2006-10-11 16:03:38 · 11 answers · asked by . 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Oh no, we ain't to blame...they are! hehehehehe
2006-10-11 16:08:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
A war has two opposing groups. In this case, one group called it Crusades, that is a HolyWar a Jehad. The other party didnot. At that time, all Christian powers of Europe fought together, because for them it was a Crusade. All the Muslim powers then did not join; and there were great powers in India, in Egypt, in Iran, then. So, historically, it was a one-sided holy war. The Muslim General who defeated the Crusaders was not an Arab. He was a Kurd (Kurdistan is yet a large territory without autonomy, lies scattered and fragmented in Iran, Turkey, Iraq). Kurd General's name was Salahuddin, anglicised as Saladin.** Christians are welcome to call it as a Holy War, despite cruelties and excesses against Women, Children, and the Old, inclusive of mass murders and ethnic genocide.
2006-10-12 05:26:29 · answer #2 · answered by sunamwal 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Religion was the device used to convince people to fight the crusades, and obviously giving things religious names was an important part of that. Ultimately, however, the crusades were about money. Still, the fact that Christianity can be used so easily to manipulate large groups of people to such an extent is pretty scary.
2006-10-11 23:07:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Sure, the Crusades had to do with religion, since religious beliefs were used to rally the Crusaders. But the Crusades had NOTHING to do with Christ's teachings in the NT. There is NOTHING Christian about the Crusades. They were simply in violation of Christian teachings. You would be hardpressed to find any NT teachings that teaches Christians to wage war in the name of Christ.
2006-10-11 23:08:41 · answer #4 · answered by Seraph 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
but let me tell you. that in every HOLY BOOK IS VERSE THAT SAYS ABOUT FIGHTING AND kILLING BUT -- IT WAS MEANT FOR self-defense NOT TO RAGE A WAR AGAINST ANYONE. but you will see that FEW people have used these verses for their own personal benefits.
religions are really good and they do jhave a good message -- be it Christianity, Hinduism, Jewism, Islam, Budhhism, Jainism, etc -- but the same cannot be said about the followers of a religion. so blame the GUILTY people not the religion and the rest of its followers.
and hey i am not a christian.
2006-10-11 23:17:46 · answer #5 · answered by marissa 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am sure at the time they thought they were serving the cross of Jesus but now we look back we can see they were misslead. but we can not change the past only suport or condem it which ever we do others will find fault with
2006-10-12 07:05:53 · answer #6 · answered by Sam's 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree that they had alot to do with religion...but they had very little to do with Christ. Let us stop judging Christ by the actions of imperfect men...
2006-10-11 23:07:49 · answer #7 · answered by whitehorse456 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Religion, yes. As an excuse.
Christ, no. He never taught such things.
It's really not that hard!!!
2006-10-11 23:07:10 · answer #8 · answered by dave 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
they started it
2006-10-12 00:12:55 · answer #9 · answered by Jackie B 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Aren't you tired of this yet?
2006-10-11 23:05:29 · answer #10 · answered by Lorraine R 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋