|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jun 17, 2019 8:49:39 GMT
Let’s debunk one of the secular left’s favourite tu quoques.
|
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Jun 17, 2019 9:21:03 GMT
I never know what people do mean when they say "What about the Crusades?"
If the point is to show that violence has been done in the name of Christianity, then the Crusades do prove that point. However reducing the whole period and the reasons behind them to a "Christians=bad, Muslims=good" then yes, that is extremely silly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2019 9:29:08 GMT
That prick isn't debunking anything regarding the crusades.
He is spreading Islamaphobia and hate.
He is 'justifying' the crusades... you can use his arguments to justify any historical atrocity you like, including the Holocaust.
The crusades are shameful episodes in Christian history.
|
|
|
|
Post by lunda2222 on Jun 17, 2019 9:49:23 GMT
Oh, you mean the war on terror? According to Bush that was a crusade.
Perhaps the Albigensian Crusade, where they massacred the Christian Cathar sect?
Or perhaps Wendish Crusade in 1147 where they attacked Slaves?
No? How about the Swedish and Danish crusades against Finnish tribes?
Then we have the Livonian Crusade against the Baltic states. Not to mention the Prussian Crusades.
Or the ever popular massacring of Jews in the Peoples Crusade.
|
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Jun 17, 2019 10:09:18 GMT
Well, Kingdom in Heaven was full of shit.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 17, 2019 10:28:17 GMT
That prick isn't debunking anything regarding the crusades. He is spreading Islamaphobia and hate. He is 'justifying' the crusades... you can use his arguments to justify any historical atrocity you like, including the Holocaust. The crusades are shameful episodes in Christian history. I wish people would stop referring to it as a religious history as if it was some kind of necessary component to worship I have to answer for. It's time for people to get over it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jun 17, 2019 11:31:12 GMT
Oh, you mean the war on terror? According to Bush that was a crusade.
Perhaps the Albigensian Crusade, where they massacred the Christian Cathar sect?
Or perhaps Wendish Crusade in 1147 where they attacked Slaves?
No? How about the Swedish and Danish crusades against Finnish tribes?
Then we have the Livonian Crusade against the Baltic states. Not to mention the Prussian Crusades.
Or the ever popular massacring of Jews in the Peoples Crusade.
Yeah those were not the crusades. Those were shenanigans of the RCC for mostly political and regional gain which completely flew at odds with biblical Christianity. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jun 17, 2019 11:36:29 GMT
I never know what people do mean when they say "What about the Crusades?" If the point is to show that violence has been done in the name of Christianity, then the Crusades do prove that point. However reducing the whole period and the reasons behind them to a "Christians=bad, Muslims=good" then yes, that is extremely silly. Did you watch the video, brother?
|
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Jun 17, 2019 12:30:21 GMT
I never know what people do mean when they say "What about the Crusades?" If the point is to show that violence has been done in the name of Christianity, then the Crusades do prove that point. However reducing the whole period and the reasons behind them to a "Christians=bad, Muslims=good" then yes, that is extremely silly. Did you watch the video, brother? Just part of it. I can't watch it all right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by lunda2222 on Jun 17, 2019 17:47:10 GMT
Oh, you mean the war on terror? According to Bush that was a crusade.
Perhaps the Albigensian Crusade, where they massacred the Christian Cathar sect?
Or perhaps Wendish Crusade in 1147 where they attacked Slaves?
No? How about the Swedish and Danish crusades against Finnish tribes?
Then we have the Livonian Crusade against the Baltic states. Not to mention the Prussian Crusades.
Or the ever popular massacring of Jews in the Peoples Crusade.
Yeah those were not the crusades. Those were shenanigans of the RCC for mostly political and regional gain which completely flew at odds with biblical Christianity. With the exception of the first and the last, those where definitively crusades.
Roman Catholic Church sanctioned wars is pretty much the definition of a crusade.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on Jun 17, 2019 20:59:31 GMT
You lost at Stephen Crowder.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 17, 2019 21:32:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jun 17, 2019 21:43:48 GMT
You lost at Stephen Crowder. Very smart guy. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 17, 2019 22:35:41 GMT
You lost at Stephen Crowder. Very smart guy. Is that why he got fired from Fox News?
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jun 18, 2019 0:20:38 GMT
You lost at Stephen Crowder. Well that saves me some time.
|
|
|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on Jun 18, 2019 0:25:53 GMT
You lost at Stephen Crowder. Very smart guy. He appears smart because he only debates 20 year olds. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 18, 2019 0:38:07 GMT
He appears smart because he only debates 20 year olds. That reminds of a time he was on the Joe Rogan Show, Rogan asked him some questions about his stances on marijuana, not even a debate just some questions, and Coward tried to get out of it, "Uh, I have a plane to catch!" 
|
|
basmaticathury
Junior Member
@basmaticathury
Posts: 3,130
Likes: 1,186
|
Post by basmaticathury on Jun 18, 2019 0:49:28 GMT
The Crusades were in direct contradiction of Jesus' teachings.
Mohammad waged military campaigns to rape and pillage innocent people's lands for the sake of spreading Islam. ISIS is an emulation of what their "prophet" did in the early days. The pieces come together quite nicely.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 18, 2019 1:06:18 GMT
People dont say 'what about the crusades' because they dont know why they were started, they say what about the crusades because of how barbaric the Christians were. It's like saying what about the Russian front.
In any case the presenter does not really give any real depth or understanding of the crusades, he basically is simply engaging in whataboutism, which ironically is exactly what the oh what about the crusades cry is touted as being about.
If the crusaders were such lovely people, forced into a war by the horrible mossies, why did they persecute Jews as often as possible along the way?
|
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Jun 18, 2019 8:19:02 GMT
People dont say 'what about the crusades' because they dont know why they were started, they say what about the crusades because of how barbaric the Christians were. It's like saying what about the Russian front. In any case the presenter does not really give any real depth or understanding of the crusades, he basically is simply engaging in whataboutism, which ironically is exactly what the oh what about the crusades cry is touted as being about. If the crusaders were such lovely people, forced into a war by the horrible mossies, why did they persecute Jews as often as possible along the way? Not just Jews. Pagan and other Christians were also attacked. One of the more lasting consequences of the Crusades was the sack of Constantinople in 1204, the capital of Orthodox Christianity and that played the role in the eventual conquest of the city by the Ottoman Empire in 1453. Like I said, the problem with Crusades is that very often people try to turn a very complex period into simple terms of who was in the right and who was in the wrong.
|
|
