if you can't turn the other cheek or you can continue with your 21st century crusade though find youself another enemy.

I surrender.

We don't spread the Gospel by the sword, that's the point I stand as the whole Christian community in this world. We spread the Gospel by the preaching of the word. This is HOW Jesus commanded us.

I've given you the scripture evidence of that and even explained it, out of courtesy to you. I've also revealed to you what Christians think about the Crusade, why it's heretically wrong and goes against our doctrine by the 2 web links I gave you.

What happened in the Crusade is history. We don't live there anymore. Just because the crusade happened, does not mean Christianity is nullified. Not every Christian partook of it.

If you know the Bible well enough, during the time of the early Church we went quite far, continently even to Asia Minor preaching the gospel apart from the sword. So No, the crusaders are not the only Christians around.


What else you're not satisfied?

This post has been edited by unknown warrior: Jul 10 2015, 03:25 PM

Read this.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commen...ds-9631796.html

Have you ever wonder why the oldest Christian communities in the world happened to be in the muslim world ? Forget the current ISIS issues but look beyond Syria to other parts of the muslim world where the Christian communities have lived not just for a few generations but for milleniums, at places like Egypt, Labenon, Iraq and yes, even Iran not forgetting the Holy Land. Yes, those were the areas that have been conquered by the Arab/Muslim swords but doesn't the fact even as small as the smallest dust amaze you how these communities, however small they may be can even exist for hundreds of generations to this very modern day ? The lands that were very close indeed to the very heart of Islam itself ?

On the other hands, can you say the same to the lands that have been conquered, whether gladius, swords, muskets and cannons by Christians whether guided by the bible or whatever can you point me any non-Christian natives still living in the lands ? Just centuries, no need into milleniums. Yes there are a lot of muslims now in Europe, but they are modern day immigrants. Yes there are a lot of muslims in Portugal and Spain but they were not descendants of the people who once ruled, developed and enrich the peninsular for more than 700 years. Yes there are now pagans in especially northern Europe but they mostly are revivalist. Maybe only on the very remote island of the Philipines that you can still find non-Catholic natives just like those deep in the jungles of Borneo and Amazon.

You can hide behind your neo-history. Pick and choose as you always done whenever you see them fit to do it. I'm pretty sure that you'll happily claim any chance you get to shout that Islam is spread by the sword since that's what you've been told and that what you have chosen to know. All the tales about how Christian spread peacefully with love is all fine and dandy. I'm pretty sure the Moors in Spain at one time doesn't agree.

Yeah, you don't spread Gospel by the sword. Who does anyway. You just arrive with the swords, the muskets and the cannons and once the resistance has been eliminated then only your Francis Xavier came, when those who left were in no power to fight anymore and those who can and still alive were banished.

That's who you are. History and today.

This post has been edited by aliesterfiend: Jul 10 2015, 03:50 PM

I think you have issues identifying religious reason vs kingdom expansion which is political. You don't know the difference.

Same type of mindset when Bush Attacked Iraq and you'll say Christian war, America as Christian Nation Against Moslems.

I can identify them well enough. It was you that keep this imagination that Christianity only spread via lovable peaceful means when history since late antiquities until today has proven otherwise.

Which country today that Christianity exist which none Christian army has ever set foot upon ?

Or you'll deny that a Christian army is non-existence ?

Sure you'll do.

In any case I'm pretty sure that you've never read about the thesis which argues that the earliest Christians were a political movement and the people followed Jesus because he was though to be the savior from the Roman yoke. I guess not.

You say you can identify them well enough but you seem to be repeating the same mistake.
You have issues identifying religious reason vs kingdom expansion which is political. You don't know the difference.

If you say that Christianity spreads by the sword, you also say that it sanctioned by the tenets of our Faith.

Did Christianity started to spread by the sword? Okay let's tackle this.

Did Jesus spread his ministry by brandishing sword and spear?
Did the Apostles of Jesus spread the gospel by using Military Weapons?

Was this taught by Jesus and sanctioned by Him? Did his Apostles did the same?

Answer this first then we'll tackle history.

good write in this thread. can pm any good read for me ?

Of course he didn't because he only got 4 years. But what if he manage to free his country ? What if he manage to make Judea Christians in his time. Will his actions be the same ? Yes, we can't say what didn't happened to happen but we can at least make an intelligent guess of what will happen.

We can look from the history of Muhammad. We know that for the first 13 years before Hijrah what Muhammad preaches to the Meccans were basically the same as Jesus preaching that you today knew. However, unlike Jesus, Muhammad is the more lucky one and besides just being a religious leader he then for the next 10 years of his life happened to be a community leader and his actions afterwards have to be seen as that too, and not just as a spiritual leader only.

Since we do not have the same example within the same time period for Jesus, we have to look at what his followers did in his name, which happened in maybe 2 or 3 generations. We have to look at the start when Christians finally have a country (an Empire to be exact).

You can follow the enlightenment trends where religion and politics don't mix but don't forget that those while looks nice in theory, were not practical. After all, Jesus did say gives to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.

What happened when Caesar became a Christian ?

Sorry to answer your question with questions. Go read the bible 7 times for each version from cover to cover and you'll find that answer to all the questions, both yours and mine.

I'm getting ready to go home.

Salam.

Erm, Jesus did not came for that. There is no what IF. He came to let us know, He is God and He is the long awaited Messiah, specifically to die as our Saviour.

No I'm asking you, did Jesus asked Christians to spread the Gospel by the sword? Is it a commandment?
Is that How He teached us to do? By Violence?
Is it embedded as a tenet of our Faith?

I think you're confused between

1) How God wanted us to spread Christianity. This is the core doctrine of our Faith (This is my point)
2) What actually happened in history (This is your point)

You're confused to indicate that I deny there was the Crusade, which I did not.

I did say, The Crusade was wrong and Heretic, didn't I? Why do I get the feeling that you're trying to force this away?

In Summary, I'm pointing to you the origin of what we Christians should do, how the gospel is to be spread.

And FACTUALLY, You should also be fair.

Th past is what it was. Had the Islamic jihad against Europe never happened, the crusades would never have happened. Who is wielding the sword in the 21st century is really the question.





This post has been edited by unknown warrior: Jul 10 2015, 05:04 PM