QRUEL

I was wondering what bible verses would have been used to justify the killings behind the Crusades (or any other atrocity by the christian religion) ?

I had thought LUKE 19:27 would have been good one until it was pointed out to me that it was a parable and not a direct quote of Jeesus

LUKE 19:27
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

would it be fair to say that people who believe the bible to be innerrant would disregard the parable aspect and view the text as wholly literal ?

QRUEL

was this the correct forum for this ?

voodoomage

It really depends. I've met numerous individuals who treat the bible as innerrant and yet fail to agree on lots of issues. Its pretty easy to convince oneself that the bible says lots of things.

Toto

At the time of the Crusades, ordinary people did not read the Bible. The people who did read the Bible probably relied on the doctrine of Just War or something similar. People can justify anything.

But in regard to LUKE 19:27, I disagree with the usual Christian interpretation, which is that the King in the parable is saying the words, rather than Jesus.

AFAIK inerrantists do not treat Jesus' parables as literal truth, since they are being told as moral stories, not history.

Jack the Bodiless

The killing of unbelievers can be "justified" by the actions of Moses in the "Golden Calf" incident:

Roger Pearse

Unless this thread is going to involve referenced quotations from people at the time of the crusades using the bible to justify what they wanted to do, I have a feeling that it is off-topic.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Huon

If you are interested in the history of the Crusades, one important source is Archbishop William of Tyre :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Tyre

I have also a book, in french, from Georges Minois, (pron. minwa) called "l'Eglise et la guerre" (The Church and the war), which analyses in 500 pages, the evolution of the doctrine of the Church about the war, from the Bible to the atomic era.

About the massacre of Jerusalem, 1099, Minois says that it happened in an apocalyptic paroxysm. The Crusaders were the exterminator angels of God, with perhaps 40,000 dead in two days.

And William of Tyre says :
[Then] the princes set down their arms, changed their clothes, purified their hands, and, walking on their naked feet, with their hearts full of humility and contrition, they felt duty bound to visit the venerable spots that the Saviour of the world wanted to illustrate and sanctify with his presence.
All of them moved forward with the greatest devotion, moaning, crying, embracing all the objects with pious homages, and raising to the sky their deep sighs.

It must also be mentioned that the Crusades were preceded by anti-Jews pogroms in 1065 (condemned by Pope Alexander II) and in 1096, reported by chronicler Albert d'Aix. [Aix is Aix-la-Chapelle in french, Aachen in german, on the Rhine near Cologne].

Chronicler Raoul Glaber (Rodulfus or Ralph Glaber, see Wiki) reports also, that in 1033, there was a famine, and that the population was terrorised, because they believed that the end of the world was coming (1000 years after the death of Christ).

Alf

For some strange reason that is without exception something that is in total agreement with what the person reading it subscribe to.

In other words a person who thinks gay should be wiped off form the face of the earth can read the bible and find that that is exactly what it says. Another person thinks that the bible is a message of unconditional love and guess what? When that person reads the bible he reads exactly that! A third person thinks that the bible talks about condemning those with lots of money and that you should give away everything you own if you want to get to heaven - and he too find support for his view in the bible. A fourth person thinks that accumulating wealth is just good as long as you do it without hurting other people and he too find support for his view in the bible.

This is the key to the success of the bible as a holy book - whatever you think, you will find that the bible agrees with you. Well, except for atheists and others who do not believe there is a god - the bible clearly disagree with that, which is why they are not christians.

The reason why the bible is so flexible is that it is partly so vague on many points and partly conflicting with itself so that everyone who claim themselves to take it literally picks and chooses which parts they interpret literally and which parts they ignore and it is human nature that you ignore that which is in dissonans with your own opinions and you pay attention to that which is in agreement with your own opinion. Unfortunately this is also exactly why the bible is useless as a moral and ethical guide - something most christians have problems to understand.

Alf

gregor

Let me agree with Roger - I doubt this thread will track what Biblical justifications were used for the Crusades. The question is more properly, what papal justifications were used.

There were some contemporaneous chronoclers of the Crusades (say that three times). A good book on the 4th Crusade is

http://www.amazon.com/-Fourth-Crusad...705628?ie=UTF8

Julian

Well, the original speech that motivated the crusades was given by Urban II at Claremont in 1095 and can be found here, complete with bible quotes (it's short, go ahead and click): http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2a.html

Julian