-atheist have to span the course of history to try and pick a few major things that christian [numbering in the billions] have done wrong.
-What we must assume before saying what Christians did was wrong.
Assumptions/things to consider before answering.
Atheist must put themselves in place as god, as perfect judge of people living thousands of years ago, to decided what is morally correct or not.
1] we must assume we are god, that only we can tell and know what is morally acceptable or not.
2] we must assume their are such things as morals, “right” and “wrong” those ideas only make sense if a moral god created us.
3]we must assume our evolved brains of completely random chemical reactions and matter can somehow have the right idea of what is right and wrong, our evolved animal brains formed by random chemical reactions and matter [dirt] that combined for a survival advantage[according to atheist]. They only “feel” killing is wrong because the random chemical reactions give them a chemical feeling that killing is wrong.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showth...ity&highlight=
is god not able to take life he has given?
Morality makes no sense in a atheist worldview
"if it all happens naturalistic whats the need for a god? cant I set my own rules? who owns me? I own myself".
Jefery dahmer DVD documentary Jeffrey Dahmer the monster within
This is inconsistent with an evolutionary worldview in which there is no logical basis for “good” or “bad.” By making such a statement, the evolutionist is actually borrowing morals from the Christian worldview and the Bible in order to claim something is “trickery.”
Within a naturalistic, evolutionary worldview, morality is merely a matter of subjective opinion. So, whether something such as trickery or deception is wrong depends on each person—because it’s merely the result of chemical reactions in our brains.
I could just as easily say that this email we received is deceptive and full of wishful thinking. And if I get a big enough group together, we can decide that your definition of trickery is wrong. The combined random chemical reactions in our brains form the majority, which makes you wrong—at least until another majority comes along. Without any ultimate standard, we could go back and forth all day saying this is right or that is right.
As silly as this scenario sounds, it is one of the only arguments evolutionists have for anything that resembles morality. Absolute morals only make sense in a Christian worldview—they come from the One who knows what is good because He is the standard for good. The only One who fits that description is the God of the Bible, the Creator of the universe.
So, for example, if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in brainwashing or exterminating everyone who disagreed with them, so that everybody would think the Holocaust had been good, it would still have been wrong, because God says it is wrong, regardless of human opinion. Morality is based in God, and so real right and wrong exist and are unaffected by human opinions.
In fact you only#feel#,murder,rape etc are wrong because the#random chemical reactions in your brain make you feel that way.#Not because it truly is right or wrong. I may be like hitler and think murdering is good, what makes your random chemical reactions correct and mine wrong?.They have no right to tell another person [random chemical reactions] That thinks murder,rape,sexism are good [hitler]. That that person is wrong to do so. there is no way to now if you, and not the other person have the right chemical reactions. In fact there is no "right" reactions, or good or bad.
#
Atheist philosopher Richard Taylor
The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, without noticing that in casting God aside they have also abolished the meaningfulness of right and wrong as well. Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things as war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights are morally wrong, and they imagine that they have said something true and meaningful. Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-chr...ality#_ednref3
"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and
we dance to its music.
"Richard Dawkins, --Out of Eden, page 133
“ He who does not wish to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist”.
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p266 2003
“The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrafice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel,and if he does so it is mearly because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution#
then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all”.
Hitler A Mein Kampf, english translation by James Murphy, 1939 Fredonia Classics, New York, p262 2003#
Darwin on the poor
“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
#Charles Darwin,#The Descent of Man
atheist crimes
atheist governments killings morality etc
77 million in Communist China, 62 million in the Soviet Gulag State, 21 million non-battle killings by the Nazis, 2 million murdered in the Khmer Rouge killing fields (see also Rummel, R.J., Death by Government, New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1994).
Even adjusting for changes in population size, atheist regimes are responsible for 100 times more death in one century than Christian rulers inflicted over five centuries.
As for the Inquisition, much of the modern stereotype was largely made up by Spain’s political enemies, and later by anti-Christians. The Inquisition only had authority over professing Christians, and the Inquisition trials were often fairer and more lenient than their secular counterparts. Often the only penalty given was some sort of penance such as fasting. Over a period of 350 years, historians such as Henry Kamen15 estimate only between 1,500 and 4,000 people were executed for heresy.
The Salem witch trials constitute the best-known example of religiously motivated violence. However, fewer than 25 people were killed in the trials, falling far short of the ‘perhaps hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions’ (p. 207) that the late antitheist Carl Sagan wrote about.
Having shown that Christianity’s ‘religious crimes’ are far less horrendous than atheists would argue; he goes on to show that atheism, not religion, is responsible for mass murders. In fact, ‘atheist regimes have in a single century murdered more than one hundred million people’ (p. 214). Even adjusting for changes in population size, atheist regimes are responsible for 100 times more death in one century than Christian rulers inflicted over five centuries. However, while it can easily be shown that crimes committed in the name of Christianity are not sanctioned by its teaching, the bloodbaths of the atheist regimes are consistent with an atheist, evolutionary outlook. Indeed, atheists have no moral basis to say that anything is right or wrong
Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler#(1889-1945) endorsed a program in Germany to breed a superior race. The scheme was based on a horrific evolutionary theory called “eugenics” that was founded by Charles Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton. The idea of eugenics was to improve the human race using principles promoted in the theory of evolution.
The idea was simple: partition the human race into two groups, the “fit” and the “unfit.” Eugenics seemed to be a way to make sure the “fit” had children and the “unfit” did not. In Germany, the leaders of the eugenics movement got monstrous laws enacted that allowed sterilization of people regarded as “unfit,” and restriction of immigrants who were supposedly “biologically inferior.” (The United States and other countries enacted similar laws, but the Nazis took it to the extreme when Jews, blacks, and others were ruthlessly murdered to prop up the theory.)
The German people were being seduced to accept that they could be the “master race” by exterminating the “unfit.” If evolution was right, they reasoned, and “survival of the fittest” was merely a positive, evolutionary process, then what could be wrong with hastening the deaths of the “unfit”?
Eugenics could only become popular because the theory of evolution seemed to have quashed the need for the sovereign Creator, God, who had given humankind absolute moral laws. When you do away with moral laws, outrageous racism and crimes like compulsory sterilization, Hitler's death camps, and mass murder on a maniacal scale can no longer be said to be evil.
Russian communist leader Leon Trotsky#(1879-1940), left, was a fanatical supporter of Marxism and Darwinism. In the Russian Civil War of 1918-20, he used the force of the Red Army to stamp out whoever he decided was an enemy of the Soviet State.
He confiscated food from peasants, brutalized the Ukrainian army of insurgent peasants, and killed its guerrilla leader, N. I. Makhno.
He inflicted torture and violence against Christians, mercilessly trashed churches, and led the Society of the Godless to get rid of religion.
Trotsky was mesmerized by Charles Darwin's#Origin of Species. He said: “Darwin stood for me like a mightly doorkeeper at the entrance to the temple of the universe.” He said that Darwin's ideas “intoxicated” him. And he could not understand in the slightest how belief in God could find room in the same head as belief in Darwin's ideas.
Like Hitler, Trotsky was a tyrant who saw Darwin's theory of evolution as scientific justification for dismissing God's moral laws. He clearly saw that the two ideas, God and evolution, were totally incompatible. His atrocities were consistent with this belief, for when you do away with the idea of the God who created you and who has given instructions for the right way to live, there is no reason to avoid despicably violent crimes. Even if this means murdering everyone who disagrees with you.
eugenics
‘ …#modern eugenics thought arose only in the nineteenth century. The emergence of interest in eugenics during that century had multiple roots. The most important was the theory of evolution, for Francis Galton’s ideas on eugenics#—#and it was he who created the term “eugenics”#—#were a direct logical outgrowth of the scientific doctrine elaborated by his cousin, Charles Darwin.’
Ludmerer, K., Eugenics,#In:#Encyclopedia of Bioethics,#Edited by Mark Lappe, The Free Press, New York, p. 457, 1978
‘ … struggle, selection, and survival of the fittest, all notions and observations arrived at … by Darwin … but already in luxuriant bud in the German social philosophy of the nineteenth century. … Thus developed the doctrine of Germany’s inherent right to rule the world on the basis of superior strength … [of a] “hammer and anvil” relationship between the Reich and the weaker nations.’
Keith, A.,#Evolution and Ethics,#G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York, p. 230, 1946
crusades
This is a attack on the
catholic church and in part fueled the protestant reformation. As catholic historian steve weidenkompf says "The crusade movement was a catholic movement"
"Many in today's society believe the false history presented by critics. Enforced by the media, Hollywood and other outlets, popular perception of historical events reigns supreme even when that perception is completely at odds with historical reality"
Steve Weidenkompf The glory of the crusades
"Medevil historians have long known that popular culture image of the crusades has nothing at all to do with the events themselves"
Thomas Madden Professor of History and Director of the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies at Saint Louis University.
Crusades justified in Bible?
“Does religious conviction provide a powerful reason for killing? Undeniably it often does. It also often provides the sole compelling reason for refusing to kill, or for being merciful, or for seeking peace; only the profoundest ignorance of history could prevent one from recognizing this. For the truth is that religion and irreligion are cultural variables, but killing is a human constant.”#
―#David Bentley Hart,#Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies
“Every day people are straying away from the church and going back to God. Really.
~Lenny Bruce, "Religions Inc.," in The Essential Lenny Bruce, ed. John Cohen, 1967
OT wars used to justify crusades? The Fighting in bible, god was actually there,not people saying they were fighting on gods side josh 5 13-15. In OT god was fighting for isreal, not isreal for god. Wars in OT were initiated by Yahweh himself. Nowere in OT does offensive military initiative with purpose of conversion or Territory expansion.
"In holy wars isreal did not arise to protect faith in Yahweh, but Yahweh came on the scene to defend isreal"
Holy War in the Bible:#Christian Morality and an Old Testament Problem Heath A. Thomas#(Editor),#Jeremy Evans#(Editor),#Paul Copan#(Editor)
For a long list of differences between crusade/Yahweh wars in bible see p 182-189Holy War in the Bible:#Christian Morality and an Old Testament Problem
Versus used to support crusades during the time period
By in large Crusaders did not use Joshua to justify crusades, but read in typology of the church.
Joshua and Canaanites Jericho were said to have not been Saracens. In fact Joshua 7 was used to tell crusaders to not pillage,steal,sin while on crusade. The Call of Abraham was used to support crusades genesis 12 portraying the difficulties of crusader leaving his family for economical uncertainty,difficulty in journey with possibility of death. It was seen as spiritual journey , and love/sacrifice to god were the major themes. Alos Luke 9.23 and Maccabees [non canonical] and gospels were used. numbers 21 21-24 were used as reason for just [defensive] war, after Islam expansion.
“ Maybe our understanding of crusades is wrong? And their motivations for it?
Holy War in the Bible: Christian Morality and an Old Testament Problem#[Paperback]
Heath A. Thomas#(Editor),#Jeremy Evans#(Editor),#Paul Copan#(Editor)
What were the crusades?
The word crusade not used until 1706, at the time they happened they were known as armed pilgrimages to the holy land. The were undertaken at great loss of life,money and earthly gain to go and risk life for fellow Christians under persecution, to retake christian lands from Muslim conquerors, to sacrifice for god and to put the holy sites back in christian control. They were controlled generally by the church and kings with rules/regulations such as no prostitution, no gambling,swearing and violators could be put to death. Often many went in small groups or alone a few larger groups that went are know known as first crusade,second crusade etc.
Crusades were a defensive action against Muslim aggressors
The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or on the next. It was the deep knowledge -- and pray God we have not lost it -- that there is a profound, moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.
President Ronald Reagan - June 6, 1984 POINTE DU HOC THE 40TH ANNIVERSAY OF THE NORMANDY INVASION, D-DAY
great article gives time line of crusades, crusades were defensive act against Muslim expansions
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/...ic_crusad.html
also
how did the Muslims get into Israel anyways?
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009...rspective.html
The crusaders saw their cause as a defensive action to protect themselves from further attacks and reclaim lost christian territories taken over by Muslim expansion for the past few hundred years. With Constantinople under threat with the emperor recently killed and army destroyed by invading Muslims armies ,that would unlock all of Europe to further Islamic expansion, they west responded.
"The crusades began as a result of Muslim conquest of Christian territories"
The New Concise History of the Crusades Thomas F. Madden p 4
So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be 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. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. 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. The Crusades were that defense.
"Urban viewed the Crusade as a pilgrimage, the aim of which was not to conquer but to# visit the place of pilgrimage and then return home. Later popes maintained the understanding of the Crusades as just, defensive wars with the central goal of the recovery of ancient Christian territory. Heroic men and women of faith, rooted in love of Christ and neighbor, undertook the Crusades as acts of self-defense and recovery of stolen property. This is the proper understanding of these important events in Church history"
Were the Crusades Just Wars? Steve Weidenkopf is a lecturer of Church History at the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College# His book, The Glory of the Crusades
He argues that the Muslims were the aggressors; conquering the previously predominately Christian Middle East. They went on to conquer parts of Africa, Asia, part of Italy and most of Spain. All the while, they forced conversions at sword-point. Finally, more than two hundred years later Christians attempted to take back the land that was conquered by the Muslims. The First Crusade was a success, resulting in Jerusalem being in Christian possession for nearly a century. Subsequent crusades failed, but without the crusades, D’Souza argues
‘Western Civilization might have been completely overrun by the forces of Islam … The Christians fought to defend themselves from foreign conquest, while the Muslims fought to continue conquering Christian lands’
(p. 206).
From the safe distance of many centuries, it is easy enough to scowl in disgust at the Crusades. Religion, after all, is nothing to fight wars over. But we should be mindful that our medieval ancestors would have been equally disgusted by our infinitely more destructive wars fought in the name of political ideologies. And yet, both the medieval and the modern soldier fight ultimately for their own world and all that makes it up. Both are willing to suffer enormous sacrifice, provided that it is in the service of something they hold dear, something greater than themselves. Whether we admire the Crusaders or not, it is a fact that the world we know today would not exist without their efforts ll have followed Zoroastrianism, another of Islam's rivals, into extinction.
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#The New Concise History of the Crusades, and co-author, with Donald Queller, of#The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople. This article originally appeared in the April 2002 issue of#Crisis#and is reprinted here with permission.
In 1071 A few years before a pope called for crusade, Islamic Turks captured the byzantine Emperor and destroyed there army. The new Emperor called other christian nations for help.
The New Concise History of the Crusades (Critical Issues in World and International History)[Paperback] Thomas F. Madden#(Author)
"The Crusades were born from the violent aggression of Islam, which had conquered ancient Christian territory in the Holy Land and North Africa and established a large foothold in Europe within a century of Muhammad’s death in the early seventh century. Particularly troublesome to Christian Europe was the conquering of Jerusalem in 638 by an Islamic force that sacked the city for three days and destroyed over 300 churches and monasteries. ".......The invasion of Christian territory, Muslim persecution of native Christians and pilgrims, plus the threat posed to the Christian Byzantine Empire, were all legitimate reasons to engage in defensive warfare and, and Bl. Pope Urban II cited them as justification for the First Crusade.
Were the Crusades Just Wars? Steve Weidenkopf is a lecturer of Church History at the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College# His book, The Glory of the Crusades
http://www.catholic.com/blog/steve-w...ades-just-wars
"Muslim Turkish invasions in the 1050's caused much if not more mayhem and destruction than the crusades were able to achieve"
God's War: A New History of the Crusades p13
The church called for action to fight back against Muslim expansion.
Medieval Sourcebook:Pope#Urban II (1088-1099):#Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095
"For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire...
Medieval Sourcebook:Pope#Urban II (1088-1099):#Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095
Bongars,#Gesta Dei per Francos, 1, pp. 382 f., trans in Oliver J. Thatcher, and Edgar Holmes McNeal, eds.,#A Source Book for Medieval History, (New York: Scribners, 1905), 513-17#
Modern scenario
If iraq invaded isreal, killed and enslaved there people in horrible ways, even the liberal west, would say america was justified to go in and help isreal [that asked for help] and take back the lands. America would not be threatened at all, while medieval Europe was by Islamic expansion into Byzantine Empire .
Help Christian's traveling to the holy land and Christians under Islamic rule from suffering.
"Crusading," Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith has rightly argued, was understood as an "an act of love"—in this case, the love of one's neighbor. The Crusade was seen as an errand of mercy to right a terrible wrong. As Pope Innocent III wrote to the Knights Templar, "You carry out in deeds the words of the Gospel, 'Greater love than this hath no man, that he lay down his life for his friends.'"
another reason for the crusades were to help persecuted Christians under Muslim control and those who wished to travel to the holy lands. Muslims had made travel to the holy lands expensive and near impossible as well as dangerous with torture/murder of pilgrims, at one point 12,000 unarmed german pilgrims were slaughtered.
"The Crusades were also a response to the severe persecution of indigenous Christians living in the occupied territories, whose lives were severely restricted and who suffered constant pressure to convert to Islam Christian pilgrims were also subjected to harassment and violence, which demanded a defensive response from Christendom. The Seljuks, who were known for their brutality, threatened pilgrims to the holy sites in Palestine. As an example, a group of 12,000 German pilgrims led by Bishop Günther of Bamberg in 1065 was massacred by the Seljuks on Good Friday, only two days' march from Jerusalem."
Were the Crusades Just Wars? Steve Weidenkopf is a lecturer of Church History at the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College# His book, The Glory of the Crusades
Pope Innocent III wrote:
How does a man love according to divine precept his neighbor as himself when, knowing that his Christian brothers in faith and in name are held by the perfidious Muslims in strict confinement and weighed down by the yoke of heaviest servitude, he does not devote himself to the task of freeing them? … Is it by chance that you do not know that many thousands of Christians are bound in slavery and imprisoned by the Muslims, tortured with innumerable torments?
Pope#Urban II (1088-1099):#Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095
#"We have heard, most beloved brethren, and you have heard what we cannot recount without deep sorrow how, with great hurt and dire sufferings our Christian brothers, members in Christ, are scourged, oppressed, and injured in Jerusalem, in Antioch, and the other cities of the East. Your own blood brothers, your companions, your associates (for you are sons of the same Christ and the same Church) are either subjected in their inherited homes to other masters, or are driven from them, or they come as beggars among us; or, which is far worse, they are flogged and exiled as slaves for sale in their own land."
Pope#Urban II (1088-1099):#Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095
" at least let the great suffering of those who desired to go to the holy places stir you up. Think of those who made the pilgrimage across the sea! Even if they were more wealthy, consider what taxes, what violence they underwent, since they were forced to make payments and tributes almost every mile, to purchase release at every gate of the city, at the entrance of the churches and temples, at every side journey from place to place: also, if any accusation whatsoever were made against them, they were compelled to purchase their release; but if they refused to pay money, the prefects of the Gentiles, according to their custom, urged them fiercely with blows. What shall we say of those who took up the journey without anything more than trust in their barren poverty, since they seemed to have nothing except their bodies to lose? They not only demanded money of them, which is not an unendurable punishment, but also examined the callouses of their heels, cutting them open and folding the skin back, lest, perchance, they had sewed something there. Their unspeakable cruelty was carried on even to the point of giving them scammony to drink until they vomited, or even burst their bowels, because they thought the wretches had swallowed gold or silver; or, horrible to say, they cut their bowels open with a sword and, spreading out the folds of the intestines, with frightful mutilation disclosed whatever nature held there in secret. Remember, I pray, the thousands who have perished vile deaths, and strive for the holy places from which the beginnings of your faith have come.
August. C. Krey,#The First Crusade: The Accounts of Eyewitnesses and Participants, (Princeton: 1921), 36-40
Pope#Urban II (1088-1099):#Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095 From the confines of Jerusalem and the city of Constantinople a horrible tale has gone forth and very frequently has been brought to our ears, namely, that a race from the kingdom of the Persians, an accursed race, a race utterly alienated from God, a generation forsooth which has not directed its heart and has not entrusted its spirit to God, has invaded the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by the sword, pillage and fire; it has led away a part of the captives into its own country, and a part it has destroyed by cruel tortures; it has either entirely destroyed the churches of God or appropriated them for the rites of its own religion. They destroy the altars, after having defiled them with their uncleanness. They circumcise the Christians, and the blood of the circumcision they either spread upon the altars or pour into the vases of the baptismal font. When they wish to torture people by a base death, they perforate their navels, and dragging forth the extremity of the intestines, bind it to a stake; then with flogging they lead the victim around until the viscera having gushed forth the victim falls prostrate upon the ground. Others they bind to a post and pierce with arrows. Others they compel to extend their necks and then, attacking them with naked swords, attempt to cut through the neck with a single blow. What shall I say of the abominable rape of the women? To speak of it is worse than to be silent. The kingdom of the Greeks is now dismembered by them and deprived of territory so vast in extent that it can not be traversed in a march of two months ...#Let therefore hatred depart from among you, let your quarrels end, let wars cease, and let all dissensions and controversies slumber. ....#Let the rich aid the needy"
Dana C. Munro, "Urban and the Crusaders",#Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European History, Vol 1:2, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1895), 5-8#
"[pope] Gregory did not sell this planned expedition as holy war...but of mercy and act of charity"
The New Concise History of the Crusades Thomas F. Madden p 4
the reason brothers geoffrey and guy went they wrote "to exterminate wickedness and unrestrained rage of the pagans by witch innumerable Christians have already been oppressed, made captive and killed"
liberate Jerusalem
The second goal was the liberation of Jerusalem and the other places made holy by the life of Christ. The word crusade is modern. Medieval Crusaders saw themselves as pilgrims, performing acts of righteousness on their way to the Holy Sepulcher. The Crusade indulgence they received was canonically related to the pilgrimage indulgence. This goal was frequently described in feudal terms. When calling the Fifth Crusade in 1215, Innocent III wrote:
“Consider most dear sons, consider carefully that if any temporal king was thrown out of his domain and perhaps captured, would he not, when he was restored to his pristine liberty and the time had come for dispensing justice look on his vassals as unfaithful and traitors … unless they had committed not only their property but also their persons to the task of freeing him? … And similarly will not Jesus Christ, the king of kings and lord of lords, whose servant you cannot deny being, who joined your soul to your body, who redeemed you with the Precious Blood … condemn you for the vice of ingratitude and the crime of infidelity if you neglect to help Him?”
Medieval Sourcebook:Pope#Urban II (1088-1099):#Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095
"Of holy Jerusalem, brethren, we dare not speak, for we are exceedingly afraid and ashamed to speak of it. This very city, in which, as you all know, Christ Himself suffered for us, because our sins demanded it, has been reduced to the pollution of paganism and, I say it to our disgrace, withdrawn from the service of God. Such is the heap of reproach upon us who have so much deserved it! Who now serves the church of the Blessed Mary in the valley of Josaphat, in which church she herself was buried in body? But why do we pass over the Temple of Solomon, nay of the Lord, in which the barbarous nations placed their idols contrary to law, human and divine? Of the Lord's Sepulchre we have refrained from speaking, since some of you with your own eyes have seen to what abominations it has been given over. The Turks violently took from it the offerings which you brought there for alms in such vast amounts, and, in addition, they scoffed much and often 'at Your religion advance boldly, as knights of Christ, and rush as quickly as you can to the defence of the Eastern Church "
August. C. Krey, The First Crusade: The Accounts of Eyewitnesses and Participants, (Princeton: 1921), 33-36
Crusading was seen as a spiritual journey/sacrifice
"Documentary evidence predating the conquest of Jerusalem,such as letters and charters,nonetheless confirms that most crusaders were primarily inspired to set out for the holy land by personal christian devotion."
p 336 The first crusade a new history the roots of conflict between Christianity and Islam Thomas Asbridge.
"In short, most noblemen who joined the crusade did so from a simple and sincere love of god"
p 13 The New Concise History of the Crusades Thomas F. Madden
"Although Crusaders responded to the papal call to engage in armed pilgrimage for a multitude of reasons, there is one motivator that outweighed all others: faith. Medieval people were steeped in the Catholic Faith; it permeated every aspect of society and their daily life. Above all, love of God, neighbor, and self drove participation in the Crusades.........Love of God and the desire to serve him dominated the themes of Crusade preachers. Popes and preachers used the image of a Crusader denying himself and taking up the Cross in imitation of the Savior to motivate warriors. Bl. Urban II told the assembly at Clermont that “it ought to be a beautiful ideal for you to die for Christ in that city where Christ died for you......#“It is a sure sign that he burns with love for God and with zeal when for God’s sake he leaves his fatherland, possessions, houses, sons and wife to go across the sea in the service of Jesus Christ.....Urban II granted an indulgence to anyone who “for devotion alone, not to gain honor or money, goes to Jerusalem to liberate the Church of God.”
Steve Weidenkopf is a lecturer of Church History at the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College
"The evidence for the aristocratic response to the crusade message,strongly suggest that spiritual concerns dominated the minds of Latin nobility while they took to the cross".
P 70 The first crusade a new history the roots of conflict between Christianity and islam Thomas Asbridge.
As one crusader said "carrying the cross so that afterword they may be carried to haven by the cross"
odo of burgundy said "the journey to Jerusalem as a penance for my sins.... since divine mercy inspired me that owing to the enormity of my sins I should go to the sepluchure of our savior, in order that this offering of my devotion might might be more acceptable in the sight of god"
urbonat clermat "it ought to be a beautiful ideal for you to die for Christ in that city were Christ did for you"
eudes of chateaurout " as sigh that man loves god when he cast aside the world.... for gods sake he leaves his fatherland,possessions, houses sons and wife to go across the sea in the service of Jesus Christ"
Pope#Urban II (1088-1099):#Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095
Whoever, therefore, shall determine upon this holy pilgrimage and shall make his vow to God to that effect and shall offer himself to Him as a, living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, shall wear the sign of the cross of the Lord on his forehead or on his breast. When,' truly',' having fulfilled his vow be wishes to return, let him place the cross on his back between his shoulders. Such, indeed, by the twofold action will fulfill the precept of the Lord, as He commands in the Gospel, "He that taketh not his cross and followeth after me, is not worthy of me."
Dana C. Munro, "Urban and the Crusaders",#Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European History, Vol 1:2, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1895), 5-8#
Pope#Urban II (1088-1099):#Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095
When now that time was at hand which the Lord Jesus daily points out to His faithful, especially in the Gospel, saying, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me," a mighty agitation was carried on throughout all the region of Gaul. (Its tenor was) that if anyone desired to follow the Lord zealously, with a pure heart and mind, and wished faithfully to bear the cross after Him, he would no longer hesitate to take up the way to the Holy Sepulchre.
#"Brethren, we ought to endure much suffering for the name of Christ - misery, poverty, nakedness, persecution, want, illness, hunger, thirst, and other (ills) of this kind, just as the Lord saith to His disciples: 'Ye must suffer much in My name,' and 'Be not ashamed to confess Me before the faces of men; verily I will give you mouth and wisdom,' and finally, 'Great is your reward in Heaven."' And when this speech had already begun to be noised abroad, little by little, through all the regions and countries of Gaul, the Franks, upon hearing such reports, forthwith caused crosses to be sewed on their right shoulders, saying that they followed with one accord the footsteps of Christ, by which they had been redeemed from the hand of hell.
August. C. Krey,#The First Crusade: The Accounts of Eyewitnesses and Participants, (Princeton: 1921), 28-30.#
See also Rosalind M. Hill, ed. and trans.,#Gesta francorum et aliorum Hierosolymitanorum: The Deeds of the Franks#(London: 1962), [Latin text with English translation.]
During the first crusade, it was items of religious nature that influenced and pushed on the pilgrims,not wealth,such as the holy lance in Antioch that completely changed the campaign as told in.T homas asbridge the first crusade a new history the roots of conflict between Christianity and Islam.
"It was prayer,fasting and sermons that kept the crusade going at Jerusalem"
p 34 The New Concise History of the Crusades Thomas F. Madden
"#Priests and other clerics who will be in the Christian army, both those under authority and prelates, shall diligently devote themselves to prayer and exhortation, teaching the crusaders by word and example to have the fear and love of God always before their eyes, so that they say or do nothing that might offend the divine majesty. If they ever fall into sin, let them quickly rise up again through true penitence. Let them be humble in heart and in body, keeping to moderation both in food and in dress, avoiding altogether dissensions and rivalries, and putting aside entirely any bitterness or envy, so that thus armed with spiritual and material weapons they may the more fearlessly fight against the enemies of the faith, relying not on their own power but rather trusting in the strength of God "........."#others who have taken up the cross, and those who may still do so, to carry out their vows to the Lord "
FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL (1215)
Were the Crusades a conquest?
At the end of the first crusade only 4,000 Europeans stayed, they did not view as conquest but as armed pilgrimage, with few staying to defend Jerusalem after done
"the first crusaders and pope, thought all land would be returned to the byzantine empire"
p 37 The New Concise History of the Crusades Thomas F. Madden
Crusades for wealth?
A series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics? Think again.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/...only/52.0.html
Popes bishops and kings started taxing to help support the crusades because no one could afford to go. Many kings spent the nations entire treasury and spent multiple years worth of income of entire country just to fund a large crusade.
"We now know that greed cannot have been the dominate motive among the first crusaders , not least because as recent research has shown, for most participants the expedition promised to be utterly terrifying and crippling expensive."
P 68 The first crusade a new history the roots of conflict between Christianity and Islam Thomas Asbridge.
"cost of crusade was enormous, most had to sell lands just to go.”
The New Concise History of the Crusades Thomas F. Madden p 12
"This charge can be easily debunked with the simple fact that going on Crusade was an extraordinary expense—costing a knight four to five times his annual income.#From being enriched, the vast majority of Crusaders suffered financial hardship as a result of their participation. Indeed, in order to finance such an expensive undertaking, many knights and their families sold or mortgaged their land and possessions"
Steve Weidenkopf is a lecturer of Church History at the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College
when the 4th crusade sacked Constantinople for loot the pope [ who had excommunicated the crusade]said they were after earthly treasure not heavenly treasure
During the past two decades, computer-assisted charter studies have demolished that contrivance. Scholars have discovered that crusading knights were generally wealthy men with plenty of their own land in Europe. Nevertheless, they willingly gave up everything to undertake the holy mission. Crusading was not cheap. Even wealthy lords could easily impoverish themselves and their families by joining a Crusade. They did so not because they expected material wealth (which many of them had already) but because they hoped to store up treasure where rust and moth could not corrupt. They were keenly aware of their sinfulness and eager to undertake the hardships of the Crusade as a penitential act of charity and love. Europe is littered with thousands of medieval charters attesting to these sentiments, charters in which these men still speak to us today if we will listen. Of course, they were not opposed to capturing booty if it could be had. But the truth is that the Crusades were notoriously bad for plunder. A few people got rich, but the vast majority returned with nothing.
Versus preachers used to support crusades at the time.
Call of Abraham was used to support crusades genesis 12 portraying the difficulties of crusader laving his family for economical uncertainty,difficulty in journey with possibility of death.
Holy War in the Bible: Christian Morality and an Old Testament Problem#[Paperback]
Heath A. Thomas#(Editor),#Jeremy Evans#(Editor),#Paul Copan#(Editor)
The church also gave money to help with cost.
"We and our brothers, cardinals of the holy Roman church, shall pay a full tenth. [crusading costs] "
# FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL (1215)
were Jews to be harmed?
"The Jews are not to be persecuted,nor killed,nor even forced to flee"
St Bernard of clairvaux- most famous preacher of second crusade
Jews were only officially protected non christian group in medieval society.
St. Bernard frequently preached that the Jews were not to be persecuted:
Ask anyone who knows the Sacred Scriptures what he finds foretold of the Jews in the Psalm. "Not for their destruction do I pray," it says. The Jews are for us the living words of Scripture, for they remind us always of what our Lord suffered … Under Christian princes they endure a hard captivity, but "they only wait for the time of their deliverance."Popes, bishops, and preachers made it clear that the Jews of Europe were to be left unmolested. In a modern war, we call tragic deaths like these "collateral damage." Even with smart technologies, the United States has killed far more innocents in our wars than the Crusaders ever could. But no one would seriously argue that the purpose of American wars is to kill women and children.
The crusade that Crusade that killed Jews against church decree was lead by emich- who was later denied entry past Hungary to continue crusade.
Many faught against him, John bishop of speyer hid and saved Jews than after went and persecuted those crusaders who had killed Jews. Bishop rothard allowed Jews to enter refuge in mainz and was killed by mob for it.
“Jews prior in germany were protected by the crown and local lords, they thrived along the rhine, some local bishops tried to protect the jews but many were killed all the same."
p 18 The New Concise History of the Crusades Thomas F. Madden
in mainz jews took refuge with the bishop in the palace, all were killed.
p 18 The New Concise History of the Crusades Thomas F. Madden
War between religions? Religious war? War of conversion?
The war was not primarily between two religions, it was between two groups of people that happened to be of separate religions,not because they were separate by and large. The wars were because of a people group that attacked another,committed crimes such as rape murder etc and conquest tacking another groups land, than in response another people group, banned together and attacked the first group. No question there was religious nature to some motives, but had these been simply separate countries within western Europe or middle east, a war would have broken out. Many times christian in the holy lands allied with Muslims against other Christians,
or aught to help Muslims against invading Christians and vice verse.
[the crusaders]"even during the expedition to Jerusalem,they demonstrated a more malleable attitude towards Muslims, engaging in extensive negotiations with fatimids of Egypt, pursuing limited alliances with Muslim rulers of northern Syria like Omar of Azaz and happily formulating a series of admittedly exploitative truces with the emirs of southern Syria,Lebanon and Palestine. The evidence of this is intermittent, and to an extant our Latin sources seem keen to present the crusade as an intense and unbending religious conflict. In reality, contact may have been continuing on a completely different level. Raymond of Aguilers asserted that a Latin priest and visionary Evremar went to Muslim city of Tripoli to rest and recuperate during the latter stages of the siege of Antioch suggest that cross-cultural interaction may actually have been far more common than we know.
P337-338 The first crusade Thomas Asbridge a new history the roots of conflict between Christianity and Islam 2004.
" the distinction between holy war and pilgrimage was real. The crusades usually referred to themselves as "pilgrim" or "cross bearers".
The New Concise History of the Crusades Thomas F. Madden p 10
Muslims and christian held alliances at different times, even helping the others [both ways] fight against other Muslim or Christians.
The New Concise History of the Crusades Thomas F. Madden
many crusaders thought byzantine empire the true enemy of the west,not Islam
The New Concise History of the Crusades Thomas F. Madden
some crusaders committed rape,murder against other Christians.
The New Concise History of the Crusades Thomas F. Madden
king of Jerusalem Fredrick befriended and knighted Muslim emir Fakhr-ad-din.
The New Concise History of the Crusades Thomas F. Madden
Muslims/jews were allowed to practice their religion in crusader states,not a war of conversion.
Jerusalem massacre during first crusade
Many inhabitants were not killed but captured and ransomed others expelled from city. It was Common of time period after a siege that many would be killed in both Europe and Islam during the medieval time period. Records range from few hundred to 75,00 [city population only 20,00-30,000] "It is probable that anywhere from several hundred to 3,000 were slain by the crusaders" p 75 The glory of the crusades bt steve Weidenkompf. Reports of Blood flow as high as ankles? Those were biblical references to Rev 4.20 and Isiah 63.3
Islam understanding of crusades
The crusades were not a part of Muslim history after the retaking of the holy land, no books were written until 1899 when the first Arabic book on crusades written. For hundreds of years Muslims did not remember the crusades as a major event in Islamic history.
Salem witch trials/ both man and woman.
Even adjusting for changes in population size, atheist regimes are responsible for 100 times more death in one century than Christian rulers inflicted over five centuries.
As for the Inquisition, much of the modern stereotype was largely made up by Spain’s political enemies, and later by anti-Christians. The Inquisition only had authority over professing Christians, and the Inquisition trials were often fairer and more lenient than their secular counterparts. Often the only penalty given was some sort of penance such as fasting. Over a period of 350 years, historians such as Henry Kamen estimate only between 1,500 and 4,000 people were executed for heresy.
The Salem witch trials constitute the best-known example of religiously motivated violence. However, fewer than 25 people were killed in the trials, falling far short of the ‘perhaps hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions’ (p. 207) that the late anti theist Carl Sagan wrote about.
Having shown that Christianity’s ‘religious crimes’ are far less horrendous than atheists would argue; he goes on to show that atheism, not religion, is responsible for mass murders. In fact, ‘atheist regimes have in a single century murdered more than one hundred million people’ (p. 214). Even adjusting for changes in population size, atheist regimes are responsible for 100 times more death in one century than Christian rulers inflicted over five centuries. However, while it can easily be shown that crimes committed in the name of Christianity are not sanctioned by its teaching, the bloodbaths of the atheist regimes are consistent with an atheist, evolutionary outlook. Indeed, atheists have no moral basis to say that anything is right or wrong
witch trials
#
the Salem which trial was stopped by 3 priest that said to the governor of Massachusetts what they were doing was biblical and they were not following biblical principles on trials and evidence. The governor repented in church and called on Massachusetts for day of fasting and prayer to overt gods judgment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dybHrSi4Now
The Salem witch trials constitute the best-known example of religiously motivated violence. However, fewer than 25 people were killed in the trials, falling far short of the ‘perhaps hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions’ (p. 207) that the late antitheist Carl Sagan wrote about.
20 years later the state paid restitution to the families.
the story of Christianity volume 2. justo gonzales
Inquisitions
This is a attack on the catholic church and in part fueled the protestant reformation.
medieval inquisitions
Short history
Started in 1184- bishops were sent to determine heretics in their area from the pope, to be done before secular law dealt with heretics [ burn at stake] as the secular law was not accurate to determine true faith. Between the years of 1200-1400 inquisitors would move from one place to another, later they would be set up in big cities and heretics would be brought to them. 1231 major Heresy in south of France that rejected Jesus divinity and humanity, but thought him a phantom. Said he did not die on the cross, purpose of life to free ourselves from bodies and highest form of worship suicide,the church reacted. First held councils and condemned the Heresy but it continued to spread rapid. Earlier pope sent missionaries to teach/preach and worked with secular rulers to help. Secular leader kills papal legate and pope calls crusade to destroy the Heresy.
Worldview/ why heresy is bad
Different worldview in this time period than today. Religion was everything at time and all society built around, it must be understood in their time period. Anything to disrupt belief, disrupts entire way of life. Christianity was united at the time in the catholic faith. Heresy was seen as active threat that seeked to convert. It was seen as a threat to the soul, violence follows heresy by dividing communities, secular leaders felt heresy a threat to their authority, it was a capital crime in secular law.
For why heresy was taken so serious at the time read here
http://www.basilica.org/pages/ebooks...rspective.html
Purpose of the inquisitions medieval inquisitions.
The inquisitions were formed to combat secular and church persecution of heretics. The Secular governments of the time offered no rights to the heretics and the penalty was capital punishment to be burned at stake. Mobs at time lynched heritics without trials.
"In France, in 1430, the Inquisition was established by the authority of the Pope, as an orderly and judicial means of dealing with what was regarded as a terrible social and religious evil. Maycock writes: "In the thirteenth century the secular arm, as a rule, needed no encouragement in the vigorous prosecution of heresy. And, so far as the burning of heretics was concerned, the Inquisition was a damping factor rather than a driving force."Undoubtedly Vacandard is right when he says, 'Taking all in all, the Inquisition in its operation developed a real progress in the treatment of criminals; for it not only put an end to the vengeance of the mob, but it diminished considerably the number of others condemned to death.'
Eustace Boylan, S.J. THE INQUISITION: IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
The Churches main goal was to save the soul of heretic, to protect unity of church and society. The main goal was to convert heretics, they wanted conversion not death of heretic. Inquisitors sent to show heretic why they were wrong and convert them. The inquisitors failed in there job if heretic was handed over to the state to be killed. Church was interested in saving the soul the state with punishment. Inquisitions effected only post baptism Catholics who had fallen from a major doctrine not after Jews/Muslims.
In 1231 list of procedures for papal inquisitors to determine if heretics were in the faith. Inquisitors must be men of good faith and good morals and have theological training.
How they operated
Inquisitors come to a area announce they are their and give a grace period of 30-40 days, they teach/preach the faith. Were you can come confess and be brought back into the church.
If after grace period evidence is gathered to bring to court they would be tried. Gather evidence everything said by defendant was recorded and written down, witness in defense of charged, if they are found guilty the inquisitors would try and show the heretic why they are wrong and why their soul is in danger,and try to bring them back.
Torture
torture originally not allowed. Allowed extensive in secular courts to bring about confession. Later when it was used it was optional,most did not want to use it. Most famous inquisitor bernard gui said not to use it it was not effective. It was very regulated on what could be done, inquisitors themselves could not use torture, they brought in secular ruler to do so under church regulated guidelines, always used to get confession/truth not a punishment. Only could be used once after all other options, a confession made in torture would be given a day of rest, than asked again if their confession was genuine.
Catechism of the Catholic Church
2298#In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.
Punishments
Punishments for heretics that confesses asked forgiveness were penance,fasting,wear special cloths [yellow with cross for period of time]give alms, go on pilgrimage[crusade]
If heretic refuses
And inquisitors cannot help, they give heretic over to the state. Death penalty from state often burn at stake.The catholic church never killed anyone, it was against cannon law to do so, they handed them over to the state.
1227-1277 in fance 5,000 executed 100 a year.
Bernard gui 16 years 930 judgments 42 given to state less than 5%
most cases did not end in death of heretic.
Spanish inquisitions
context
At the time there were Christians/Jews/Muslims all living in same land in southern Spain. Still had Muslim armies in southern Spain fighting against the Spanish crown. Many Muslim/Jewish converts to Catholicism. Many catholic citizens were worried that false converts would help Muslim armies invade cities and open gates to cities,give information to Muslims etc in 1478 Spanish government asked and was granted by pope to instilled inquisitions because of false rumors of false converts to help Muslims. The inquisitions Had support from the people of spain at the time, it was centered in cities outside city did not effect. Far less powerful and influncial than previously believed.
“Really politics, the crown of Spain wanted to consolidate power in the south were the people were a threat to Spain's power.”
The real story of the inquisitions steve weidenkopf teacher of church history at the notre dame graduate school of Christendom collage.
"From the special problems with which Spain was confronted, and from the policy of the rulers, the Spanish Inquisitors were civil functionaries more than Church officials. "A fair way of putting the case is perhaps this" (says Eliza Atkins Stone, a Protestant writer): "The machinery of the Spanish Inquisition was mainly ecclesiastical; the Vatican had more or less voice in its management, but on the lever was always not the Papal, but the Royal hand." This much is beyond question: It began its career under the definite censure of the Holy See, and the latter, perturbed at its severity, constantly urged clemency. "
Eustace Boylan, S.J. THE INQUISITION: IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Spanish inquisitions details
Used only on baptized christian, under royal not papal control, pope once sent letters to try and stop crimes done by the crown during Spanish inquisitions.
They would set up area and preach/teach for a period of grace for 30-40 days for heretics to confess and be forgiven. Than trial ,evidence, if found enough evidence to bring to trial, the defendant was placed in jail, a church jail [much better conditions than secular] defendant were allowed advocates [lawyer] allowed to give list of people who hated them that might lie to get you in trouble, they would not be allowed to testify against you.
Torture
In secular courts it was used regularity, in inquisitions Was rarely used, it was used in less than 2% of cases. it could only be used once , it was recorded, a bishop,witnesses,doctors must all be present. Limited to 15 minutes, if a confession is made they were given a day then re-asked.
Punishments
fine or prison [ often house arrest or monastery house] ,sometimes had to wear a yellow shirt with cross, sometimes flogging.
If they wont confess and are guilty
handed over to state often burned on stake. Most all cases did not end in secular death penalty.
"Fewer than 2% of total tried received the death penalty. During the 16th and 17th century fewer than three persons a year were but to death from Sicily to puru,a lower rate than any court in Spain or Europe, secular courts had higher rate of death penalty."
The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision#Paperbackby#Henry Kamen
"less than three people per year were sentenced to death by the Inquisition throughout the Spanish Empire, which ranged from Spain to Sicily and Peru. Secular historians given access to the Vatican’s archives in 1998 discovered that of the 44,674 individuals tried between 1540 and 1700, only 804 were recorded as being#relictus culiae saeculari. The 763-page report indicates that only 1 percent of the 125,000 trials recorded over the entire inquisition ultimately resulted in execution by the secular authority, which means that throughout its infamous 345-year history, the dread Spanish Inquisition was less than one-fourteenth as deadly on an annual basis as children’s bicycles.
for the history and what led up to the Inquisitions.
http://www.wnd.com/2008/02/56045/
1480-1530 the height of Spanish inquisitions 2,000 executed 40 a year.
Over 350 years entire time 4,000 in spain.
"taking into account all the tribunals of spain up till 1530, it is unlikely that more than 2,000 people were executed"
The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision#Paperbackby#Henry Kamen
Compare with the 6,832 members of the Catholic clergy murdered in the Spanish Republican Red Terror of 1936 is more than twice the number of the victims of 345 years of inquisition.
Result
spain had religious peace- religious wars in europe, spain free from that.
"A renowned historian here presents a new view of the notorious Spanish Inquisition, arguing that there was less terror, bigotry, and persecution associated with it than has been previously believed. Based on thirty years of research, the book will revolutionize further study in the field."
http://www.amazon.com/The-Spanish-In.../dp/0300078803
Total deaths from inquisitions in history all countries.
slight less than 10,000.
done by church 0
done by state 10,000
compared with the athistic french revolution that persecuted catholis over 3 years death total
Guillotined, 17,000; shot at Toulon, 2000; drowned at Mantes, men, women, and children, 4800. Then there were the murders by the mob about 10,000 were killed without trial in the province of Anjou alone.
Compare with the 6,832 members of the Catholic clergy murdered in the Spanish Republican Red Terror of 1936 is more than twice the number of the victims of 345 years of inquisition.
"Even adjusting for changes in population size, atheist regimes are responsible for 100 times more death in one century than Christian rulers inflicted over five centuries.As for the Inquisition, much of the modern stereotype was largely made up by Spain’s political enemies, and later by anti-Christians. The Inquisition only had authority over professing Christians, and the Inquisition trials were often fairer and more lenient than their secular counterparts. Often the only penalty given was some sort of penance such as fasting. Over a period of 350 years, historians such as Henry Kamen15 estimate only between 1,500 and 4,000 people were executed for heresy."
