₦airaland Forum

Image123: shoot na. Sorry I've been busier than nl. So answer the two questions.

I thought you were smart enough to figure it out

If I am an atheist then I do not believe in heaven. This indicates I have no interest in heaven other than for discussion purposes.

She is trolling, and messing around. If she cant tell us what the miracle was then how can we know if a miracle occured or not.

Or maybe she isnt confident that it will stand up to scrutiny

The crusade of kings.... what went wrong?

coming soon!!!!!!

Outcome of the crusades
A lot came as a result of the crusades, technology transfer from the east to the west. Trade made Italian city states wealthy (Milan and Venice in particular), new military-religious orders were formed for healthcare and warfare. The first real global banking network was created (by the Knights Templar).

There was however a darker, more insidious outcome of the crusades...

The pope and the RCC now had a potent weapon. The crusades were never about fighting muslims but fighting the enemies of God. Who were these enemies? Only the popes could say and hence crusades were done against pagans (wendish crusade) and xtians (albigensian crusade).
The albigensian crusade was painful. They were known as Cathars, a group of xtians in south France (Languedoc) who were deemed heretical. The pope called for a crusade against them and a disastrous warfare began the destroyed much of the economy of that region of France (they never really recovered). A lot of them were slaughtered, burned etc.
Finally it all came back to the Byzantines. The fourth crusade was hijacked and diverted against them and the byzantines ended up in them being conquered by the crusaders. The pillage and plunder of Constantinople is one of the worst in history. Treasures of over 1000 years of Roman rule were plundered like the worst the Vandals delivered on Rome. The RCC was established in Constantinople but how long would it last?

Rejuvenation of Islam.
Just like how the 100 years war between England and France united France and gave it its identity the crusades united Islam in the Near East and gave it a common enemy. If ever there was a call for jihad this was it. Xtian warrirors attacking, pillaging and killing muslims was more than enough to inspire the least fanatical in Islam. Now they needed unity. The warring crusader states allowed that. The crusaders half asleep and constantly at war with themselves allowed Saladin to creep up and unify Islam (through bloodshed of course) before turning his sword against Xtianity and capturing Jerusalem. So after 100 years Jerusalem was back in Muslim hands. The pope died of shock on hearing the news. A new crusade was called.... the one of kings. England, France and the Holy Roman Emperor. 3 mega titans against the Saladin.

What was the crusade all about?

The Byzantines needed help to fight the Turks. They had witnessed how Frankish and Norman Knights had aided the Spanish kingdoms to fight the Moors of Africa in Spain. He wanted something similar. In Spain the knights fought as part of armies of the Spanish kingdoms with no separate agendas. This was why it was so successful. In the crusades the Normans and Franks had their dukes, barons and other monarchs present and with intentions to hold conquered territories and establish their own kingdoms so greed was a motivating factor.

The Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox church had been divided and at times in opposition since the great schism. As the byzantines controlled most of the pilgrim routes to Jerusalem they made most of the money from worship, donations etc from pilgrims. It was deemed essentially by the RCC (most likely by the pope) that this be reversed and they have a major presence in the region.

The conquest of Jerusalem set the fatimids at war with the crusader states and eventually with the byzantines hence dragging this war into a Christian–muslim affair.... one the muslims were always going to win in the long run.

PERFIDY
This has been of great debate since.

Antioch was in Turkish hands but Jerusalem was in Fatimid hands. An agreement by Alexius to the Fatimid ruler of Egypt (Vizier of Egypt) was already in place to ensure the Fatimids supported his and the Crusaders wars against the Turks. They actually did. They refused to support the Turks even when they requested it. The invasion and conquest of Jerusalem was perfidy to them by Alexius.

Did alexius know the crusaders plan to conquer Jerusalem? Of course he did. Everyone knew. He planned to use this is to enrich himself and with his oaths enforce the crusaders to abandon all conquered territories to him (including Jerusalem). The moment a regent of Jerusalem was declared (no king of Jerusalem as jesus was the king of Jerusalem... or something along those lines) he was put against the new crusader territories and became an enemy to some extent.
So the new territory had the turks as enemy to the north, the fatimids to the south and east (Damascus) and now the byzantines to the north and northwest.
The fatimids immediately responding by sending an army to crush the crusaders and take Jerusalem. It was defeated and only then were the crusaders given some respite however the crusader lands were divided into 4 main territories (County of Edessa, County of Tripoli, Principality of Antioch and Kindgom of Jerusalem). The whole territory was known as the Latin Kingdom of the Orient or OutRemer.

Note: Edessa was the first Christian kingdom conquered and held by the crusaders (Nicaea was given back to Alexius). The Christians in Edessa rebelled and pushed out their Turkish rulers. Hence it was taken with no bloodshed.

Crusader Lords
Franks

Godfrey of Bouillon
Raymond IV of Toulouse
Stephen II of Blois
Baldwin of Boulogne
Eustace III of Boulogne
Robert II of Flanders
Hugh I of Vermandois

Normans
Robert II of NormandyBohemond of TarantoTancred of Taranto
Of the two main groups the Franks were the most preferable or agreeable when it came to byzantine affairs. Alexius had a mutual understanding with some and got along well with the others.

The Normans however were his bitter enemies in Greece and Italy. He was very sceptical as to how to go about working with them.

He got all the Franks (without too much difficulty) to agree by oath to hand over any conquered territory back to him (some they did.)

The Normans initially refused to take the oath but would eventually give in. Tancred refused outright and never stayed in Byzantium. He smuggled across at night.

The initial march across Asia minor was successful and the crusaders worked hard together to capture Niceae (current Iznik) only for it to be handed over to Alexius. This angered the Normans who felt betrayed. This would be the beginning of things to come.

To summarise, they marched through Turkey, fought and won some great battles (Dorylaeum) and conquered Antioch (where a supposed miracle occurred :-D)
At Antioch the crusader took the main city after months of siege only for them to fail to take the citadel (fortress inside the city). A massive Turkish army had arrived with plans to reconquer the city back. The Franks had fled to get help from the Byzantines but after seeing the large Turkish army they decided the city was lost and abanded the Normans and other crusaders to their fate.
With no food and the Turkish held citadel constantly attacking them, the remaining crusaders in Antioch (Normans and others) experienced a miracle.... the lance used to pierce Jesus on the cross was found. This inspired them to victory against the much larger Turkish army. They ambushed the scattered army early in the morning and the army fled. Antioch was now in crusader hands.
From here they marched to Jerusalem and captured it (after another supposed miracle). The Normans were very vibrant in this conquest and Tancred was supposedly the first knight to enter the city. There is no doubt that they played a major role in the brutal slaughter that was to come. They killed every non xtian in the city.
Jerusalem was proclaimed xtian and latin and a regent was selected (by Adhemar of course) to rule.

striktlymi: Sir Atheist

I am of the opinion that the Seljuk Turks defeated the 
Byzantine army in 1071 and cut off Christian access to Jerusalem, which prompted Alexis I, the Byzantine ruler at the time to implore the aid of Pope Urban II and Western Christian leaders, for fear that all Asia Minor would fall into the hands of the Turks. I believe he was even the one who brought up the idea of the crusade or Pilgrimage which he believes will be directed at freeing Jerusalem from Muslim rule.

When the Turks defeated Alexis I, they cut-off all access into the Holy land, they destroyed a number of holy sites sacred to Christians and the ruthless ruler
caliph Al-Hakim ensured that Christians were persecuted under the Fatimid.

These set the stage for the decision to embark on the first Crusade. I know that the Crusaders lost focus later on, especially after they suffered defeats but it does not mean that the first Crusade was politically motivated from the word go.

It is not uncommon for selfish individuals to use something formed for a good purpose to their selfish interest. An example is the case of the ban of Okada in some places in Lagos. I know full well that the ban was in part but today in Lagos, some police men are carrying out the order as if it was a total ban because of their selfish motive.

I also know for a fact that it is quite common too for conspiracy theorist to take advantage of some situation but really I don't think this totally explains the motive behind the first Crusade. I agree that other Crusades were motivated by Politics, Economics etc but the first Crusade is kinda different.

Thank you!

Jerusalem was in the hands of the fatimids. There was a sea route but it was costly. The land route through anatolia made it easier but was also longer. Either way could have fought the Turks and capured anatolia... left jerusalem with the fatimids as it had always been.

Crusader lords coming soon!!!!!

striktlymi: Sir Atheist,

I believe the first Crusade started before 1099 because the Byzanthine empire was suffered defeat in about 1071.

Possibly 1098 or near about.

The crusading message

The pope discussed with Bishop Adhemar as to how best to proceed. The decision was to have a presence in the region that was catholic and controllable by the latin kingdoms (not italian but any kingdom that practised catholicism). This would best be done if jerusalem was captured and brought under the papacy.

Adhemar preached the crusade ideal in Clermont and got good support and interest. Many knights from France Italy and even Germany took the cross and plans were made. These knights fell into 2 main camps Franks and Normans.

This division would affect later crusades and destabilise the region.

To summarise: the decision was to capture jerusalem from the fatimids? Why? Alexius wanted support against the turks not the capture of jerusalem.

Situation in the East:

The Fatimids, Byzantine and Turks were a triangle in the east, all at war with each other. The byzantines held greece, bulgaria and parts of turkey.

The fatimids held egypt, syria, jordan and palestine (including jerusalem).

The Turks held largr territories swaying from Baghdad in Iraq to Turkey,Syria etc.

The Byzantines and Fatimids had agreements in place that allowed pilgrims to access jerusalem safely. This had been in place for at least 100 years.

The arrival of the Turks hiwever put pressure on this. The Turks actively engaged bith the byzantines naand the fatimids in warfare and conquered territories from both hence the byzantines formed and alliance with the fatimids.

YES.. THE FATIMIDS AND BYZANTINES WERE ALLIES.

Alexius (byzantine emperor) requested the pope to convince Western European knights aid his wars with the Turks to help protect his borders and help make passage safer for pilgrims. He was hoping for mercenary knights to aid his army. The byzantines were the greatest Xtian kingdom in the east.

The byzantines had also fought the Franks for Ravenna over 100years ago and for numerous territories in Italy. This had passed on to the HRE who were crowned by the previous popes as the leader of the romans. This put them at odds with the byzantines.

The Normans had seized territory in Italy from both Byzantine and HRE. They had also invaded Greece.

It is doubtful that Alexius would want such enemies commanding territories on his borders independently.

striktlymi: Please do, I am all eyes

Ok.

Players
Byzantine empire ( Eastern Orthodox Xtians)
Fatimids of Egypts (Sunni muslims)
Turks (Seljuk and Danishmend) (mostly sunni too)
Franks (Catholics)
Normans (Catholics)
Italian city states (Venice, Genoa, Pisa, Milan) at the time part of the Holy Roman Empire
Holy Roman Empire (Catholic)
Catholic church
Eastern orthodox church

Time period of first crusade 1099

Preceding events
Turk defeat of Byzantine armies at Manzikert leading to civil war and Turks overrunning asia minor ( Current day Turkey)
Terk invasion of Fatimid territoties in Syria
Norman conquest of England (1066)
Norman conquest of Southern Italy (pushed out Byzantine influence)
Norman conquest of sicily and Norman invasions of greece (controlled by Byzantines)
Investiture controversy (Normans aided the pope)
Alexius defeat of the Bulgarians and victories against Turks in Asia minor.

Franks and Normans aid the independent kingdoms if Castile and Aragon to fight the Moors in Spain.

striktlymi: Hi,

I guess you would say there won't be a plausible reason if every Church in the North decides to take up arms in defense against Bokoharam.

The crusades were a very different ball game. It was a political movement with diffrrent players each satisfying their objectives.

It did more bad than good.

I could go into the history but only if you are interested.

caseless: the GODLESS, are u saying this? I dont disagree with the part u said 'people can endure hardship when we believe God can solve our problems'.

NB: prayer is not our problem, it is those that prays that are our problem.

It is both. Mostly the illusion (or delusion) that prayer can solve anything. If werent expecting miracles we would focus on solving the problem ourselves.

Frostyzone: But they tend to stick together when arguing against atheist.

But they argue with different objectives and through different means. They also display different characters.

striktlymi: Good morning,

I really had to struggle with myself before responding to your 'inquiry'. I agree that some of the primary actors in the crusades lost their focus along the way but this is not to say that the crusades started without plausible reasons.

I don't believe that every form of killing is wrong. There are times when one would kill because it is the right thing to do and when one does right, he or she pleases God. This might seem a bit harsh at first glance but a cursory look would reveal the truth in the statement.

Thanks!

There was no plausible reason for the crusades.

So you didnt break down the xtian denominations?

Xtians too are very diverse. You need to look into that.

vislabraye: If prayer is a placebo, then it must be a very powerful one.
I don't know the placebo that can make the blind to see, the deaf to hear or the dead to rise again. I want more of that placebo.
In my short stao on earth, I know what this placebo has done for me and other people.

Go and read up some more on placebos. Most ppl thoight it worked for them too.

striktlymi: What good is there? What’s the use?
If I can preach about the most Blessed Trinity, argue my case convincingly with evidence from sacred scriptures without error but the way I live my life makes a mockery of everything the Most holy Trinity stands for?

What good is there? What’s the point?

If I claim to know God and have a personal relationship with him but can’t seem to recognize him in the lowly traveler, the poor beggar or I can’t stand being in the presence of a simpleton asking for directions?

What good is there? What’s the point?
If I can prove the existence of God such that everyone is convinced but the way I live my life screams to the highest heavens: There is no God!

What good is there? What’s the point?
If I can describe heaven succinctly but in the final analysis I did not do enough to merit heaven?

What good is there? What’s the point?
If I can give a million bucks as tithe but can’t afford to give a sachet of pure water to the poor guy on the streets who probably might die of dehydration the very next day?

As we go about being zealous for the conversion of souls, let us not neglect our own, for to whom much is given, much is expected.

Thank you!

I like that point... 100 likes for that.

This tithe situation is becoming ridiculous. Would God really condemn someobe for withholding tithe to use to help the needy?

Akin-David:
@OP, that we are still existing as a Nation is a fundamental evidence that prayer really work. Most of the National problem are man made and political. Our diversity as a nation make some things so complex that the only thing you can ever wish is divine intervention. The rich wants to get richer and the poor wants judgement against the rich, don't forget that God is also a merciful God.

So why is it that more diverse nations with greater social issues are doing better than us?

Bear in mind we as a nation are becoming more religious and we are getting worse as a result.

To me it is the polar opposite. Because of religion and prayer we have refused to tackle the problem. As a result it keeps getting worse.

Frostyzone: There is a thin fine line between psych and non-physical/spiritual.
To some, they are probably the same thing.

I agree.

Rexyl: Until the end of the world as we Christians believe many people shall continue to be useful instruments in the hand of the devil if they want him to be their master. Because the judgement day of the devil by God has not come, he knows he still has time to influence many people into doing his will so that many shall be his candidates and perish with him in hell. For those who are confused the whole intention of the devil is to steal, kill and destroy as Jesus puts it in the Bible John 10:10 but He, Jesus Christ declares " I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly".

Jesus Christ always emphasized loving and caring for one another to demonstrate love of God for mankind for us to live in peace, unity and harmony. God wants us to be our brothers' keeper, to protect others from harms and use the power of scripture in name of Jesus to deliver those being afflicted by the devil. Now from the heart of God where comes destruction of life and property in the name of God? People doing this are working for the devil.

THE HOLY BIBLE SAYS GOD IS LOVE, therefore love others as your self and love God with all your strength, soul and might Luke 10:27
Christianity is all about learning to know and understand God so that man shall continue in good work and have assurance of everlasting life.
Jesus warned us to beware of those that come in the name of God but they are for destruction.

What about the crusades?

Frostyzone: I deliberately left out Muslims from the topic.
From what I garnered from research, they are mostly unreasonable abusive bunch.

Ok. So what other groups are there. Have you got any stats on the breakdown of xtian denominations and how they debate?

ahika: All these are fallacy. Maybe they are using this to get more members to their cult.

Fear is a powerful tool.

[quote author=Iaz93][/quote]In my opinion no god stands up to scrutiny. None have a good track record with prayer or miracles.

inurmind: What were you healed of please?

It might not be healing she is referring to.

As long as there are no threats and insults then both groups can debate accordingly.

What about muslims? How do they debate with atheists?

berylLOL: err, I just need you guys to clear something up, what's you take on miracles?? I mean, miracles happen everyday in churches after calling on God, infact I'm a living testimony..so how do you explain miracles, like is there some theory behind it we all need to know?

How do you explain your miracle?

I believe most miracles are hokum. There is little evidence to suggest miracles happen. Go on the thread with amputees and you will see that there all sorts of excuses why amputees are never healed. Few miracles stand up to solid scrutiny.

seyibrown: If you had read and understood my original post (quoted above) and scriptures, you would not have come to the conclusion that I am changing my stance. You should have noted that I asked if the OP had ever met any amputee who asked God for a new part and didn't get it, and then you should have taken your time to read the scriptures I listed as well. Our God does not deny his children what they need. Matt 7:7 is a pointer. John 14:14 is another pointer but John 14:15 needs to be borne in mind by the one requesting something from God. My original post was short because I could see the point of the thread was mockery and not genuine concern for the amputee or a genuine call for God to show his power that the unbeliever might believe.

My Bible-influenced personal point of view in this matter is one can have fullness in Christ without completeness of limbs or wholeness of body (Romans 8:35). I'd rather have Christ than have a missing limb. Usually, true christians go about their life happy, joyful and content in Christ and do not let their missing limb take over their life (I Timothy 6:6). God does meet his children at the point of their needs.

God heals, God restores, God makes whole; but Christ in a christian 'the hope of glory', is more than a limb. A christian can be rest assured in that they can do all things through Christ who strengthens them. They can live a fulfilled life with Christ; A wholesome body without Christ profits nothing (Christ's parable points this out in Matthew 5:29). You need to read the scriptures I have referenced to understand my point fully, and it also helps if your christian life is at the point where only Christ matters to you.

An amputee can live a full complete life as an amputee but it is mostly adaptation. It is incomparable to having that limb back.

wiegraf: Oddly enough, I think this particular heathenish brah is actually xtian

Well, there are all sorts of xtians I suppose...

A sort of pseudo-xtian