The Christian Discussion thread IX: Pelagius Rising.

[Northern Davincia]

Didn't the Crusaders kill Jews once they took Jerusalem the first time? And the Pope excommunicated the Crusaders due to it?

I mean, the capture of Jerusalem in 1099 was pretty much a general slaughter physical removal of the city's inhabitants.

Fixed.

On a side note, I'd be interested in finding out where all of the folks here would go if they were on a Pilgrimage.

[Nordengrund]

Well, I told you I have a hernia, but I’m back with both good and bad news. The good news is it turns out I don’t have an inguinal hernia. The bad news is I saw a different doctor for something unrelated and he discovered a hiatal hernia as well as the fact I have acid reflux and I need to visit him again in a couple of months due to the possibility of Celiac disease and gluten intolerance.

Prayers, por favor.

[Salus Maior]

I mean, the capture of Jerusalem in 1099 was pretty much a general slaughter physical removal of the city's inhabitants.

Fixed.

On a side note, I'd be interested in finding out where all of the folks here would go if they were on a Pilgrimage.

Physical removal to body piles taller than houses?

[Northern Davincia]

Fixed.

On a side note, I'd be interested in finding out where all of the folks here would go if they were on a Pilgrimage.

Physical removal to body piles taller than houses?

Physical removal ain't ever pretty.

[Salus Maior]

Physical removal to body piles taller than houses?

Physical removal ain't ever pretty.

Anyway, as for where I would go on Pilgrimage...

JERUSALEM

And, well, other sites in the Holy Land.

[Computer Lab]

I mean, the capture of Jerusalem in 1099 was pretty much a general slaughter physical removal of the city's inhabitants.

Fixed.

On a side note, I'd be interested in finding out where all of the folks here would go if they were on a Pilgrimage.

I've been considering doing the Camino de Santiago.

[Pasong Tirad]

Didn't the Crusaders kill Jews once they took Jerusalem the first time? And the Pope excommunicated the Crusaders due to it?

No. There were some men who joined up in the Crusades,called themselves crusaders but in the end all they wanted to do was kill Jews. Those few men were excommunicated.

I mean, the capture of Jerusalem in 1099 was pretty much a general slaughter physical removal of the city's inhabitants.

Fixed.

On a side note, I'd be interested in finding out where all of the folks here would go if they were on a Pilgrimage.

Yeah I'm gonna need sources for this, dude. This sounds a lot less like apologetics and more like historical revisionism. Christians have had a long history of antisemitism and anti-Islam and it's something we all have to learn from, not something we should try and cover up.

[Northern Davincia]

No. There were some men who joined up in the Crusades,called themselves crusaders but in the end all they wanted to do was kill Jews. Those few men were excommunicated.

Fixed.

On a side note, I'd be interested in finding out where all of the folks here would go if they were on a Pilgrimage.

Yeah I'm gonna need sources for this, dude. This sounds a lot less like apologetics and more like historical revisionism. Christians have had a long history of antisemitism and anti-Islam and it's something we all have to learn from, not something we should try and cover up.

Physical removal is just a Hans Hermann Hoppe meme. I won't deny the crusader antics going on in the Holy Land.

[Dylar]

No. There were some men who joined up in the Crusades,called themselves crusaders but in the end all they wanted to do was kill Jews. Those few men were excommunicated.

Fixed.

On a side note, I'd be interested in finding out where all of the folks here would go if they were on a Pilgrimage.

Yeah I'm gonna need sources for this, dude. This sounds a lot less like apologetics and more like historical revisionism. Christians have had a long history of antisemitism and anti-Islam and it's something we all have to learn from, not something we should try and cover up.

It was from a book one of my friends read. Forgot the name of it. Also, I'm not trying to cover it up, I'm just saying that we shouldn't blame every crusader and military order for killing innocent civilians

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

Yeah I'm gonna need sources for this, dude. This sounds a lot less like apologetics and more like historical revisionism. Christians have had a long history of antisemitism and anti-Islam and it's something we all have to learn from, not something we should try and cover up.

It was from a book one of my friends read. Forgot the name of it. Also, I'm not trying to cover it up, I'm just saying that we shouldn't blame every crusader and military order for killing innocent civilians

Oh, come on. Every Crusader who took part in the capture of Jerusalem has those tens of thousands of Jews' and Muslims' blood on their hands.

[Dylar]

It was from a book one of my friends read. Forgot the name of it. Also, I'm not trying to cover it up, I'm just saying that we shouldn't blame every crusader and military order for killing innocent civilians

Oh, come on. Every Crusader who took part in the capture of Jerusalem has those tens of thousands of Jews' and Muslims' blood on their hands.

Is that how it works?

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

Oh, come on. Every Crusader who took part in the capture of Jerusalem has those tens of thousands of Jews' and Muslims' blood on their hands.

Is that how it works?

It is. If you helped the murderers get into a house, you are responsible for the murders that take place. If you rob a house and one of your accomplices kills someone inside, you are responsible for that. That's how it works.

[Salus Maior]

Oh, come on. Every Crusader who took part in the capture of Jerusalem has those tens of thousands of Jews' and Muslims' blood on their hands.

Is that how it works?

While there was a group within the Crusaders that was so extreme (As in, they slaughtered a town and cooked and ate them) that they were purged by their fellow Crusaders, which was known for the atrocities against Jews in Europe prior to the march to the ME, it'd be hard to label even the more "moderate" Crusaders as innocents or wholly virtuous warriors. A lot of them were in it for sacking cities, even getting pissed at the Byzantines for not being allowed to ransack some of the Turk-occupied Byzantine cities they were supposed to liberate, and even overthrowing the Armenian Christian rulers of Edessa to set one of their own on the throne.

But ultimately, such was Medieval warfare.

[Pasong Tirad]

Yeah I'm gonna need sources for this, dude. This sounds a lot less like apologetics and more like historical revisionism. Christians have had a long history of antisemitism and anti-Islam and it's something we all have to learn from, not something we should try and cover up.

It was from a book one of my friends read. Forgot the name of it. Also, I'm not trying to cover it up, I'm just saying that we shouldn't blame every crusader and military order for killing innocent civilians

We kind of can, actually. Of course, they don't take all of the blame for the major atrocities, but they were complicit in allowing those atrocities to happen. This was warfare in its most brutal form until maybe the 19th or the 20th century, and they were either part of it or complicit in allowing it to happen. They're not exactly the innocent, blameless lot here.

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

Is that how it works?

While there was a group within the Crusaders that was so extreme (As in, they slaughtered a town and cooked and ate them)

Wait, what the fuck?

[Luminesa]

It was from a book one of my friends read. Forgot the name of it. Also, I'm not trying to cover it up, I'm just saying that we shouldn't blame every crusader and military order for killing innocent civilians

Oh, come on. Every Crusader who took part in the capture of Jerusalem has those tens of thousands of Jews' and Muslims' blood on their hands.

Well then every Muslim that participated in the conquering of Constantinople has Christian blood on their hands. You can’t have it both ways dude.

There were a lot of soldiers who took part in the raping and the pillaging. But there were also idealists who only wished to save the Holy Land, and many who were even just in it for economic reasons (travel, get money, get goods, get paid, etc).

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

Oh, come on. Every Crusader who took part in the capture of Jerusalem has those tens of thousands of Jews' and Muslims' blood on their hands.

Well then every Muslim that participated in the conquering of Constantinople has Christian blood on their hands. You can’t have it both ways dude.

There were a lot of soldiers who took part in the raping and the pillaging. But there were also idealists who only wished to save the Holy Land, and many who were even just in it for economic reasons (travel, get money, get goods, get paid, etc).

Did I say otherwise? Mehmed was completely in the wrong for letting his soldiers plunder the city. Nice attempt at deflection, though.

[Dylar]

It was from a book one of my friends read. Forgot the name of it. Also, I'm not trying to cover it up, I'm just saying that we shouldn't blame every crusader and military order for killing innocent civilians

We kind of can, actually. Of course, they don't take all of the blame for the major atrocities, but they were complicit in allowing those atrocities to happen. This was warfare in its most brutal form until maybe the 19th or the 20th century, and they were either part of it or complicit in allowing it to happen. They're not exactly the innocent, blameless lot here.

But they're not the brutal blood-thirsty maniacs either. Hell, without orders like the Templar, modern banking wouldn't be the same as it is today. They're the ones who started the process of giving out loans and keeping people's valuables safe when they went on pilgrimages. It's also said that only a tenth of the members within the Templar were soldiers. Sauce

[Dylar]

While there was a group within the Crusaders that was so extreme (As in, they slaughtered a town and cooked and ate them)

Wait, what the fuck?

Yeah...they were actually a thing...

[Luminesa]

Well then every Muslim that participated in the conquering of Constantinople has Christian blood on their hands. You can’t have it both ways dude.

There were a lot of soldiers who took part in the raping and the pillaging. But there were also idealists who only wished to save the Holy Land, and many who were even just in it for economic reasons (travel, get money, get goods, get paid, etc).

Did I say otherwise? Mehmed was completely in the wrong for letting his soldiers plunder the city. Nice attempt at deflection, though.

...I wasn’t trying to deflect. I was merely trying to balance the scales, so to speak. Furthermore, if I was trying to deflect, I would have thrown the conversation back at you with a non-sequitor of some sort. Rather than, “Christian soldiers were not perfect, and neither were Muslims,” I would have said, “WELL MUSLIMS WERE ALL BAD,” or whatever.

[Northern Davincia]

Is that how it works?

It is. If you helped the murderers get into a house, you are responsible for the murders that take place. If you rob a house and one of your accomplices kills someone inside, you are responsible for that. That's how it works.

It was a liberation effort, with murder as a side-effect.

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

We kind of can, actually. Of course, they don't take all of the blame for the major atrocities, but they were complicit in allowing those atrocities to happen. This was warfare in its most brutal form until maybe the 19th or the 20th century, and they were either part of it or complicit in allowing it to happen. They're not exactly the innocent, blameless lot here.

But they're not the brutal blood-thirsty maniacs either. Hell, without orders like the Templar, modern banking wouldn't be the same as it is today. They're the ones who started the process of giving out loans and keeping people's valuables safe when they went on pilgrimages. It's also said that only a tenth of the members within the Templar were soldiers. Sauce

Isn't usury a sin in Christianity?

Did I say otherwise? Mehmed was completely in the wrong for letting his soldiers plunder the city. Nice attempt at deflection, though.

...I wasn’t trying to deflect. I was merely trying to balance the scales, so to speak. Furthermore, if I was trying to deflect, I would have thrown the conversation back at you with a non-sequitor of some sort. Rather than, “Christian soldiers were not perfect, and neither were Muslims,” I would have said, “WELL MUSLIMS WERE ALL BAD,” or whatever.

Alright. Maybe not deflection. Definitely "what-aboutism". You brought up a completely unrelated event that was done by Muslims as a "but what about...?" even if you didn't directly say that. The conversation was about the Siege of Jerusalem specifically. Dylar said not all the soldiers there were responsible. I said otherwise. The fall of Constantinople had literally nothing to do with the conversation.

It is. If you helped the murderers get into a house, you are responsible for the murders that take place. If you rob a house and one of your accomplices kills someone inside, you are responsible for that. That's how it works.

It was a liberation effort, with murder as a side-effect.

Yes. Liberate the city from the Muslims, even though the Muslims are the majority!

Who were they liberating exactly? The like 1% of the population that was Christian? Or maybe the Jews? Oh, wait. The Jews fought alongside the Muslims and were slaughtered just like their Muslim brothers and sisters.

[Luminesa]

But they're not the brutal blood-thirsty maniacs either. Hell, without orders like the Templar, modern banking wouldn't be the same as it is today. They're the ones who started the process of giving out loans and keeping people's valuables safe when they went on pilgrimages. It's also said that only a tenth of the members within the Templar were soldiers. Sauce

Isn't usury a sin in Christianity?

...I wasn’t trying to deflect. I was merely trying to balance the scales, so to speak. Furthermore, if I was trying to deflect, I would have thrown the conversation back at you with a non-sequitor of some sort. Rather than, “Christian soldiers were not perfect, and neither were Muslims,” I would have said, “WELL MUSLIMS WERE ALL BAD,” or whatever.

Alright. Maybe not deflection. Definitely "what-aboutism". You brought up a completely unrelated event that was done by Muslims as a "but what about...?" even if you didn't directly say that. The conversation was about the Siege of Jerusalem specifically. Dylar said not all the soldiers there were responsible. I said otherwise. The fall of Constantinople had literally nothing to do with the conversation.

It was a liberation effort, with murder as a side-effect.

Yes. Liberate the city from the Muslims, even though the Muslims are the majority!

Who were they liberating exactly? The like 1% of the population that was Christian? Or maybe the Jews? Oh, wait. The Jews fought alongside the Muslims and were slaughtered just like their Muslim brothers and sisters.

“What-aboutism” would require for the event to be isolated, and the Ottomans certainly did a lot of conquering throughout their long existence, Constantinople being the apex of Ottoman takeover. I merely used it as an example because it was one of the more prominent examples I could think of. If I had said, “But what about that one time,” in a case in which the Ottomans were not known for being conquerors, then your accusation would be more valid. Furthermore, the Fall of Constantinople can hardly be called an “unrelated” event, but rather one of the most important events in modern history, both in its buildup and its aftermath.

[Dylar]

But they're not the brutal blood-thirsty maniacs either. Hell, without orders like the Templar, modern banking wouldn't be the same as it is today. They're the ones who started the process of giving out loans and keeping people's valuables safe when they went on pilgrimages. It's also said that only a tenth of the members within the Templar were soldiers. Sauce

Isn't usury a sin in Christianity?

It wasn't illegal, or taxed highly, though. The Templar got all their money from donations, and every member was required to be poor. Any money that the members had was to go to the Order. The Templar simply wanted to protect pilgrims going on pilgrimages to the Holy Land. And the best way to do that was to ask for their valuable possessions and lock them up so that the pilgrims wouldn't be mugged or killed by marauders and thieves on their way to Jerusalem.

Yes. Liberate the city from the Muslims, even though the Muslims are the majority!

Who were they liberating exactly? The like 1% of the population that was Christian? Or maybe the Jews? Oh, wait. The Jews fought alongside the Muslims and were slaughtered just like their Muslim brothers and sisters.

They were liberating the city from the Seljuk Turks who were killing/selling into slavery Christian men, women and children who just wanted to go to the Holy Land for pilgrimages.

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

Isn't usury a sin in Christianity?


Alright. Maybe not deflection. Definitely "what-aboutism". You brought up a completely unrelated event that was done by Muslims as a "but what about...?" even if you didn't directly say that. The conversation was about the Siege of Jerusalem specifically. Dylar said not all the soldiers there were responsible. I said otherwise. The fall of Constantinople had literally nothing to do with the conversation.


Yes. Liberate the city from the Muslims, even though the Muslims are the majority!

Who were they liberating exactly? The like 1% of the population that was Christian? Or maybe the Jews? Oh, wait. The Jews fought alongside the Muslims and were slaughtered just like their Muslim brothers and sisters.

“What-aboutism” would require for the event to be isolated, and the Ottomans certainly did a lot of conquering throughout their long existence, Constantinople being the apex of Ottoman takeover. I merely used it as an example because it was one of the more prominent examples I could think of. If I had said, “But what about that one time,” in a case in which the Ottomans were not known for being conquerors, then your accusation would be more valid. Furthermore, the Fall of Constantinople can hardly be called an “unrelated” event, but rather one of the most important events in modern history, both in its buildup and its aftermath.

It is completely unrelated, Lumi. It wouldn't happen for another 400 years after the Crusades. To bring it up is simply to say "Okay, yeah. But look at what the Muslims did".

Isn't usury a sin in Christianity?

1. It wasn't illegal, or taxed highly, though. The Templar got all their money from donations, and every member was required to be poor. Any money that the members had was to go to the Order. The Templar simply wanted to protect pilgrims going on pilgrimages to the Holy Land. And the best way to do that was to ask for their valuable possessions and lock them up so that the pilgrims wouldn't be mugged or killed by marauders and thieves on their way to Jerusalem.

Yes. Liberate the city from the Muslims, even though the Muslims are the majority!

Who were they liberating exactly? The like 1% of the population that was Christian? Or maybe the Jews? Oh, wait. The Jews fought alongside the Muslims and were slaughtered just like their Muslim brothers and sisters.

2. They were liberating the city from the Seljuk Turks who were killing/selling into slavery Christian men, women and children who just wanted to go to the Holy Land for pilgrimages.

1. That isn't what I asked. Is usury a sin in Christianity?

2. The Seljuks didn't control Jerusalem when it was captured...