It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ParasuvO
reply to post by adjensen
Somehow I do not think you are Catholic, but some other denomination of Christian...if I read correctly.
Sorry to create that impression. The first three or four Crusades were indeed haphazard, suffering from lacks in the areas of supplies, control, tactics, and strategy. I maintain however, that the purpose of the Crusades was defensive.
You are a great guy, but what you posted there is one of the most bizarre apologias for any crusade that I have ever read.
You present the case as though any of the crusades were some kind of controlled application of military force, when, in fact, they were a hardly controlled mob.
Here are some extracts of an article he wrote on the subject:
Thomas F. Madden is associate professor and chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University. He is the author of numerous works, including A Concise History of the Crusades, and co-author, with Donald Queller, of The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople.
Many historians had been trying to set the record straight on the Crusades long before Clinton discovered them. They are not revisionists, . . . but mainstream scholars offering the fruit of several decades of very careful, very serious scholarship.
So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already by said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression — an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.
With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed's death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt — once the most heavily Christian areas in the world — quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul.
In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.
That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam.
One might think that three centuries of Christian defeats would have soured Europeans on the idea of a Crusade. Not at all. In one sense, they had little alternative. Muslim kingdoms were becoming more and more, not less, powerful in the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries. The Ottoman Turks conquered not only their fellow Muslims, thus farther unifying Islam, but also continued to press westward, capturing Constantinople and plunging deep into Europe itself. By the 15th century, the Crusades were no longer errands of mercy for a distant people but desperate attempts of one of the last remnants of Christendom to survive.
The estimates I've seen have put the number of deaths from the Inquisition at between 800-20,000 over all the centuries it was in existence. I'm not sure what you mean by "social war of attrition," but I'd like to learn.
And then adding up the victims of the inquisition, bunching them together, and saying that they, in total, amount to no more than had been killed in any war. charles1952? what about the social war of attrition that allowed the inquisition to take place to begin with?
Originally posted by POXUSA
Originally posted by DrunkYogi
Let's make no mistake here, The Vatican is a den of Pedophiles. This is known. You either deny or accept this, denying this is covering up the fact's. If you turn a blind eye you are a massive part of the problem. Turning a blind eye, to me, is giving these monster's your consensus. Most people know what they are!!! There will be no hiding the fact's. Shame on those who turn a blind eye, absolute shame. It's not a matter of people waking up, it's a time of admission, nothing more nothing less. Pretending something isn't there does not make it go away. It will only make it worse. God........I believe in Jesus but not the Vatican. You must see the difference, they are anti-Jesus.......Anti-Christ. Take your Ego and give it a shake, a slap, a mirror.
Your prejudicial rant is just an atheistic anti-Catholic diatribe with no foundation whatsoever. You are making it up and your language is that of an emotionally distraught housewife. There isn't a word of truth to your absurd charges. We Catholics won't even feel sorry for your kind - we feel nothing at all. DEFENDER OF THE FAITHedit on 23-3-2013 by POXUSA because: DEFENDER OF THE FAITH
Originally posted by adjensen
In your lengthy two day career here at ATS, you haven't noticed that there are already about three million anti-Catholic threads? Or did you just feel the need to add another?
Originally posted by charles1952
I believe this was asked before, but why is it that some people believe that the Catholic Church is particularly rich in homosexuals looking for teenagers (the majority of the complaints)? Catholic Priests were accused of sexual abuse at the same rate as men in the society at large.
I believe that sexual abuse in the Church is more shameful than other sexual abuse, but it wasn't being alleged more often than abuse outside of the Church.
Originally posted by DarknStormy
And what are the positive things they have done?