How were the crusades justified?

I understand there was severe persecution and that the crusades were justified in that sense, but how was it done while remaining in line with the bible and, in particular the teachings of Jesus Christ?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=-ilFbbk9jw4&t=1769s
thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/notes/islamchron.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

DEUS VULT

DEUS VULT

...

>tfw the crusades ended up losing eastern europe to islam

Have you read the Bible? Shit is non-stop war of trying to claim and reclaim the Holy land. Many such excursions.

Only now do all the atrocities from the bible are starting to make sense when the world gets full of heretical infidels and women start to run the world does everything goes to a full on shit show

I'll just leave this here.

#Popedidnothingwrong

Everyone has read that already. It doesn't answer my question.

To be more clear, what passages, interpreted in what way justify the crusades?

I'm not even baiting, I legitimately want to know.

Self defense. See

>I understand there was severe persecution and that the crusades were justified in that sense

Much of it wasn't justified, but anything that wasn't can be rectified with the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

part 1-9

part 2-9

part 3-9

part 4-9

part 5-9

BY GODS WILL!

part 6-9

part 7-9

part 8-9

part 9-9

what video?

>tfw if that last war between the Sassanids and Byzantines didn't happen Islam probably wouldn't have spread beyond Arabia

thanks user.

Could any Christians in this thread answer whether or not drug use is a sin and if so what textual support there is for that?

depends what you mean by "justified". the Normans were hired by the leadership to genocide the subhuman invader parasites... just like what's about to happen again because you retards let kikes run your country and need the Norman descendants to come to your rescue again. You're not going to use cuckianity as a cover this time though, fuck that shit-ligion and fuck any notions that the jew mafia will keep any of its ill-begotten gains. Normandy FTW!

1 Corinthians 13:4-8
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 IT ALWAYS PROTECTS, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.

> how were 200 years worth of nine seperate military campaigns against disparate oppositions justified?

You know what? Fuck it. I understand that Protestants or agnostics or what ever the fuck you arclaim to believe in o not understand Catholithism, and that's alright.

But for real nigger, why do you even call your asses Christian at this point. I can look at an Orthidoxbro and understand that we may take divergent paths, but the endpoint is as least the same.

Hell is too good for crypto-kikes like you. (Threats do not apply to Lutherans, who technically do get to go to Heaven, whether they struggle against it or not)

here

> youtube.com/watch?v=-ilFbbk9jw4&t=1769s

They are not , some of them where , some crusades were just about killing what would be protestants today

The only difference between the crusades and what isis is doing with all the bombings is the date on the calender's.

no probs mate ur wc

From what my history teacher taught me in high school

The Crusades happens because of Saracen expansion, conquest, rape and pillaging. Remember, Islams was not a thing back then.
The Crusades are seen today by liberal revisionist as a barbaric satanic gay ass blood orgy for mass killing of muslims REMEMBER muslims did not exist.

Few of these Crusades, are not real Crusades but a "Don't pay me and i''ll fuck you up" hence forth the Constantinople sacking, they did'int pay their due, so they got a beating

Then the rest of Crusades became a clusterfuck.

Oh and the Pope was a warmongering badass

DO NOT take my word for it, that's what my history teacher taught me

>a leaf history teacher admitted that Saracens were evil invaders

I have a hard time believing that tbqh

here is more info refer to this link, which is from the Latin libraries

> thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/notes/islamchron.html

Booty
It's always about Booty

>Dirty Francs

They weren't...
Real Christians would have welcomed the Muslims like swedes. I've always thought MLK was perfect Christian and that good Christians should be democratic socialists and liberals generally. The crusaders pagan blood still sought to conquer but had been cucked by the Hebrews and confused. So it could be justified by our nothern blood seeing Muslim threat and taking brave action. not by Jesus slave religons.

cringe

You went through so much effort to tell me shit I already know, I'm sorry I looked away from this thread for a bit.

My question is much simpler, The actions of islam matter little. What passages are used to reconcile the crusade with the bible. As far as I can tell it can't really be done.

Yes I'm already aware of this, and have been since it was posted. Chasing some guys around with a whip does not a crusade make.

look at this post, both pic and verses

If my memory servers me right it was 8 years ago, 2nd year of high school, we were given a book (in french) that talked about the Greek/Romans era, the medieval times skipped to the Crusades, then hard skip to renaissance/bourgeoisie i wish i could link the book ... lots of pictures too, looks like its a 1990 ish type publication

i guess my teacher was a hard core European fan

>persecution
The first crusade started out because the Byzantine emperor needed help to regain Anatolia after they got destroyed by the Turks in 1071. A coalition formed and the captured most of Anatolia
(Majority Christian land) and continued to Antioch where they destroyed another Turkish army and solidified their rule there(yet another Christian state) they then continued on to secure eddessa(majority Christian) and tripoli/Lebanon (majority Christian). And continued to capture Palestine and Jerusalem(partially mudslime and Christian). It was more a political venture than a religious one of liberating lands of the former Roman Empire from the mudslimes and reinstating the church freeing the populace from shariah law.

Mudslimes invade Spain - Crusaders Push mudslimes out

Mudslimes try and invade Poland - mudslimes lose to winged hussars

Mudslimes held Jerusalem but failed in taking Europe.

Death to Islam

Thank you, I was ready to give up. Been wondering this for quite some time. Troubling me in fact.

The concept of Crusade is a war fought to liberate Christians from oppression. There were many military conflicts in Medieval Europe which fell into this category. I think the most noble crusade was the Reconquista where the Spanish expelled the Muslim invaders from their lands.

The crusades for the Holy Land were kind of stupid because of the collateral damage they caused to innocent civilians and Eastern Orthodox Christians and the fact that they could have just used diplomatic channels to reopen Christian pilgrimages to Jerusalem.

...

ur wc user

>Islams was not a thing back then
You had a pretty shit teacher if he thought Islam didn't exist in the 11th Century...
>Pope was a warmondering badass
I like the sentiment but it was more elaborate then just warmongering. The Pope was trying to use the crusades as leverage to reunite a disunified Europe and then take politcal power over the European Kings in a way.