There were conquests directed at the muslims before their conquests which I have shown. All these conquests were "acts of aggression" and yet probably viewed as "defensive" by the people conducting them. Whether it's muslims, catholics, nazis, or the current war in iraq it's all supposed to be justified "defense" by the aggressors.
You have said there were conquests against Muslims before the Crusades, but you have not provided any sort of evidence - no year or place of battle have you given.
I have already proved that the Crusades were in response to Muslim aggression (Alexios I Komnenos, the Byzantine emperor, asked for aide from the pope against attacking Muslims). You have not proved otherwise.
Most acts of aggression are in response to a previous act you have not proved otherwise.
I already have showed you from Pope Urban II's speech that the Crusades were launched in response to the aide called for by Alexios I Komnenos, the Byzantine emperor, from the attacking Muslims. You said Muslim acts of aggression were in response to previous acts but you have not provided any evidence.
By the way, your mirror like tactics were you reverse what I say to you and try to apply it to me, which shows you cannot come up with your own constructive criticism, every time throughout this thread and with others you debate with is quite juvenile.
No it ensures highly biased people give a single point of view on the subject to other close minded folks.
Call them what you will, but they are not teenagers.
It does disprove what you stated which was that the authorities agreed. You have not proved the majority either although it would be pointless to do so. If the majority of people in a country wanted to kill and burn all Jews would that make it right to do it?
The point is that the crusade against the Cathars were not forced against civil authority, i.e., they were a threat to the state. If your were at all keen on the history of France at the time then you would know that the Cathars were an impediment of Southern and Northern France to unite under a single state.
Look, I don't know how much more obvious it can be that your catholic sites are inherently biased. If you want to bitch about sources then you're going to have to better yourself.
The sites I use do not use amateurs for editors. Therein lies the difference and a profound one at that.
I acknowledge the wrongs committed during the Crusades, but maintain the Crusades were launched for just reasons and confirmed it with Pope Urban II's speech, which gave the reasons why. You have provided no proof that the Crusades were launched to forcefully convert non-Catholics. Can you cite a document of some sort that proves the Crusades were not initially due to Muslim aggression? I believe you cannot.
I have given tons of evidence. It was conquest, otherwise there would never have been "Crusader States".
What evidence? Again, no year or place of battle have you given. Thus, no evidence that the Muslims were provoked to conquer the European nations before the Crusades had taken place.
You are going to need to back up that outlandish claim - show me where the pope ordered to use excessive force.
The Pope, Innocent III, called a formal Crusade against the Cathars of the Languedoc, appointing a series of military leaders to head his Holy Army. The first was a Cistercian abbot (Arnaud Amaury) now best remembered for his command at Béziers "Kill them all. God will know his own". The second was Simon de Montfort now remembered as the father of another Simon de Montfort, a prominent figure in English parliamentary history. The war against the Cathars of the Languedoc continued for two generations. In the later phases the Kings of France would take over as leaders of the crusade, which thus became a Royal Crusade.
Click here to go to a page on the Heraldry of the Languedoc, including the coats of arms of the Crusaders.
From 1208, a war of terror was waged against the indigenous population and their rulers: Raymond VI of Toulouse, Raymond-Roger Trencavel, Raymond Roger of Foix in the first generation and Raymond VII of Toulouse, Raymond Trencavel II, and Roger Bernard II of Foix in the second generation. During this period an estimated 500,000 Languedoc men women and children were massacred - Catholics as well as Cathars. The Counts of Toulouse and their allies were dispossessed and humiliated, and their lands annexed to France. Educated and tolerant Languedoc rulers were replaced by relative barbarians; Dominic Guzmán (later Saint Dominic) founded the Dominican Order and soon afterwards the Inquisition, manned by his Dominicans, was established explicitly to wipe out the last vestiges of resistance. Persecutions of Languedoc Jews and other minorities were initiated; the culture of the troubadours was lost as their cultured patrons were reduced to wandering refugees known as faidits. Their characteristic concept of "paratge", a whole sophisticated world-view, was almost destroyed, leaving us a pale imitation in our idea of chivalry. Lay learning was discouraged and the reading of the bible became a capital crime. Tithes were enforced. The Languedoc started its long economic decline to become the poorest region in France; and the language of the area, Occitan, began its descent from the foremost literary language in Europe to a regional dialect, now disparaged as a patois.
At the end of the extermination of the Cathars, the Roman Church had convincing proof that a sustained campaign of genocide can work. It also had the precedent of an internal Crusade within Christendom, and the machinery of the first modern police state that could be wheeled out for the Spanish Inquisition, and again for later Inquisitions and genocides.
http://www.languedoc-france.info/12_cathars.htm
I said prove that the pope ordered the use of
excessive force. Both of us already know that the pope ordered to use force against the Cathars. One example of excessive force is that Arnaud Amaury allegedly said, "Kill them all. God will know his own" - now that is excessive. However, the article said Arnaud Amaury gave that order, not the pope. Regardless, the only strong source that site uses to back up that Arnaud Amaury quote is from the book,
Caesarius Heiserbacencis monachi ordinis Cisterciensis,
in which the author warns the reader that he is merely recording a rumor.
By the way, the Cathars were attacked way before the Catholic Church ever decided to. The first Catharists were burnt in Europe by Robert of France in 1022. Also, Henry II of England whom the pope excommunicated, the Emperors Frederick I (Barbarossa) and Frederick II, who spent much of his life in open warfare against the pope, all attacked the Cathars before the Catholic Church.
Even the rulers who were against the Catholic Church opposed the Cathars. It was not just about the threat to Christianity, but to society.
Not to mention the fact that as was said in the article I showed you much earlier in this thread in regards to the Albigensian (Cathar) Crusade,
"the action of Innocent in the matter of the Albigenses was approved by perhaps the greatest international assembly that Europe has ever seen—the Lateran Council of 1215. No voice was raised against the action of Innocent in his own age".
It was the Cathars who became hostile first. They murdered Peter of Costineau. After that, then the Crusade was launched against them.
No, it was the Catholics who became hostile first. After which one guy killed Peter. Hardly an excuse to slaughter thousands.
The Catholics were preaching to the Cathars originally, which does not qualify as being hostile. Peter was head of organizing the preaching when he was killed before the crusade against them had taken place.
Killing Peter does not utterly justify the crusade against the Cathars, but it does show that the Cathars were hostile first to the Catholic Church.
"Catholic Treatment of the Cathars:
Treatment of the Cathars was atrocious. Secular rulers were used to torture and maim the heretics, and anyone who refused to do this was themselves punished. The Fourth Lateran Council, which authorized the state to punish religious dissenters, also authorized the state to confiscate all the land and property of the Cathars, resulting in a very nice incentive for state officials to do the church's bidding."
The Catholic Church is against torture. Pope Nicholas I (858-867) had declared torture forbidden by all law, human and divine. All those who used torture were not acting in accordance with the Catholic Church.
Also, chew on this:
Properly speaking, Albigensianism was not a Christian heresy but an extra-Christian religion. Ecclesiastical authority, after persuasion had failed, adopted a course of severe repression, which led at times to regrettable excess. Simon of Montfort intended well at first, but later used the pretext of religion to usurp the territory of the Counts of Toulouse. The death penalty was, indeed, inflicted too freely on the Albigenses, but it must be remembered that the penal code of the time was considerably more rigorous than ours, and the excesses were sometimes provoked. Raymond VI and his successor, Raymond VII, were, when in distress, ever ready to promise, but never to earnestly amend. Pope Innocent III was justified in saying that the Albigenses were "worse than the Saracens"; and still he counselled moderation and disapproved of the selfish policy adopted by Simon of Montfort. What the Church combated was principles that led directly not only to the ruin of Christianity, but to the very extinction of the human race.
Source
Whatever you think is just does not matter. There were several causes which were not noble. Would rather have the muslim nations be pacifists and watch lands be conquered by europeans?
Again, show me where the Muslim states were being conquered by the Christians before the Crusades.
As were the conquests before them and the conquests before them
See comment above.
So genocide that christians believe to be just is "off track"? Do you believe Jesus would approve of the genocide of cities full of men, women, and children that his father was responsible for?
"The Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God" (John 5:18).
"Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I Am" (John 8:58)
"I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)
"He who has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9).
"All that the Father has is mine" (John 16:15).
Yes, Jesus would approve because Jesus is God incarnate. Not to mention the fact that Jesus explicitly mentions and approves the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the destruction of the world by flood. Not only does he mention them, but he uses them as an example in his teachings:
"And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomor'rah than for that town" (Matthew 10:14-15).
"And you, Caper'na-um, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day" (Matthew 11:23).
"As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of man. They ate, they drank, they married, they were given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all" (Luke 17:26-27).
It's not the same. Going to a Jewish sympathizing site might omit what some corrupt Jews did that Hitler used as part of an excuse to persecute them. The beliefs of Cathars were not just different, but were detrimental to society.
It is the same as going to a catholic sympathizing site will omit the corrupt actions of the catholics in their genocide of the cathars.
Except that the Cathar site you used does not acknowledge that not believing in oaths during the Middle Ages is the same as not believing in contracts today, and that not creating offspring is detrimental to society both then and now.
The Catholic Encyclopedia does not omit corruptions committed by Catholics, which is why I use it.
The beliefs of the catholics were what was detrimental to society.
Which Catholic doctrine is detrimental to society?
The Cathars were peaceful, believed in equality of women (oh no!), living like Jesus, and actually reading the bible (oh no !).
Commending suicide is not peaceful.
The Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges the evils committed by the Crusades. As I said before, everyone has a bias, but you need to look at both sides of the issue. I have showed where you can look, but as the saying goes, you can only lead a horse to the water.
You can lead me to some biased crap but I'm not going to be fooled. Show me some evidence of the Pope and church leaders speaking out against the deplorable violence of the Crusades and Inquisitions? That might be interesting in light of your previous comments.
I believe your sources are biased too, but I still read them and comment on them.
Pope Innocent III condemned the Fourth Crusade.
Pope John Paul II apologizes not just for the wrongs committed during the Crusades and the Inquisitions, but for all wrongs committed by Catholics
A walk in the park with Pope endorsed genocide you mean.
No.
It was the Roman Emperor Hadrian (who was not a Christian) who conquered Jerusalem in 135. He did ban all Jews from the city, but he did ban all Jewish Christians as well.
So that would be how non-Jewish christians got there? Through conquests? Imagine that.
No, it was through pilgrimage. It was not the Christians fault that the Jews were banned from the city.
Christians don't have 10 commandments at all. Christ wasn't around then.
This shows your ignorance of the Christian faith all the more.
Actually, I'm quite a bit more informed about the christian faith than you could ever be. You will only ever have singular viewpoint which inherently prevents you from broad understanding.
You have no viewpoint. At least I believe in something. You hold everything in doubt and have no convictions - it is you who has no understanding. You are lukewarm, yet, you consider yourself a Christian.
