29-10-2024, 01:46 AM
The Crusades have often been cited as an example of Christian violence. But history has shown that the Crusades were a response - albeit a wrong response - to 4 hundred years of Muslim aggression that preceded them. The followers of Muhammed were acting in accordance with their founder's command to kill unbelievers. The Crusades were acting in opposition to the teaching of their founder Jesus Christ. Why the radical departure from the Christian ethos of loving one another? Here's a Christian historian and thinker's narrative that might shed some light:
"For a man to remain holy, killing in warfare was strictly prohibited. The law forbade shedding blood in combat. But matters changed somewhat via the influence of Augustine who developed the doctrine of 'just war' and argued that it was possible to be a Christian and kill others in combat.
The Crusades changed everything and created a new image of Christian service: the warrior monk. Then both laity and clerics could regard military service and killing infidels as a valid, if not a preferable way of serving God and the church.
So technically speaking, the Crusades are regarded as more of a holy war than a pilgrimage, because of one crucial difference: pilgrimages are supposed to be unarmed and peaceful. Crusades were a series of military campaigns in which the Crusades' goal was salvation through warfare.
Jaspert suggests that the Crusades appealed to fighting men who now achieve absolution for sins through battle, and that war as a 'tool of God' was something new in European culture.
The Crusades, despite being often confused with pilgrimages, are in fact, holy wars. The goal was to retore Christianity's power and overall glory in Europe, but unfortunately, it failed, bringing society, government, economy and more down with it.
The ultimate, fatal difference was that the Crusades were holy wars whereas pilgrimages are holy voyages. But the most controversial food for thought is: did Europe really change for the better because of the Crusades, and were they moral?"
When all is said and done, it should be pointed out that insisting that Christ is the only way to heaven is a demonstration of love, not hatred, towards unbelievers.
"For a man to remain holy, killing in warfare was strictly prohibited. The law forbade shedding blood in combat. But matters changed somewhat via the influence of Augustine who developed the doctrine of 'just war' and argued that it was possible to be a Christian and kill others in combat.
The Crusades changed everything and created a new image of Christian service: the warrior monk. Then both laity and clerics could regard military service and killing infidels as a valid, if not a preferable way of serving God and the church.
So technically speaking, the Crusades are regarded as more of a holy war than a pilgrimage, because of one crucial difference: pilgrimages are supposed to be unarmed and peaceful. Crusades were a series of military campaigns in which the Crusades' goal was salvation through warfare.
Jaspert suggests that the Crusades appealed to fighting men who now achieve absolution for sins through battle, and that war as a 'tool of God' was something new in European culture.
The Crusades, despite being often confused with pilgrimages, are in fact, holy wars. The goal was to retore Christianity's power and overall glory in Europe, but unfortunately, it failed, bringing society, government, economy and more down with it.
The ultimate, fatal difference was that the Crusades were holy wars whereas pilgrimages are holy voyages. But the most controversial food for thought is: did Europe really change for the better because of the Crusades, and were they moral?"
When all is said and done, it should be pointed out that insisting that Christ is the only way to heaven is a demonstration of love, not hatred, towards unbelievers.