Were the Crusaders real Christians, or just opportunists?

>Catholics aren't Christian
>Protestants aren't Christian
Who are the real Christian's then?

The "protestants" were Catholics, and Catholics are not Christians.

Most of them are in hell.

Ok Varg Weekang

sad

BYZANTIUM

remember those Japs?

The crusaders were the ISIS of their time.

And Isis was a crusade of our times...

better than ISIS desu

Wrong. Killing a Saracen is a sure way to Heaven

Yeah, because they were more successful and weren't totally comparatively backwards like Muslim "armies". Still absolute shit-tier, morality-wise.

The Crusaders were the realest Christians of all time. Also even back then people were doing the soyboy face.

Keep telling yourself that. In the last days good will be called evil and evil will be called good.

>the virgin raymond iv
>The Chad Jihadi John

Matthew 11:12
>And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

Somehow I feel that evangelism will be punished more harshly than catholicism when the day of judgement comes.

.t Catholic

The Crusaders, Inquisition, and other "judgemental" people were the original Catholics before modernism infected the church.

/thread

>flipping through same chapters
>reading about the other commandments
>stumble on Exodus 22:18
>"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"
>hmmm maybe kill is a specific term used in a neighborly sense rather than a war sense
>nah fuck it I'll just listen to anons and their cursory understanding of the Bible they got from the one day they showed up at Sunday School a decade ago

Obviously they were a little bit of both.

It's pretty difficult to view Crusader history without biased eyes, given that during that time there was essentially no boundary between politics and religion; the state and the church were pretty much the same organization.

Crusaders were practically speaking just the military, but since the Church is involved it looks way more suspect than it is.

>the state and the church were pretty much the same organization.
The government is separate from the state.
>Crusaders were practically speaking just the military, but since the Church is involved it looks way more suspect than it is.
Even crusaders were volunteers, many from the lower classes, and the church was fighting a defensive war since muzzies took 2/3rds of Christian lands and purged them. The only problem with the crusades is that there weren't enough of them considering that the muzzies invaded Vienna multiple times afterwards.

>Jewish law doesn't apply
>Except when I think it applies

>quoting laws from Exodus
>what is supersessionism

they were g*rmanic pagans with crosses

>God wills it
>it fails
I can't see how you could be a Christian and believe God was on their side.

The 10 Commandments are from Exodus too

>Were the ISIS real Muslims? Or just opportunists?

They're real.

> walk to the holy land on foot
> face hordes of pagan turks with nothing but a fruit knife
> some faggot questions your faith on a pornimage board hundreds of years later

This.

Raping and pillaging= good

Having consensual sex= bad

The commandments weren't outmoded. The rules in Leviticus and elsewhere were. The commandments are still the covenant made with God, and Jesus says to keep them and that he's here to codify them. ffs it's been out for 2000 years just read the damn thing. You can find them for free easily.
What isn't. Read above.
lmfao right?? I was brought up to help people reach God, but I'm at the point where I think some people are just too stupid. Not that I'm a genius or anything but my God.
lmfao

>implying that consensual selling of ones own body parts to cannibals is bad
Fucking intolerant prick. There are religious groups in India that are encouraged to eat human meat you know. Not everyone is a religious atheist nutjob

Are you having a stroke?

literally what is wrong with the right?

A stroke of genius. Are you going to argue about something that doesn't even affect you is bad??

And where is banditry condoned? NT is constantly against that sort of thing. The crusades were initiated because:>Even crusaders were volunteers, many from the lower classes, and the church was fighting a defensive war since muzzies took 2/3rds of Christian lands and purged them. The only problem with the crusades is that there weren't enough of them considering that the muzzies invaded Vienna multiple times afterwards.

>"rich people in Europe did not actually believe in god they just used the church for power" meme

Everyone believed in God back then. Even enlightenment figureheads in the 18th century could not prove a god did not exist so they became deists. True atheism did not exist till the 19th century when the study of genetics and evolution became advanced enough for people to see that things can happen on their own without a god and only intellectuals had access to that information.

Why the fuck do you think the church made so much money off of indulgences. They weren't getting that from the peasantry.

Kek orthoLARPers are burning in hell.

>thou shalt not kill
>Deuteronomy 20:10-17

Yeah, that's why Jesus said you worship the devil and will spend eternity in hell for it - like you deserve.

"God gave me a license to murder anyone I want and this statement is the word of God." - Signed, me.

Enjoy hell!

youtube.com/watch?v=LJULx3yRdbk

And thou shall not help people to kill

I say that for the retarded American G.I in that dumb movie who think he'll escape hell unlike his buddies because he doesn't fire a shot despite having willingly joined a fucking war

It really depends on which crusade you're talking about....they're all extremely different

>the original Christians aren't Christians
Please stop posting in that stupid style.
Not that different user.

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Great interpretation, pr*ddie

> Implying you have ver done anything for anyone

I agree with you on the “both” theory. For example, during the First crusade Anna Comnene tells us (in the Alexiad) that commoners and knights were mostly moved by ardent faith. Nevertheless, she complained that the greater nobles were simply looking for a chance to bring credit, wealth and land to their Houses. An emblematic case (even though it follows the 1’ Crusade) is that of Guglielmo V degli Aleramici of Monferrato (Guilhem le vieux). He sent his two sons, Guglielmo Lunga Spada (Guilhem Longa-Espia) and Corrado (later Defender of Tire), to the Holy land in the hope of gaining elsewhere the power that his and others ancient noble Houses were losing at home (in this case Italy, due to rise of the Comuni and their new nobility). Guglielmo Lunga Spada married Sibylla of Jerusalem (and likely got poised by Lusignano &. Co. afterwards). The son of a lesser Marquis (almost a literal who) became suddenly (and briefly) King of Jerusalem. This and other similar cases fueled the belief (mostly for the noble Houses) that you could forge a new and better life in the Holy Land. Finally, as time went by, Crusades became a real shitfest with nothing holy but the name. About the legitimacy of war in Christian culture Saint Agostino had to rely on the Old Testament to justify it (and it was only if the conflict was defensive) but he himself wasn’t that convinced/ing. The concept of "Holy war" simply doesn't fit well in Christian philosophy (even though we did a bunch of them, it doesn’t mean they were justifiable)