The Crusades...where were all the christians?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am studying the crusades right now. From what I can see the catholics were the ones doing all the bad stuff, yet in every book I read they say the christians, when in fact it was the catholics.
BUT you can not tell me that there were no non catholic christians in that time. So, where were they and why did they allow all of this happen?
I have to tell you, it drives me batty to hear people say "the christians killed all the jews and muslims in the crusades, blah blah blah. I know that the catholic church was the biggest then, BUT AGAIN, there had to be normal bible beleiving christians.
66 comments
there had to be normal bible beleiving christians.
You just can't imagine a time when there weren't modern fundies, can you? Because that puts a damper on your fantasy that you have the pure word of God, passed directly from the apostles to you through an unbroken chain of pure believers.
There were "Normal Bible believing Christians".
They were called "Catholics".
The Catholics were the ones who decided what the Bible was.
Then, different people decided that they didn't want to be ruled by the Pope, and came up with thier own interpetation of the Bible. Martin Luther came up with one, Henry VIII another, and dozens of other versions. They came up with this not because of some divine revelation, or because they had discovered some higher truth but because they didn't like the Pope.
Politics.
....... everyone with me now...
CATHOLICS ARE CHRISTIANS.
In fact, back then they were "the only true christians"... just like you claim to be.
The "normal bible-believing christians" were following the bible (if you read the damn thing you'd see why this is) and following what the nobles (and the clergy, both of whom loved land and looting; not to mention those gathering money for these crusades tended to dissapear with much of it) while doing this.
Yes there were normal, bible believing, christians. They were all catholics.
The non catholics were all either Greek orthodox, Coptic, or Nestorian. With a few Gnostics and Arians living in the middle east.
But in most of christian Europe, The Catholics were the dominant christians.
You know, I've been seeing alot of posts that say Catholics aren't Christians, so I propose a "CATHOLICS AREN'T CHRISTIANS" Award. Or maybe a "IT WAS CATHOLICS NOT CHRISTIANS" Award. I think that would make sense.
Well there were the Eastern Orthodox churches... did they join in the Crusades too? Serious question, I don't know. Then again, they're considered even WORSE than Catholic by the Protestants, so...
yet in every book I read they say the christians, when in fact it was the catholics.
Catholics are Christians. How many times, people?
BUT you can not tell me that there were no non catholic christians in that time
Yes, I can. The Crusades were from 1095-1291. Our happy little German monk, Luther, wasn't born until 1483, almost two hundred years later. He's the boy who's credited with starting the Protestant movement, and he didn't get it going until 1517 or so. So yeah, up until that point, everyone who was Christian belonged to the Catholic Church.
it drives me batty to hear people say "the christians killed all the jews and muslims in the crusades
Well that's too bad, because that's what happened. But, if you like, I can point out plenty of nasty things that Protestants did, too. If that would make you feel better.
Sure... you can remove Catholics from Christianity if you want.
You also remove the Bible, 1,400 years of Christian History, the claim to being the biggest religion on Earth, the claim to being the majority in the US...
You just don't think things through, do you?
yellowbo: "BUT you can not tell me that there were no non catholic christians in that time. So, where were they and why did they allow all of this happen?"
They were busy not freezing to death. Russia is like that.
Actually, if yellowbo knew anything about the Eastern Orthodox church, he or she would probably scream "infidel!" even louder. IIRC, the church managed to coexist with the local pagan beliefs for quite some time.
Irene
As has been said before, for those here who say that there were no non-Catholic Christians then, the Eastern Orthodox churches were around then and were not under the Pope's authority.
However, it was the Byzantine emperor (I'd assume he was an Eastern Orthodox Christian, like most of his subjects) who asked for the Pope's help in driving the Turks out in the First Crusade. Plus, I'd agree that yellowbo would probably call Eastern Orthodox believers "not True Christians" as well.
Ummm...the WORD "catholic" means, "Universal."
At the time all Christians were Catholic by definition, depsite splits between east and west. That didn't change until Luther started questioning, something YOU would burn him at the stake for today.
BUT you can not tell me that there were no non catholic christians in that time.
I can! "THERE WERE NO NON CATHOLIC CHRISTIANS IN THAT TIME." Martin Luther wasn't around back then. You officially suck.
There were Eastern Orthodox and, I think, they took part in some of the crusades.
On the other hand, the Fourth Crusade never made it to the holy land. They ended up invading and sacking Constantinople, capital of the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire.
Maybe because everybody but you knows that Catholics ARE Christians.
Not quite true. Bro. Randy and the nutcases at T4C also say this.
No True Scotsman seconded.
I don't see this comment as fundy so much as I see it as a gross ignorance of both Christian history and theology. As a former Eastern Orthodox Christian (which is also a traditional denomination, related to Catholicism), I've learned that Protestant Christians are the worst, most pathetic, irrational beasts on the plantet. But, besides that, all Christians are morons anyway.
BUT you can not tell me that there were no non catholic christians in that time.
Sure there were - the Eastern Orthodox church (although they considered themselves "Catholics", too - just not Roman Catholics). By the time of the Albigensian Crusade, there were a few sects, such as the Cathars and the Waldenses, who held what the Catholics declared to be heretic beliefs; and there are a handful of nut-job Baptists who think these groups existed since Jesus and that their church descended from these groups. But nobody else actually believes that.
P.S.: the Catholics DO believe in the Bible. They're the ones that edited what you now call "The Bible". The Eastern Othordox Church didn't participate because they had split up from the Roman Catholic Church by then, but they were victims of the Crusaders, just as the Jews and Muslims were.
Get your religious history straight.
Can someone really be stupid enough to not know that a) literacy was hardly widespread during the Crusades and that b) Bibles were hand-copied and insanely expensive and largely owned by priests and monasteries?
It boggles the mind how little religious people (including me, once upon a time) can fail to understand how the world is vastly different now from what it was, and that for a great deal of history reading and writing were the province of a very few. (Anyone ever seen a loan agreement from a few hundred years ago? It wasn't a document. It was a broken stick.)
This reminds me of the evangelical Christian school I attended as a child (group home schooling I like to call it) We were given a paper with the history of the Catholic Church (by its atrocities of course) on one side and the simultaneous history of the “true” underground church running along the other side of it. Claiming yes the evangelical have been around since Jesus himself handed off the "real" Christian religion to them, uncorrupted and pure (but secret of course) the whole time. You can guess the science education I received at this stellar school; it’s amazing I can function at all.
Even if that were true (yeah right) it still wouldn’t account for what would be the average Christian. A fringe cult-I mean sect is hardly the “normal” majority. Besides, the vast majority of “normal bible believing Christian’s” of the time couldn’t read the bible even if they had access to one. That was the clergy’s job, also known as...the Catholic Church.
Yes, there were normal Bible believing Christians. They were called Roman Catholics then, as Reformation hadn't happened yet.
You just wait, you'll soon get to study the Reformation as well.
Oh, and you are missing one citation mark. There is usually one in the beginning of a quote, and one in the end.
OK you stupid Rapturite (meaning more likely a Baptist or Evangalist) Where the hell was your sect back then?
You're all Christians and all of your sects are but spin-offs of Catholics.
Just so you know, they weren't handing Bible out back then, Guttenberg wouldn't be born for centuries
"bible-believing" actually has a much more specific meaning for yellowbo's crowd than most people here seems to recognize. It refers to a whole set of really odd interpretations based on screwing up the grammar, cherry-picking translations, and just plain batshit reinterpretations of their Bible -- along with the insistence that all of this is a "plain reading" of their favorite book. So by yellowbo's standards, no, there weren't any "bible-believing Christians" during the Crusades. Or during the Renaissance, or during the Enlightenment. In fact, by contemporary fundie standards, "normal bible-believing Christians" didn't exist until the 19th century.
*Sigh*
My question is, what was with all the horses? Why not just use tanks and fighter jets? And swords? Motherfucker, please, they should have all had assault rifles and flamethrowers and an acid-shooting gun of some sort.
And you can't tell me they didn't have that shit, because there had to be some modern technology a thousand years ago.
"I am studying the crusades right now."
Uh-huh. Not very well, by the sound of things. Of course, if you are using completely biased and therefore utterly false anti-Catholic materials then you are going to reach the conclusion that you're aiming at.
Doesn't make it true, though.
Nononono, during the Crusades, the Catholics weren't the largest Christian denomination, they were the ONLY denomination.
Martin Luther didn't make his call for reformation until a few centuries later, I believe.
Of course, I mean all the peasants had to do was read the bible and they would know that their priests and bishops were wrong. There were copies available at every, "Ye Barnes & Noble," and since the peasants were all home schooled, you know they were much better off than those nobles who were subjected to the vagaries of public school education.
Makes sense to me, you?
That's like me trying to claim Stalin wasn't an atheist. I can say he didn't massacre people because he was an atheist but because he was a totalitarian dictator, but that doesn't make him not an atheist.
Likewise, just because they were an earlier form of christian, doesn't mean you aren't basically the same thing, with more or less ceremony depending on which sect you follow.
History clearly not on the curriculum at 'Kitchen Table High' in this 'Hoemskule'.
And you wonder why o Raptards, even with private tutoring & homeschooling here in the UK, it must conform to the National Curriculum.
But if you want to become inferior to China, far be it from me to stop you Dumbfuckistan. Only, don't drag the rest of the non -fundie USA with you.
For when even North Korea can compromise your databases, frankly you don't want to know what China is capable of. You don't learn how to perform Cyberattacks by reading a book of fairytales, you know.
"BUT you can not tell me that there were no non catholic christians in that time. So, where were they and why did they allow all of this happen? "
Yes we can tell you and we have told you. It's you that won't listen. It was another half a millennium before there were Protestants.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.