/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>608900

Justified until they went mad with power and looting.

>the order of the knights templar

>>608900

God willed it

>>608900

Justified until it stopped being about stopping the Islamic war machine and became about making money

>>608926

/thread

As a whole, yes, but the Sacking of Constantinople was unjust.

>>608966

>implying

>The Massacre of the Latins (Italian: Massacro dei Latini; Greek: Σφαγή των Λατίνων) was a large-scale massacre of the Roman Catholic (called "Latin") inhabitants of Constantinople, the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, by the Eastern Orthodox population of the city in April 1182.[1][2]

>The Roman Catholics of Constantinople at that time dominated the city's maritime trade and financial sector.[1] Although precise numbers are unavailable, the bulk of the Latin community, estimated at 60,000 at the time by Eustathius of Thessalonica,[1] was wiped out or forced to flee. The Genoese and Pisan communities especially were decimated, and some 4,000 survivors were sold as slaves to the (Turkish) Sultanate of Rum.

>Many had anticipated the events and escaped by sea.[3] The ensuing massacre was indiscriminate: neither women nor children were spared, and Latin patients lying in hospital beds were murdered.[4] Houses, churches, and charities were looted.[4] Latin clergymen received special attention, and Cardinal John, the papal legate, was beheaded and his head was dragged through the streets at the tail of a dog.

>>609052

I'm not trying to suggest that it wasn't unjust, just wanted to show that the greeks weren't innocent dindunuffins in the whole affair

>>609053

>>609052

That happened after.

>>609143

>Massacre of the Latins

>April 1182

>Siege of Constantinople

>April 1204

Why would you lie on the internet?

>>609143

Latin massacre happened 1184, sack of Constantinople happened 1204

>>608900

The original point, lets help the byzantines against the turks, and push back the muslim agression, was great.

It turned into a fiasco pretty quickly, though.

>>608900

Not only were they justified. They are justified today.

>Muslims on the warpath after mohammed did

>Actively rape and pillage Spain and the Mediterranean

>Decades go by until Christians out of sheer necessity has to defend themselves

>Cripples Turkish navy that dominates the seas

>Pushes them back to the middle east

>Not justified

>>608926

>implying it wasn't a massive money sink

Not sure anon, I have only studied the first.

I do know Godfrey of Bouillon was a God fearing and good man.

>>609430

For the vast majority of people, yes they were. We can't pretend that certain instances were anything less than pure cash-grabs though.

>Venetians and French don't want to jeopardise their newly minted trade with the Levantine Muslim kingdoms

>Divert the crusader fleet to attack Constantinople instead, plundering it four ways from Sunday, in direct contradiction to the orders of Pope Innocent III

No, they were trying to reclaim Jerusalem for (((their greatest allies)))

>>609535

>This is what /pol/ belives nowdays

God will judge. But they were necessary for stopping the military kebab, and reconquering places inhabited by Christians.

It was necessary to kill everyone in Jerusalem? Some of the crusaders were only interested in becoming powerful and rich? I'll say the same about the bad popes. Let God judge each one for their intentions.

>>608925

If God willed it, it wouldn't have failed.

>>608926

>implying that it was ever about anything other than money and power

>>609052

>repaying evil with evil

I once read in some book that you shouldn't do that

>>609571

>If God willed it, it wouldn't have failed.

I disagree with this conclusion. You can say the same about someone who was crucified.

>>609574

It'd be mighty embarrassing to go down to earth to die for mankind's sins and not actually get the opportunity to die. I guess you have a solid point if you mean Simon Peter.

>>608900

It was resisting evil, so no, it was not. It was unchristian and unlawful (to the Law of the Kingdom of God). But God forgives, and He knows what they knew and didn't know, what their reasons for doing what they did were, so it's not for us to judge if it was sin for them or not.

>>609728

I agree it was a vital geopolitical move to make, considering the Muslims were oppressing and taking land from Christians that were in the Middle East. However, I believe the name of Jesus Christ was misused and abused, and the whole idea of "going on a crusade to have all your sins absolved" was a complete sham perpetrated by the Roman Catholic Church. It should have only been a purely political move, but at the time the Pope was the only figurehead that sat above the petty politics and fiefdoms in Europe at that time and the Crusades was the only political tool the Pope used to unite all of Europe for a common cause.

Of course, it was self defense after Constantinople. It's just a shame the whole operation bungled in the end.

The 4th crusade was despicable, the catholics sacked constantinople, butchered and raped their eastern brothers and the nuns…No it was not "justified" and it solidified the east-west schism, and led to the loss of Constantinople to the ottomans.

>>620135

>the catholics sacked constantinople,

<the catholics were massacred AT constantinople first

ftfy.

>>620135

But Constantinople (Eastern Rome) didn't fall until around 1400 AD

>>620138

yes but the catholics weakened it and installed their puppet rulers to control it. It lost a lot of power and efficiency because of this.

>>620135

The "crusaders" that made this have been excommunicated by the pope before even reaching Constantinople, so it's pretty stupid to use this example against the crusades.

>>620137

So, if the Tutsi were to suddenly march today on Kigali, pillage, rape and massacre everyone in the capital, loot it's wealth, and turn it from a city of 1,3 million to one of 10 thousand, to install some guy that promised them cash as president, it'd be morally justified?

>>608900

Yes. Sadly they lost their way.

>>609164

Amazing picture.

>>609193

Probably even more so.

>>608900

Just war accroding to Aquinas:

In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary.

First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. Moreover it is not the business of a private individual to summon together the people, which has to be done in wartime. And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them. And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Romans 13:4): "He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil"; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Psalm 81:4): "Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner"; and for this reason Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 75): "The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority."

Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (QQ. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): "A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly."

Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. [The words quoted are to be found not in St. Augustine's works, but Can. Apud. Caus. xxiii, qu. 1): "True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good." For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 74): "The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war."

>Rightful and (most) sovereign authority?

Check

>Just cause?

Check

>Good intention?

Check.

They were justified. Hell, they would be justified today if the first requirement was met.

>>609559

>I love Vatican II

>>609052

That was repaid for with the Sack of Thessalonica already. You didn't need to sack Constantinople, face it.

>>608900

Killing muslims is always justified.

>>628666 (checked)

Im sure you do love Vatican 2, satan.

>>628835

Omg thats so mean. If pope Urban ever posted here the mods should ban him immediately.bigots.

>>628835

What a racist bigot, I'm glad we're living in the 21st century where we don't have such backwater beliefs anymore.

>>609728

They were able to prevent the Islamification of Eastern Europe, for a few centuries anyway, which probably saved thousands of souls. Also, I'm pretty sure that passage is more about not taking revenge rather than anything else.

>>620135

>4th crusade was a real crusade

>sack of Constantinople is what caused the Eastern Roman Empire to fall several centuries later, and nothing else

When will these memes end? The empire had been on a downward spiral ever since the end of the Komnenian dynasty. The very fact that the Venetian mercenaries were able to take Constantinople at all is proof of this.

>>608900

Maybe in the seventh century when the Saracens actually took jerusalem from Christian rulers, but not 400 years later when they actually happened.

>>630420

Information was sloooooooooooow back then.

>>630478

Wasn't that slow. Caesar knew about the Roman Senators disdain for him while he was in gaul, as that disdain was growing. Can't have taken that long for news of the fall of jerusalem which by the way is an epicenter of medieval trade, to reach the church.

>>630420

We are eternally justified in retaking Christian lands because our faith is the right one. This is not a question of diplomacy.

>>630411

>racist bigot

>thinks anyone here will disregard reality if they're called these things

>thinks you can shame people into accepting leftist dogma on an anonymous imageboard

You're not on Reddit anymore, lady.

>>630576

You cannot be a right wing racist and be a Christian at the same time. How about you fuck off back to /pol/ with your bigotry? Meanwhile, true Christians will help our Muslim brothers as they escape the warzone that the west caused.

Don't forget that Jesus said to love your neighbors. Oops.

The Sack of Constantinople was wrong in the eyes of the church but very just in the minds of the Catholic knights who did it.

Those knights supported a Byzantine claimant who promised to transport them to the holy land. That Byzantine claimant was however killed in a palace coup whilst the knights camped outside the city. Afraid they were next for supporting the claimant and outraged by the death of him they went mad and destroyed what they thought a city of sinners who murdered their rightful emperor.

t. Dutch scholar Hans Jansen

Aside from that crusades were just, it's really a lack of piety that made them fail eventually.

Many did it just for prestige instead of piety and that signed their doom.

>>608900

They weren't justified in everything they did, but for some reason a lot of modern Christians conflate a desire for peace, with a need to capitulate.

>>630605

Adding to this, there are such things as sins of omission, and a soul is worth far more than a life. If a Christian who has the power to do so, is given the burden of deciding whether the lesser of two evils is to take a life, or allow for others to live in ignorance of the lord, then who are we to judge his decision?

>>630579

>help our Muslim brothers as they escape

>Don't forget that Jesus said to love your neighbors

I would think that loving your neighbors, would include not importing hordes of rapist, and then dumping them on their doorsteps. Asides from this, you're condemning a Christian based on something you see as sinful, whilst exonerating a people whom have not accepted Christ, and have altered the bible, thus leading millions to damnation.

>>630579

>our Muslim brothers

I have brothers in Christ. Not brothers of some demon Moon god.

>crusades

Nore like "crusaids"

>>630579

You can't believe in "racism" as a concept and be a Christian at the same time. It was purpose built by Trotsky to be anti-Christian. And you are dishonestly taking Christ's lessons out of context to suit your own narrative.

>>630579

>Don't forget that Jesus said to love your neighbors.

I have no muslim neighbors tho.

Neighbors = family and tribe

>>630597

>a christian don't want to destroy a race

Except if it's a race of muslims.

>crusades wasn't about that.

If was precisely about that, exterminating the muslims who inhabit the Holy Land.

>>630579

>muslim brothers

>warzone that the West has caused

>true Christian are cultural marxists that turn a blind eye to obvious racial differences

I can never tell whether you leftists are serious or just trolling when you talk about what you believe in with such ostensible conviction. You really don't see absurd your beliefs are? Anyway, don't get your panties in a twist.

>>608900

First of all, God doesn't have eyes. Second, nobody here knows what God thinks about historical events. It's all just LARPing like when people claim a hurricane is "God's wrath on X" or whatever.

You're not asking if they were justified in God's eyes, you're asking if they were /christian/ approved. Which, of course they were because /christian/ can't pull its head out of /pol/'s ass long enough to think for themselves. Every post ITT saying "hurr dem muzzies deserved to die" proves it because they ignore that Christians LOST. So if God was on anyone's side, it was the Saracens.

>>630777

I'm not even shitposting, what did you mean by this?

Is it sinful to defend yourself and your family?

>>630797

Not at all, but it should be noted that brown people moving into the house next door is not a threat to you or your family.

>>630777

>>630796

>implying that any group post-1312 actually has anything to do with the Knight's Templar of 1119.

>>630832

If you think that the Crusades happened because "brown people moved in", then you need to leave this site for 40 days and 40 nights and study the entirety of the Crusades, from the first invasion of the moslems in the 7th century to the few last excursions in the 18th century. There were far more than the Nine to the Levant, and you would benefit by the careful study of them all. The necessity of more expeditions will also become apparent to you after you finish this penance.

>>630832

>brown people

*muslims, and yes, it's a threat to my Christian way of life.

>>630913

If just a single muslim survived it means that the Crusades were too temperate.

>>630579

>Don't forget that Jesus said to love your neighbors.

>Luke 10:36 Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?”

>Luke 10:37 He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.”

As Muslims have largely proven be most like the robbers than even the other two men I raise you

>Matthew 7:6 “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.

>>630913

My kingdom is not of this world. I recall reading that somewhere.

>>630915

No, it's really not a threat to you or your Christian way of life.

>>630929

>it's another apostate thinks he knows the faith better than Christians do episode

Would someone change the channel already?

>>630931

On what basis do you declare me "apostate"? Because I don't share fear and hatred of Muslims? Christ commands me to love my enemies and pray for those who wrong me. Do you disobey Christ?

>>630935

What? Muslims wrong you, they're your enemy now? They a threat then? Your lying tongue betrays you as much as your shallow exegesis.

>>630941

No, they are not my enemy; but you claim them as your enemy. Yet instead of praying for them and forgiving them, you want to wipe them out. You call me an apostate while you disobey Christ's command.

>>630832

These "brown people" don't share my genetics, culture or religion. They're genetically predisposed to being stupid and violent, and for a multitude of reasons they're likely to live as parasites in Western societies. If enough of them come here, they absolutely will threaten their host society. It's simply delusional to think otherwise.

>>631051

Tell me, who is more American:

Me, whose family came here in the 1920s from Ireland

OR

My brown neighbor, whose family came here in the 1640s from Africa

Why does my pale skin give me more of a claim to this country?

when people cites "Return your sword to its place, for all who will take up the sword, will die by the sword" I dont see it as something ominous and necessarily bad. It's just an admonition of causality. Jesus told us there is a better way (Himself) but in a strict sense you can choose to live and die for something if you think that you don't have any better options.

>>630661

> It was purpose built by Trotsky to be anti-Christian.

No, it wasn't.

You can find references to racism as a word and concept in 1890-1900 non-left wing articles written in english.

Stop swallowing neo-nazi urban myths uncritically.

>>631051

>They're genetically predisposed to being stupid and violent, and for a multitude of reasons they're likely to live as parasites in Western societies.

History disagrees with you /pol/. Algebra came out of these "parasites of western civilisation" and the philosophies of Aristotle, Plato, and Socratese, among others, wouldn't have survived to the modern day had they not been preserved by these people whom you claim are genetically predisposed to being stupid and violent, these philosophies which by the way, contributed no small part to the enlightenment which defines western civilization to this very day. Never mind the advances in the sciences, modern medicine, astronomy, and so on that came out of the Islamic world. Wow, these are some really stupid people. Might wanna get that pride, and even hubris, under control early before the Lord decides to do it for you.

>>631069

>Tell me, who is more American

According to the founding fathers, you are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790

>>631075

The classical philosophers were preserved by the Christian monastics in the West and had always been preserved in the Eastern Church. To the extent Islamics preserved classical knowledge is to the extent that they didn't destroy the knowledge that disagreed with their cult. When they took Alexandria, they burned any book which disagreed with the Koran.

>>631075

Algebra was from India, Islam lays claim of the invention s of the lands they conquered/traded with.

Sure they have achieved some things but they are nowhere near the modern myths we hear about the "Golden Islamic age"

Besides, look at them now. By their fruits.

>>630579

Even if you're not completely wrong this post stinks of plebbit virtue-signalling. We come here to get away from that garbage.

go back

>>631132

>Besides, look at them now. By their fruits.

It doesn't help that there've been non-stop wars and that they've had what nations they had subverted and undermined, their borders drawn and redrawn over and over again by outside powers for the past couple centuries.

>>630945

You're slightly misunderstanding the verse. Islam is opposed to Christianity and a false religion, so those that follow it and attempt to apostasize Christians and convert atheists are by definition our enemies.

Christ commands us to love our enemies, and we should be praying for them and forgiving them. But regardless of our conduct, they are certainly our enemies.

>>631202

Imagine being this stupid

>>630959

>Admittedly, Islam is an evil ideology. Muslims are people that can be brought to Christ.

Imagine believing such mental gymnastics, this is written nowhere in the Bible.

>You're not going to convert anyone by insulting them.

You're not going to convert 99.9% of muslims regardless of what you do. "Many are called, but few are chosen"

>I've tried the "Deus Vult" approach for years and it didn't yield any results in attaining souls for Christ

Because it's goal is not to attain souls for Christ but land for Christians.

>people are more responsive

I wonder how many muslims you converted mate, probably somwhere around 0.

>God bless, anon.

You too, but wake up to reality.

>>630579

>You cannot be a right wing racist and be a Christian at the same time.

Not if you use the leftist definition of "racist", you can be a racial realist and still believe in clerical fascism, and it fits a lot better than leftist/communist Christianity.

> Acts 17:26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.

>How about you fuck off back to /pol/ with your bigotry?

>Meanwhile, true Christians will help our Muslim brothers as they escape the warzone that the west caused.

Kind of ironic, that you're ready to help one enemy yet, you'll send another "enemy" away. Muslims are genuine enemies to Christians, it show soo much ignorance. It reminds of that news report of freemasons praying and conducting blasphemous rituals in a christian church. Yes, Jesus said to you love your enemy and neighbor, but love doesn't mean to give up resistance all together, sometimes love means being harsh with people, when they push lies, and try to enslave or kill you or your family. Before you call me alt-right, a physical attack obviously wouldn't be christian either.

>>631266

>Jesus said to you love your enemy

It refers to personal enemies, not enemies of God.

>>608900

Most definitely the Crusades were justified overall.

For more info search for "Bill Warner, PhD: Jihad vs Crusades" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo]

Also "Three Stages of Jihad - David Wood"

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPLqVL4GHVU]

>>631264

Frankly, I don't understand the point of any of it. If my kingdom is not of this world, why not let the Muslims have the whole world?

> it's goal is not to attain souls for Christ but land for Christians

Bingo.

>>631289

>If my kingdom is not of this world, why not let the Muslims have the whole world?

Because Christ orders us explicitly to spread the gospel to the whole world.

>>631676

I highly doubt there's anywhere in the world left that hasn't heard the Gospel. Besides, you don't have to own it to preach in it.

>>631289

>"If my kingdom is not of this world, why not let the Muslims have the whole world?"

Have you looked into sharia and how that would apply to you and your family?

What does the fact that "Christ's kingdom is not of this world" mean?

Does it speak of the material world, or the evil satanic system that presently operates in the world?

What did the Apostle Paul mean when he wrote 1st Corinthians 3:21-23?

With this in mind, for whose sakes do we want to keep those things we have?

For the believers in Christ who would be helped by them after we depart?

>>631691

There's an entire other thread on the front page that says the Constitution is anti-Christian, yet you would seek to benefit from its protections?

My kingdom is not of this world. What happens to this world is not a pre-requisite for salvation.

>>631701

>"There's an entire other thread on the front page that says the Constitution is anti-Christian,…"

What exactly is anti-Christian about the Constitution of the USA?