A discussion ensued on the YouTube page for the video Pope Innocent III, Fourth & Fifth Crusades by Prof Matt Philips which is one amongst a series which covers every Crusade—see here.
A certain “nil bogg” decided to jump in guns’a blazing and actually, we never got to “how to condemn the Crusades” for two reasons: 1) he and/or she took a typical tactic of instantly jumping to conclusions without a premise and 2) since he and/or she never did so we never got around to having me elucidate how and why I condemn some aspects of the Crusades (in that there were different ones carried out in different ways for different reasons at different times).
At one point I thought that nil bogg might be a Muslim and at other times perhaps an Atheist. Yet, one thing is certain, bogg is an anti-Christian, focused on expressing emotions and lashed out in anger, was unable to answer simple straightforward questions and so his/her condemnations cannot be taken seriously as they were merely expressions of emotions.
FYI: this is the 3-5 person within about a month who jump to condemnatory conclusions, I ask them for a premise upon which they do so, they lash out in anger, I ask them for a premise upon which they condemn anything at all, they repeat their baseless condemnation in different words, I ask them for a premise upon which they condemn anything at all, and eventually they cease to reply—often to come back on another topic to do it all again.
So, here is the discussion which nil bogg began with:
Apologizing/rationlizing for the crusades? Have you no shame? Can you “Waive off” cannibalism as well? Ma’arrat al-Numan.
Do you see what I mean? bogg concludes that elucidating history is equal to “Apologizing/rationlizing for the crusades,” then appeals to some unstated common and absolute ethical accountability, “Have you no shame?,” then implies that there is something wrong with cannibalism without a premise, correlates it with the Crusades, and makes a vague and generic reference to what I would imagine is the 1098 AD siege of Ma’arra.
Friend, you will note that the discussion was not about “Apologizing/rationalizing” but about explaining the historical facts. Now, upon what basis do you condemn crusades or cannibalism?
You would imagine that a simple answer could be offered and that would be that—yet, here is nil bogg’s reply:
No, your “explaination IS apologetics plain and simple. And on WHAT BASIS do I condem those things….? Are you insane? Because I’m NOT and THAT is why. Murdering people wholesale for not believing the same fairy tale you do? That’s demented evil. (ellipses in original)
In stating, “your ‘explaination IS…” bogg seems to think that I presented the lecture but it was Prof Matt Philips. In any case, the answer to “upon what basis do you condemn crusades or cannibalism” is “Are you insane?” which is not the most useful of answers and a grammatically mistaken “Because I’m NOT and THAT is why” when surely, bogg meant “Because I’m DO and THAT is why” but I played off of the original statement, see below.
But the bottom line is that the initial unfounded, un-premised, merely jumping to condemnatory conclusions was followed by the mere assertion that “Murdering people wholesale for not believing the same fairy tale you do?” And also, bogg referenced “evil” whilst failing to provide a premise for even thinking that anything is evil.
Friend, first you condemn (“Apologizing/rationlizing for the crusades? Have you no shame?”), then you deny that you are condemning (“on WHAT BASIS do I condem…I’m NOT and THAT is why”), then you go back to condemning (“Murdering people wholesale for not believing the same fairy tale you do? That’s demented evil”).
Also, when asked for a premise upon which you justify your condemnations merely repeating your condemnation by using different words is not reply at all. So, based on whatever your worldview-philosophy may be: upon what basis do you condemn well, anything at all.
You are a flat out lunatic. When I say “on WHAT BASIS do I condem…?” (NOTICE YOU left off the question mark) I mean it as to say “Are you f[******] kidding me?!” I condem the slaughter perpetrated by Christians. Period. I condem mowing down so many innocent people in Jerusalem that blood ran up to horses bridles.
Fence all you like, the Crusades are a Christian genocide/war crime and it’ll be an albatross around your necks forever. ESPECIALLY now that the kids are online al=nd LEARNING about the horror the Christians committed. Your an apologist trying to say that “genocide is ok if you look at it right”. You’re disgusting.
It is a times such as these that if you cannot handle being personally attacked you should stay offline and not engage such personages on such subjects. My goal is to attempt to get bogg to see that whatever worldview philosophy they may hold fails to provide a premise upon which to condemn that which their God given conscious leads to the know is wrong.
Beside calling me names, the answer this time is “I condem…Period.” Well, though I asked bogg I never did get a reply as to whether or not they are an Atheist but keep in mind that claim that “I condem the slaughter perpetrated by Christians.” This will come into play because as we shall see, bogg does not condemn, but rather literally apologizes/rationalizes slaughter perpetrated by Atheists (and, apparently, by Muslims).
The point, at this point, is that merely repeating “I condem” is still not providing a premise. For example, “mowing down so many innocent people…” is wrong why? Just because and period? If, for example, we are merely temporarily and accidentally existing bio-organisms then what is wrong with one group of temporarily and accidentally existing bio-organisms proving that they are the fittest and the others not? After all, if no one or nothing caused nothing to explode for no reason and made everything without meaning then within a temporarily and accidentally existing there are no absolute ethics.
Now, if we ever got around to it I would have explained a few things: 1) “the Crusades are a Christian genocide/war crime and it’ll be an albatross around your necks forever” as long as personages such as bogg refuse to deal with facts, historical and logical (and theological), 2) technically “the Crusades” could not be a generically “Christian genocide/war crime” since, for example, Christians living in other regions of the planet at that time had nothing to do with it, 3) “the Crusades are a” specific Catholic “genocide/war crime” as other forms of Christianity were not involved (the Coptic Church for example), 4) some portions of some Crusades were not a genocide but were just wars (just as in justifiable) in that they were fighting back against Muslims’ campaigns to conquering lands and 5) the portions of the Crusades which were genocidal and thus unjustified were not a Christian action since they are an example of a violation of Christian principles.
Well friend, personal insults aside, as I previously noted: merely repeating condemnations with different words is not a justification but is merely an expression of emotion. This is not how ethics, logic, philosophy, etc. is done. You begin with something and that results in the condemnation. Merely being angry does not make you right: please engage in reasoned discourse. So what is the worldview-philosophy with which you begin?/
nil bogg:
Christians invaded another country and committed genocide in the name of Christ. End of story.
Anyone can do anything in the name of anyone yet, the point is whether they are justified in doing so, accurate in claiming that which they claim, are in keeping with the principles upon which they are supposed to be functioning, etc., etc., etc.
Thus, portions of the Crusades was not about Christians invading another countries but about protecting countries from Muslim invasion—something that bogg never condemns, even emotively. In short, it is literally impossible to rightly, viably, justly, etc. commit genocide in the name of Christ as there is nothing about Christ that would lead one to commit genocide in the name of Christ. In fact, when James and John saw that a Samaritan village did not receive Jesus, “they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village” (Luke 9:54-56).Ken Ammi:
Friend, actually, that is the beginning of the story. I do not know if you are unwilling or incapable of understanding the point which is that all you have done is made a statement. In this case, “Christians invaded another country and committed genocide in the name of Christ. End of story” is merely an observation. Now, if you are implying that there is something wrong, bad, evil, etc. about taking such actions then you need to explain why that is the case. The “why” is the premise, the foundation and then you can conclude that it was wrong, bad, evil, etc.
You cannot begin with your conclusion. I also find it fascinating that you have as of yet not said one single word about the part that Muslims played in the Crusades. Now, if I may ask: are you an Atheist and if so, which denomination?
nil bogg:
That “beginning” is crime enough for most or [of] us thanks.
Whatever that means.
In the meawhile, John Charleson chimed in with:
What of the original Christian lands the Muslims invaded? Did not the Muslims create a gigantic crime by “converting” all of Anatolia, Egypt, and Persia?
Ken Ammi:
Indeed, it seems that nil bogg does not want to go there just as he/she does not want to or simply cannot justify condemning well, anything at all. As an FYI: the “Encyclopedia of Wars” (New York: Facts on File, 2005) was compiled by nine history professors who specifically conducted research for the text for a decade in order to chronicle 1,763 wars. The survey of wars covers a time span from 8000 BC to 2003 AD. From over 10,000 years of war 123 wars, which is 6.98 percent, are considered to have been religious wars and here is a key point: half of those involved Islam.
Thus, they are one of the world’s youngest world religion and have managed to be involved in half of all known religious wars. Also, Atheist mass murdered more people in a few decades than all religions combined through thousands of years.
nil bogg:
Ahhhh…….THERE it is. You simply hate Muslims, EVERYTHING else you have said is just smokescreen you troll. AND your little Atheist jab” is invalid. Why? Ignoring the fact that you’re clearly one of those “hitler wasn’t a “real” Christian” type the death tolls are an ACCIDENT of HISTORY. Give a 10th century pope a nuke and see what happens.
Give Protestants of the 1500’s nerve gas and the catholics anthrax and TRY to count the bodies. Give inquisiters tanks or crusaders bombers. Your empty. The ONLY reason Christian fanatics DIDN’T kill and destroy MORE is that they’d reached the absolute LIMITS of their technology to DO SO. But then, as I’ve said, you’ve outed yourself as a Christian apologist-troll.nil bogg then posted another comment which read:
And I’m STILL waiting for a good “Christian” explaination for Ma’arrat al-Numan. But you’re not going to GIVE one are ya big guy?
So, apparently ending the initial one liner comment with the words, “Ma’arrat al-Numan” was supposed to mean that bogg wanted “a good ‘Christian’ explaination for” it. However, if and since bogg cannot condemn “Christians” no matter what they did to whom there is no need to reply so I remained focused.
Below, we will see that John Charleson decided to reply on that and other points. For now, let us finish off my interaction with bogg.Ken Ammi:
Friend, it is fascinating that you cannot even premise your condemnations and now you play mind reader. It is literally impossible for you to know if I hate Muslims. You are playing a PR game whereby any hint of criticism of Islam, Muslims, Muhammad, Allah, the Qur’an, etc. is instantly censored and an ad hominem Islamophobic claim is made such as “You simply hate Muslims.” Well, then I suppose that by your own logic you hate Christians: is that the case?
As for my “little Atheist jab” (read as “relating historical facts”) you are apologizing/rationalizing for the Atheists’ mass murders by dismissing them as “an ACCIDENT of HISTORY.” You also bypass the historical facts and fantasize about what ifs. The fact is that the mass murders by Atheists were not committed during wars but against their very own citizenry, were mostly low tech such as starvation and one bullet to the head and were based on Atheist worldview philosophies.
Now, you can attempt to comfort your inability to even condemn mass murder by emotively besmirching me personally. Yet, the fact remains that I have asked you from the beginning and time and time again for a premise of your condemnation and you are incapable of providing one. Please focus on that—even if in private—and stop lashing out against perfect strangers.
nil bogg still unable to reply and having excuses Atheism’s mass murders replied with:
Christian apologist troll. Nothing more.
Ken Ammi:
Well friend, the same pattern I discerned from the beginning keeps repeating: when asked for your premises you simply lash out in anger. In this case, I could reply with “Atheism apologist troll. Nothing more” or “Muslim apologist troll. Nothing more.” But what mere assertions are not worth much.
Now, you seem to imply that there is something wrong with being a Christian apologist troll but upon what premise do you assert as much? In other words, you have been demanding that I adhere to standards of ethics, logic and truth but why and upon what premise?And that was the last I heard (or, read) from nil bogg.
Hereinafter is the interaction between bogg and Charleson whom I do not know and whose tone I do not appreciate.
nil bogg:
First, those were Byzantium lands. NOT exclusively “Christian” lands. Second, MANY invited the muslims in as LIBERATORS. “Ken AMMi” and you are simply trollin at this point: trying to justify invasion, genocide and occupation in the name of Christianity. They invaded, they slaughtered people from Germany to Palestine to pay for it, butchered jews up and down Europe “just cause” before they even got started. There is no justification.
Let us not some cyber parlance: since I am the one who posted and bogg is the one who commented this makes bogg the troll—especially when bogg refuses to answer direct questions but keeps at it, “A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject”—Winston Churchill.
An important point is that “There is no justification” but bogg is missing the point that no justification is even required as they have failed to explain why a justification should even be attempted since they fail to tell us why—upon what premise, what foundation, etc.—we are to think that there is anything wrong with any of it.John Charleson:
“First, those were Byzantium lands. NOT exclusively “Christian” lands…” Byzantium was centered around Christianity, and the Persian lands associated with “Byzantium” were a combination of Zoroastrian and Christian–in any event, the Persians didn’t care to be Muslimized, not to mention Constantinople!
Furthermore, Egypt was largely Christian, and ALL of western Anatolia was the birth of the Christian Church.
The early Church was essentially wiped off the map, who are you trying to kid? I am not even mentioning Armenia, and almost all of S.E.and Southern Europe. And the above is just the early stuff!
As for the rest of your word-salad, may I remind you that Islam was also rife with internal wars–I.E., Muslim against Muslim.
As for the Jews, they were in the middle of everything, usually causing trouble and switching sides, like they almost always do.Get a friggin’ history lesson for crying out loud.
Lastly, I don’t hate Muslims, nor do I care for Neo-Cons–the former I tolerate, and the later I despise, so don’t try to lay that b.s. label on me. I am sure there are some here who both know history and dislike recent Western aggression in Muslim lands (which were formally Christian, by the way). The Christians here, who desire to keep Christian lands Christian, are not out of line by pointing out the very aggressive potential of Islam–even if we don’t support the present proxy wars for “Israel”. So, stuff it.
nil bogg:
Nice try. They were Byzantium lands (i.e. what would be greek orthodox) and NOT western Christian lands in ANY sense.
When the Emperor sent his famous letter to the pope he wanted a contingent of knights, NOT a mass migration of wild eyed fanatical murderers. Which is what CAME. AND the emperors subsequent behavior illustrated that. This was an invasion by lunatics, deluded by a western pope eager to increase HIS power. Zealots who murdered their way from Europe to Palestine.In FACT by the time they even GOT there Jerusalem had traded hands to the EGYPTIAN powers who were more than WILLING to open it back up to free worship and unmolested travel. But THAT wasn’t even considered.
Your precious Christians murdered EVERYONE in the city, jew, muslim, Christian and anyone else in their path. I’m sure YOU are aware of the famous fact that they waded through blood “up to the horeses bridle” to the holy sepulchure. So yeah, I KNOW my history pal, lastly, I’ve BEEN there. Seen Masada, swam the dead sea, walked Jerusalem, seen Hia Sophia and took note and studied it all. So YOU can stuff it. Your just another Christian apologist/troll. Having the audacity to suggest this kind of crime is somehow “justified”What a coincidence, I too have seen Masada (actually climbed it), swam the Dead Sea, walked Jerusalem, etc.
John Charleson:
“Nice try. They were Byzantium lands (i.e. what would be Greek Orthodox) and NOT western Christian lands in ANY sense…” In any sense? Are you smoking crack? Those lands were part of Christendom, a united front prior to the great schism in which the “East” only differed from “the West” in the aspect of the relationship to the Pope. Matter of fact, “Orthodox” rites (non-Catholic Orthodox, or those who view the Pope as “first among equals” as opposed to the Church’s head) are still valid, if illicit.
Furthermore, the “Byzantium” Church only split from the “Roman” Church due to an argument of where the Pope should be located!! You don’t know your a$$ from your elbow about the Church.
As for history, The “Byzantines” were first to invade Rome, only halted due to the black plague, when the invading Eastern armies were called back to Constantinople. Don’t inflate the problems of internal Christendom to the point of obfuscation. The Eastern and Western Empires were at conflict for a long time prior to the “Crusades”.
While you are reciting the internal wars of Christendom, why don’t you recall the military campaigns of Salah ad-Din where many thousands of Muslims fought against one another? Egypt? Are you trying to tell me the Muslim invasion of that land was invited, and the Christian majority population welcomed it? Are you out of you mind?Ma’arrat al-Numan? What happened at, and to, Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.? Go away kid, you bother me.
And that, as they say, was that with no more replies to or from anyone.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.