Have Christians committed atrocities throughout the world?
- Thread starter Jonathan95
- Start date
-
- Tags
- christianity history islam violence
- Status
Give concrete examples, and then we can have a discussion.
This is accurate. Islam (traditionally) does not distinguish between the secular and the religious.
As a high school student I visited a mosque on a class trip. The imam referred to the visiting students as "Christians". I remember a few of the students were confused! (I think at one was Zoroastrian.) This was in Hamilton, Ontario, and somehow, despite living there, the imam was utterly ignorant.
RobertPGH1981
Puritan Board Sophomore
I have listened to a few audio books on the crusades and I must say that the politics and reasons of why Christians went to war very complicated. Christians did do very terrible things during this era but so did the muslims. You will also find stories of valor and some of greed and tremendous sin. Most people who like to point to the Crusades as an example of Christians being atrocious tend to miss the 500 years of Islamic expansion prior. For example, Mohammad came on the scene in the year 620'ish AD and by 732 AD Islamic armies conquered the Iberian Peninsula and Spain. In 732 a famous battle is recorded between these same forces in France, since they were marching into conquer France to further push into Europe. The Muslims were defeated and pushed back into Spain. From Christian sources the battle was called 'The Battle of Tours' or the 'Battle of Poitiers' but the muslims call it 'The Battle of the Highway of Martyrs'. Many more examples could be said but closer to 1095 Pope Urban called the crusades in response to the Eastern Church losing major cities to the Muslims. Its focus was the taking back of Jerusalem and to setup safe Christian roadways to the holy city.
Here are a few books I have read/listened to which tend to have their own biases.
1. The Crusades: The Authoritative History of the War for the Holy Land by. Thomas Asbridge
2. The Crusades - Christopher M. Bilitto (audible university lectures)
Jonathan95
Puritan Board Sophomore
So very interesting, thank you!
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
And not every Crusade was equal. The first and (mostly) second crusades were legitimate counter-attacks to centuries of Islamic invasion.
Agreed.
The scale and nature of the Islamic incursions on Europe are staggering. Whole cities, falling prey to Saracen pirates, were burned, their populations put to the sword and enslaved. This had been going on for centuries before the First Crusade was called, and not in the far-flung Levant. These attacks were taking place in Greece, Italy, and southern France. Iberia (Spain and Portugal) had fallen long before. Malta and Sicily were Muslim. (Fun fact: Maltese is a Semitic language, derived from the language of its conquerors.)
Somehow popular imagination has made the Arabs out to be the innocent victims of oppression.
See the Ridley Scott film Kingdom of Heaven for an atrociously inaccurate presentation of the Crusades. The innocent Muslim caravans are mercilessly slaughtered by the bloodthirsty Templars. Meanwhile, Saladin, who in history was as conniving and bloody as they come, is a wise and gracious hero who, apparently, can do no wrong.
I do not justify the crusades as a religious venture (there's a lot wrong there) and I do not intend to erase the actual horrors that crusaders committed (there were plenty of those) but as a matter of defence and self-preservation, the Crusade was an effective means of taking the war to the enemy.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Agreed. The opening sword fight in the woods with that big German dude was pretty cool. The movie was awful after that.
Some good battle scenes. That German was one of the best characters, and he was only onscreen for all of five minutes. That says something about the film overall.
Susan777
Puritan Board Sophomore
I read of one battle that was fought on two sides of a river. Both sides had captives of the other side. The Muslims beheaded the infidels and placed the heads on high poles. So the crusaders, not to be outdone, beheaded the same number of Muslim soldiers and loaded their primitive cannons with the heads and sent them sailing over the other side.
Perhaps this fits better with a new OP, but sometimes in warfare retribution is common and (some would argue) necessary.
This same thing happened in the Civil War a few times as well, Union forces started shooting Southern stragglers caught behind the lines, so Confederate General Mosby counted the number up and shot the same amount of Union prisoners and sent a letter of warning as a means to end further bloodshed. (in actuality, they ended up letting several run free and didn't hunt them down)... It worked.
It would seem the lion's share of the guilt is upon the side which first commits to such an action, forcing a like retaliation from the other side.
A modern equivalent would be the doctrine of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), that, if the Soviets nuked us, we'd nuke them back in retaliation. Few have held out for a position that "We will never nuke back" knowing that like retribution is essential to their survival.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Sometimes even in war Christians and Muslims can work together. In the Balkans Christian Serbs were shooting and Muslims, and the Muslims were returning fire. A rabbit hopped through the middle of the field. Both sides being superstitious about rabbits, they stopped shooting and each other and opened fire on the rabbit. They got him.
But who got to eat the rabbit?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
There wasn't much left.
OPC'n
Puritan Board Doctor
Can we reason this: "The Crusades are the only example of mass violence against Muslims by a religious organization which were brought about by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is not a Christian organization. Therefore, there has never been an atrocity committed against the Muslims by a Christian organization."?
Last edited:
The Catholic Church was the Church. It was only at the Council of Trent that so many heretical views of the church were formally adopted. Throughout the ancient era and the middle ages - unless we affirm some sort of separate 'trail of blood" - the Catholic Church was the Church.
As far as the Crusades went. It was waged by secular governments, with the encouragement and the backing of the Church. The Church did not wage it, but was part of it. As a secular war, it was just. Just with weird religious beliefs mixed in such as indulgences for the pilgrimage to the Holy Land and the taking up of the Cross.
There are always atrocities even in the cleanest of wars. Some unjust acts occurring in a war do not invalidate the just cause of the war. Especially when the same is committed by the other side as well.
OPC'n
Puritan Board Doctor
The the Great Schism and the Schism of 1054, was when the Catholic Church broke in two which is now the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church. The Roman Catholic Church by this time had already started to fall into bad doctrine. This was way before the Crusades. Emperor Alexios and Pope Urban II had visions of reuniting the church and Alexios was having war troubles. This led Alexios to asking Urban for help. Urban rallied Catholics to fight and together they recaptured the Holy Land.
But it was the secular princes that responded and went and fought and ruled. The Pope was the Speechifier that got it started and many bishops were like the cheerleaders and the mascots and advisors. Church and State were mixed together, that is true.
Doctrine was bad from the first century of the Church. And yet it was still the Church, and salvation was found within Her. We have the ancient creeds from Her and I thank God for her.
OPC'n
Puritan Board Doctor
I agree. The church didn't die out during this time.
It was a pretty sad mess at many times.... but then again, look at so much of the Church right now. God always preserves a people, however.
wcf_linux
Puritan Board Freshman
Not as long a memory as you think. Until the modern colonial era, the Crusades were for Muslims a story of them defeating Frankish invaders. When Europeans started dominating parts of the old Ottoman Empire, the local Muslims learned the romanticized stories of the Crusades that the Europeans told. Think things like Sir Walter Scot's novels. Those stories, which falsely made the crusades a foretaste of then-growing European power, were then picked up and turned around by many in the Muslim world. So the crusades have only been an ancient memory of great wrongs for a surprisingly small number of generations.
I can try run down my sources on that, but I'm pretty sure Bernard Lewis wrote on that point in particular. His book What Happened? is informative, though of course like any writing on the subject matter is controversial.
Thanks for sharing this. I'd be interested to read more, if you do end up digging up any sources.
RobertPGH1981
Puritan Board Sophomore
@Pergamum, @OPC'n - I agree with what Perg said in that it was a defensive war.
But I don't think is was that simple considering that the Church was essentially a governmental power; the call to crusade was a call that rang throughout the known Christian world as a form of duty. Pair this with Just War Theory and include other principles such as taking up your cross then you see a large population of self proclaimed believers answering the call. We would have a mixture of believers selling all they have to join the crusade, and others who were only interested in the financial benefits to gain riches and procure new land. The former thought they were truly answering this God in accordance with Gods will. Christianity was ingrained in their culture so that people's lives appeared to be Christian, but that doesn't mean all lived by its principles. But like today you would have a large 'Christian' population with the minority of that population being true believers.
With that said, there were many incidents that happened during the crusades trouble us today. The part that confuses the argument is that we would all agree is that not all self-proclaimed Christians are Christian. Because of this it shouldn't surprise us that terrible things happened from both sides.
But I don't think is was that simple considering that the Church was essentially a governmental power; the call to crusade was a call that rang throughout the known Christian world as a form of duty. Pair this with Just War Theory and include other principles such as taking up your cross then you see a large population of self proclaimed believers answering the call. We would have a mixture of believers selling all they have to join the crusade, and others who were only interested in the financial benefits to gain riches and procure new land. The former thought they were truly answering this God in accordance with Gods will. Christianity was ingrained in their culture so that people's lives appeared to be Christian, but that doesn't mean all lived by its principles. But like today you would have a large 'Christian' population with the minority of that population being true believers.
With that said, there were many incidents that happened during the crusades trouble us today. The part that confuses the argument is that we would all agree is that not all self-proclaimed Christians are Christian. Because of this it shouldn't surprise us that terrible things happened from both sides.
I generally avoid referring to the mediæval church as the Roman Catholic Church. The term can lead to confusion with what came later, as during the Counter-Reformation, when false mediæval doctrines were codified and the gospel anathematized.
Howard the Reformer
Puritan Board Freshman
What is more alarming in the statement from the boy in Hausa is that he is blaming "Christians" for what happened to "our parents and grandparents". Then his statement about vengeance is equally immoral. By his logic and his religion he is morally justified to murder someone who has not committed any crime against himself by killing them for who they are and for crimes supposedly committed by others.
This prevailing attitude among most of those proclaiming the Muslim faith is why Christianity and Muslims can never be reconciled. And yes I say "most" due to the fact that anytime a Muslim group commits an atrocity against Christians do you hear from the "moderate" Muslims condemning the atrocity? No and that is why tacit silence is in fact agreement. The Muslim faith is a false faith of conquest, murder of those who do not accept their faith, subjugation of women, etc.. Why in the world there are those who claim we (Christians) must find a way to live peacefully with this false religion from hell is beyond me. I do not advocate violence but I do advocate that we have nothing to do with these murdering savages.
My polemic is not intended to be any more than my opinion. While I believe there are facts contained herein in my argument the conclusions are mine.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Good point. I don't know why Muslims would play the victim about the Crusades. Strictly speaking, they won.
jwright82
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Completely agree. Thanks for that because I didn't know quite were you were going with your question to me. I agree that the crusaders had to fight back out of necessity (being invaded will do that to you) does that justify everything they did, no but it did justify the war in the first place. And the Muslims weren't the nicest people in the world. But history is complicated, so I'm always skeptical of people who describe some event as "oh that was simply because of this".
I also think "Kingdom of Heaven" was a horrible portrayal of things (one more reason I tell people in my life don't get your history from movies). I still liked it as a movie though.
But getting to the OP, yes Christian's have committed atrocities but each so called atrocity has to be examined in its time and place. Sometimes you'll see they were right and sometimes not, and sometimes the waters too murky to see.
jwright82
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I did not know that. My point was however they got this in their head, and however far back chronologicaly it was, the cultural memory theve created goes back to then (at least in their minds). That's what I meant
jwright82
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I agree but from a social context I do strive to live peaceably with my neighbor, regardless of their beliefs (and I know we all agree on that).
As far as my comment on atheists saying that "Communism was just another religion comment", even if one grants that (and I won't grant that), how do they reckon with the Jacobian faction taking over the French revolution and bringing about the reign of terror? The Jacobians were Atheists, I know it was more complicated than that but if Atheists want to simplify things than so will I. Moral of the story, every sinful human being is capable of all evil, regardless their creed.
- Status
Similar threads
