THE CRUSADES, WERE THEY NECESSARY? YES THEY WERE!!!

Many Crusade Battles Went On For Days, And Sometimes Weeks

Myth # 4:  The Crusades were just medieval colonialism dressed up in religious finery.
  It is important to remember that in the Middle Ages the West was not a powerful, dominant culture venturing into a primitive or backward region.  It was the Muslim East that was powerful, and extremely wealthy.  Europe was the "Third World" in those times.  The Crusader States, founded in the wake of the First Crusade, were not new plantations of Catholics in a Muslim world akin to the British colonization of America.  Catholic presence in the Crusader states was always tiny, easily less than 10% of the population.  These were the rulers and magistrates, as well as Italian merchants and members of the military orders.
  The overwhelming majority of the population in the Crusader states was Muslim.  They were not colonies, therefore, in the sense of  plantations or even factories, as in the case of India.  They were merely outposts.  The ultimate purpose of the Crusader states was to defend the holy places in Palestine, especially Jerusalem, and to provide a safe environment for Christian pilgrims to visit those places.  There was no mother country with which the Crusader states had an economic relationship, nor did the Europeans economically benefit from them.  Quite the contrary, the expense of Crusades to maintain the Latin East was a serious drain on European resources.  As an outpost, the Crusader states kept a military focus.  While the Muslims warred against each other the Crusader states were safe, but once the Muslims united, they were able to dismantle the strongholds, capture the cities, and in 1291 expel the Christians completely.
  Myth # 5:  The Crusades were also waged against Jews.
  No Pope ever called a Crusade against Jews.  During the First Crusade a large band of riffraff, not associated with the main army, descended on the towns of the Rhineland and decided to rob and kill the Jews they found there.  In part this was pure greed.  In part it also stemmed from the incorrect belief that the Jews, as crucifier's of Christ, were legitimate targets of war.  Pope Urban II and subsequent Popes strongly condemned these attacks on Jews.  Local Bishops and other clergy and laity attempted to defend the Jews, although with limited success.  Similarly, during the opening phase of the Second Crusade a group of renegades killed many Jews in Germany before St. Bernard was able to catch up to them and put a stop to it.  These misfires of the movement were an unfortunate by-product of Crusade enthusiasm, but they were not he purpose of the Crusades.  To use a modern analogy, during the Second World War some American soldiers committed crimes while overseas.  They were arrested and punished for those crimes.  Hut the purpose of the Second World War was not to commit crimes.
  Question:  Is the present struggle between the West and the Muslims in any way a reaction to the Crusades?
  Not necessarily, although terrorists like Osama Bin Laden many times refer to Americans as Crusaders.  It is important to note that it was Islam that was the super-power in the Middle Ages.  Muslims were extremely wealthy, sophisticated and very powerful.  The "Crusades" as far as the Muslim Empire goes were relatively insignificant.  The "Crusades" were only important to the Europeans, as it was a large and concerted effort on their part, and other than the First Crusade, the rest, (nine officially) were failed attempts to stop the Islamization of Europe.  During and after the Crusades, Muslim empires continued to expand and conquer Christian territories.  Muslims conquered the Balkans and much of Eastern Europe and even the greatest city of the time, Constantinople.  It wasn't until the 19th century when Europeans began conquering and colonizing Middle-Eastern countries that many so-called historians, not surprisingly the French royalist writers began to cast the "Crusades" as Europe's first attempt to bring the fruits of Western civilization to the backward Muslim world.  As a result of the French royalist writers, the Crusades were transformed from failed attempt at stopping Muslim expansion into Imperialist Wars.
  Unfortunately those histories were taught in the colonial schools and became the accepted view in the Middle East and beyond.  Here in the 20th and 21st centuries, imperialism has become discredited.  Ironically and using the adage that "no good deed goes unpunished" , many Islamists have seized on the colonial misrepresentation of the Crusades, and claim that the West is responsible for all their problems.  It is now the Muslim contention that the West has been preying upon Muslims ever since the Crusades.  What goes around, almost always comes around.  By this I mean that it has been said the people in the Middle East have long memories, and this may be true but in the case of the Crusades, they have a recovered memory: one that was manufactured for them by their 19th century French and European conquerors.  How Ironic!!!
  "The Muslim Brotherhood is very adept at playing the victim card to get their way in America and the the West.  We, as Christians, must not allow this false victim card to play on our sympathies.  Tolerance of the expansion of Islam is a dangerous practice, and will be a fatal blow to Christendom if left unchecked." 
God Help Us
The Watchman
(Sources and Acknowledgements:  Myths of the Crusades, Author: Thomas Madden)
( St. Bernard was actually Bernard of Clairvaux, born 1090-died 1153.  St. Bernard of Clairvaux has a very interesting history, I urge you to Google "St. Bernard of Clairvaux" and read about this remarkable Nobleman.)

THE CRUSADES, CHRISTIANS NEED NOT BE ASHAMED

Christian Crusaders Fought Long Hard Battles For Many Years At A Time,
Some Left England, France and Spain as Young Men and Returned Many Years Later

In this ongoing saga of the Crusades, I will only touch base on a few of the many myths that have grown. The facts bear out that too many stories were fabricated by the Muslims long after the Crusades were over.  The reasons behind these fabrications, no one knows for sure.  In essence the was no reason to fabricate anything, as it was the Muslims under their leader Saladin who were ultimately victorious.

  MYTH #3:  When the Christian Crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099 they massacred every man, woman and child in the city until the streets ran ankle deep in blood.

  This is a favorite used to demonstrate the evil nature of the Crusades.  It is certainly true that many people in Jerusalem were killed after the Crusaders captured the city. However, this needs to be looked at in and understood in historical context.  The accepted moral standard in all pre-modern European and Asia civilizations was that a city that resisted capture and was taken by force belonged to the victorious forces.  That included not just the buildings and goods, but the people as well.  That is why every city or fortress had to weigh carefully whether it could hold out against besiegers.  If not, it was wise to negotiate terms of surrender.  In the case of Jerusalem, the Muslim defenders had resisted right up to the end.  They calculated that the formidable walls of the city would keep the Crusaders at bay until a relief force from Egypt could arrive.  They were wrong!  When the city fell, therefore, it was put to the sack.

  Many were killed, yet many others were ransomed or allowed to go free.  By modern standards this may seem brutal.  Yet a medieval knight would point out that many more innocent men, women and children are killed in modern bombing warfare than could possibly be put to the sword in one or two days.  It is worth noting that in those Muslim cities that surrendered to the Crusaders the people were left unmolested, retained their property and were allowed to worship freely.  As for those "streets of blood", no historian accepts them as anything other than a literary convention.  Jerusalem is a big town.  The amount of blood necessary to fill the streets to a continuous and running three inch depth would require many more people than lived in the region, let alone the city.
  The lost history of the Crusades:  Western guilt over, and apologies for, the Crusades ignores one crucial fact:  The West actually lost!
  The Crusades were a response to more than four hundred years of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world.
  Here is a point to ponder:  In the year 1453, Muslims captured the capital of the Byzantine Empire, Constantinople (Istanbul Turkey today).  In the late 15th century, Rome was evacuated when Muslim armies landed at Otranto in an unsuccessful invasion of Italy.  By the 16th century, the Ottoman Turk empire stretched from North Africa and Arabia to the Near East and Asia Minor.  They penetrated deep into Europe, conquering Greece, Bulgaria, Hungary, Albania, Croatia and Serbia.  In 1529, the Ottomans (Muslims) laid siege to Vienna, Austria.  Fortunately for Europe, the siege failed; otherwise the door to Germany would have opened.  It wasn't until 1572, when the Catholic Holy League defeated the Ottoman fleet at Lepanto, that Islam's threat to the West finally ended.  Or was it?  Not really...  In the late 20th century, that's here and now my friends, the doors to Europe are once again open to Muslims.  I wonder, who will stop them this time?
God Help Us
Sincerely, 
The Watchman
(Acknowledgements and Sources:  Author, Thomas Madden and Robert Sibley of the Ottawa Citizen)
 
 
  

THE SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENTS, NOT BY A MUSLIM EXTREMIST, OR A CHRISTIAN ZEALOT, BUT AT THE HANDS OF A MADMAN

Anders Breivik, Oslo's Mass Murderer

  For the past 2 years I have been warning the citizenry about the threats from Islam.  Yesterday, in Oslo, Norway, the unthinkable happened.  The man pictured above allegedly blew up some government offices and proceeded to a youth camp, where, dressed as a policeman, pulled weapons and brutally murdered some 80 people, most of them teenagers.  Whatever his motive might have been, the crime is inexcusable.  He should be prosecuted and sentenced without mercy.  I do not believe that Norway has a death penalty, but if they do, I can think of no better instance to employ it, than with this man.  The act was senseless and evil.  Justice will, I'm sure prevail in court here on earth, but most certainly by the Lord Our God.

  There is no doubt that the left-wing has already jumped on the fact that this murderer is not a Muslim, although ties to Muslim influence have not been ruled out as yet.  The description "Christian" has already been over used in this tragedy, as a label, a "scarlet letter" if you will.  As if it were somehow Christian doctrine that turned this guy into the homicidal maniac he appears to be.  Anti-Christian and anti-white accusers will be all over this one, mark my words.  Let me say this one thing, there is nothing Christian about this man, and nothing in the teachings of Christ to lead anyone to commit such a heinous act of violence.  If this man was a follower of Islam, his actions would be conceivable, as the Muslim extremists are known world wide for their brutality and murder of non-believers.  It is condoned by Muhammad in the Koran, so we expect it from Muslims.  The first thoughts of everyone when the car-bomb went off in Oslo, was understandably, Muslim terrorists.  When something like this happens, it is quite common to look to those violent people who are 9 out 10 times responsible for acts like these.

  The terrorist style acts committed by Anders Breivik will certainly be the fuel the Department of Homeland Security needs to justify their assumption that Conservative Right Wing citizens are terrorists.  From now and for all time, when conservatives bring argument that Middle Eastern looking people need to be profiled at airports, the TSA will merely bring up the blond haired, blue eyed Norwegian named Anders Breivik, and the terrorist act he perpetrated upon the innocent people in Norway.  A home grown terrorist murdering 80 or more of his own people.  

  I submit that Anders Breivik is not a terrorist per say, but a common criminal who was berserk enough to commit a abominable crime, resulting in terror.  I contend that this man is a homicidal maniac, and he wanted attention.  I believe that he is not part of a large group of fair-haired Norwegians set to wreak havoc upon the citizens of Norway or anywhere else in the free world.  Anders Breivik is a sick and twisted individual, and what he did, although heiness, is a one time isolated incident.

  The crime of Anders Breivik should not cause the world's focus on an enemy Islam to waiver in any way.  The spread of Islam and Sharia is as real as ever.  When the terrible memories of what happened yesterday in Norway begin to fade, Islam and the re-building of the new Caliphate will be alive and well.  Believe me, the Muslims in Norway will cheer over this episode and take advantage of this moment to further their cause, just as they did on 9/11.  America, we can ill afford to ignore or deny who the real enemy is.  

  My heart and my prayers to the families of this, Oslo's most terrible tragedy, God be with you all.

May we never forget that this is Satan's domain, and evil lives here.  Evil things happen, and evil comes in all sizes and shapes, colors and creeds.  In these times, we must be vigilant, especially Christians.  The Lord warns us of persecutions for His name's sake.  The one thing that Satan is good at, is finding ways to lay the blame on Christians for things he has caused.  

God Help Us

Sincerely,

The Watchman    

THE CRUSADES AND WHY CHRISTIANS SHOULD NOT BE ASHAMED OF THEIR HERITAGE

There are so many misconceptions and myths surrounding the Great Crusades that it is difficult to know where to begin.  So, perhaps as close to the beginning is the best place.
If this were year 629 AD, and the local newspaper arrived as it does today, one of the front page headlines would read:
"MUSLIM JIHADIS LAUNCH UNPROVOKED ATTACK ON CHRISTENDOM, CHRISTIANS WAIT NEARLY 466 YEARS TO MOUNT A DEFENSIVE COUNTER-ATTACK!!!"
So you see, the Crusaders were a defensive unit, the Muslim Jihadis were the aggressors.  That is an important fact to remember.  The battle of Mu'ta in year 629 was just the beginning of unprovoked Muslim attack upon Christians and Jews.  As you know from reading today's headlines, the Muslims have not stopped attacking Christians and Jews since the first attack in 629.  It wasn't until the year 1095 that the 1st Crusade began, a self-defense action. (There was a total of nine Crusades)
  Yesterday's Blog article contained Myth#1 concerning the Crusades.  Today we will dispel misconception i.e., Myth #2
MYTH # 2:   The Crusaders wore crosses, but they were really only interested in capturing booty and land.  Their pious platitudes were just a cover for rapacious greed.
  Historians once believed that the rise in Europe's population led to a crisis to too many nobles, second sons if you will.  Second sons were trained in chivalric warfare but had no feudal lands to inherit.  The Crusades, therefore, were seen as a safety valve, sending belligerent men far from Europe where they could carve out lands for themselves at someone else's expense.  Modern scholarship, assisted by the advent of computer databases, has exploded this myth.  We now know that it was the "first sons" of Europe that answered the Pope's call in 1095AD, as well as in subsequent Crusades.  Crusading was an enormously expensive operation.  Lords were forced to sell off or mortgage their lands to gather the necessary funds.  Most were also not interested in an overseas kingdom.  Much like a soldier today, the medieval Crusader was proud to do his duty, but longed to return home.
  After the spectacular successes of the First Crusade, with Jerusalem and much of Palestine in the Crusader hands, virtually all of the Crusaders went home.  Only a tiny handful remained behind to consolidate and govern the newly won territories.  Booty was also scarce.  In fact, although Crusaders no doubt dreamed of vast wealth in opulent Eastern cities, virtually none of them ever even recouped their expenses.  Money and land were not the reasons that they went on Crusade in the first place.  They went to atone for their sins and to win salvation by doing good works in a faraway land.  They underwent such expense and hardship because they believed that by coming to the aid of their Christian brothers and sisters in the East they were storing up treasure where rust and moth cannot corrupt (heaven).  They were mindful of Christ's exhortation the he who will not take up his cross is not worthy of Christ.  They also remembered that "Greater love hath no man than this, than to lay down his life for his friends."
  I wonder how many Crusaders there would have been if they weren't connected to a works religion, i.e. Catholicism?  For instance, if you know as we believe today as Evangelical Christians, that you can attain salvation by repenting of you sins and accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Savior, would you still go to war in a far off land to gain the treasure of salvation?  Was it God in His infinite wisdom that put the Pope and the Catholic church in place for the purpose of stopping or at least slowing down the follower's of Allah?  Do you think that God in His infinite wisdom has placed anyone to counter attack the new Muslim Empire and Caliphate being built today? 
  Tomorrow, Myth # 3. 
God Help Us
Sincerely,
The Watchman
(Sources:  Thomas Madden, Author of  "A Concise History of the Crusades and Learntheology.com from an article by printed on "History of Jihad.com)
 

REMOVING THE NAME CHRIST FROM A CHRISTIAN ORGANIZATION, WHY???

Sometimes, the truth must be told no matter who it offends!!!

"Campus Crusade for Christ", more commonly known on college campus' throughout America and the world as CCC.  The CCC is a large-scale Christian organization that was founded by Bill and Vonette Bright at UCLA in 1951 and has carried the same name since 1960.  In 2012, the organization will be removing the name of "Christ" and will officially call the Christian organization "Cru".  Under the guise of taking away any obstacles that might deter anyone from hearing the true message of the organization, the leaders felt the name change was necessary.  According to Vonette her husband Bill had considered an organizational name change for about 20-25 years.  I may be wrong, but 20-25 years ago is when Islamic Students Organizations, and other liberal student organizations began popping up on campus' across the United States.  Could this name change have any correlation with how Muslims are offended at the mention of the word "Christian"?  Of course, if one is trying not to appease the Muslim student population, then why choose the name "Cru" which clearly suggests that the word Crusade is okay, but not the name Christ.  I would think that "Cru" will raise just as much Muslim ire, if not more than the words Christ or Christian as they are all quite synonymous.  Either the leaders were somewhat remiss in their selection of a new name, or they're making a point.  In my opinion, they were remiss, and soon there may be a revocation of "Cru" to something even more secular.  I believe that this entire name change thing is the direct result of the political correctness that now permeates our society, both in the public and private sectors.  If I were the leader of CCC, instead of changing the name to "Cru", I'd spell it out, and call it "The Crusade", but that's just me.  

  These days people shy away from the word "Crusade" as though there was something nasty and offensive about it.  In actually, "The Crusaders were quite noble in their endeavors, and "The Crusades" in themselves were a very noble cause for freedom from oppression by Muslims.  Here are some facts to dispel some misconceptions concerning "The Crusades".  These facts may offend some folks, especially Muslims, because to hear the way Islam tells the story, they (the Muslims) were just a group of merry men minding their own business when the barbaric hordes of Christians swooped down upon them totally unprovoked.

Myth #1:    The Crusades were wars of unprovoked aggression against a peaceful Muslim world.

  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  From the time of Mohammed, Muslims had sought to conquer the Christian world.  They did a pretty good job of it too.  After a few centuries of steady conquests, Muslim armies had taken all of North Africa, the Middle East, Asia Minor and most of Spain.  In other words, by the end of the 11th century the forces of Islam had captured two-thirds of the Christian world.  Palestine, the home of Jesus Christ; Egypt, the birthplace of Christian monasticism; Asia Minor, where St. Paul planted the seeds of the first Christian communities--these were not the periphery of Christianity, but it's very core.  However, the Muslims empires were not finished yet.  They continued to press westward toward Constantinople, ultimately passing it and entering Europe itself.  As far as unprovoked aggression goes, it was all on the Muslim side.  At some point, what was left of the Christian world would have to defend itself, or simply succumb to Islamic conquest. (source:  A Concise History of the Crusades, author Thomas Madden, chair of the history department at St. Louis University)

  In the following days, or for as long as it takes, I will be compiling data and facts from numerous sources regarding the truth about "The Crusades", and why Christians should NOT be ashamed of their heritage.  Through this Blog, we will delve more deeply into Islam and Christian differences and why neither can survive peacefully in the presence of one another.  "The Crusades, and the Crusaders were noble and righteous in their cause.  Make no mistake, the Crusaders were also volunteers for the most part, and marched on an enemy of formidable strength and resolve.  The Muslim empire and their conquests prior to the onset of the Crusades, could not be ignored.  By the same token, the Islamic conquests of Europe and the West can no longer be ignored today.  Had the Crusades not happened, no doubt all the world today would be Islamic.  If the West and Europe do not begin a new Crusade today, the end result will be the same for us tomorrow.

Are you prepared to bow to Allah?

God Help Us

Sincerely,

The Watchman



Campus Crusade for Christ Cru New name changes TheBlaze.com

Reading Bible Social Justice Poverty | TheBlaze.com

There is nothing about Social Justice that is Divinely Inspired

                                          Reading Bible Social Justice Poverty TheBlaze.com

Whoa, and back up there Mr. Aaron Franzen from Baylor, and you too David Briggs from the Association of Religion Data Archives.  Do not allude that "Social Justice" is some kind of divine Bible inspiration!  There are huge societal differences between "Social Justice" and the "Social Concerns" of Bible reading Christians.  Please don't confuse the two.  Neither the Father or the Son instituted social justice reforms.  Social Justice is strictly a man made paradigm shift.  Socialism and Christianity are not even remotely related.  Social Justice is the demand for funds by the ruling government so that the government can redistribute wealth to whom it sees fit and deserving.  Concern for those who are unfortunate deems that money from charitable Christians be doled to the charity in which the donor chooses through his/her own God given free will.  Contrary to popular opinion these days, Jesus was not and is not a Socialist.  Jesus encouraged Christians to be charitable, He did not order ruling governments to steal money from good hard working people, so that those who refuse to work would reap the benefit of someone else's harvest.  OH yes, there is a difference between "Social Justice" and charity.  
  Mr. Briggs states: "Those individuals who believe that the Bible is literally true, but who spend little time reading it, will actually find themselves at ideological odds with those who devote more time to the scriptures."  That statement Mr. Briggs is actually a contradiction in terms.  There are no avid Bible readers that could possibly come away with the idea that Christian charity is connected to Social or Economic Justice.  
  In my opinion, this entire study is just another way for socialism to infiltrate the conservative Christian community.  What better way is there to convince Christians they all along have been of a socialist nature, because Jesus preached socialism?  He did not!!!  
  A warning to Christians; we have always been the most concerned and the most charitable of all peoples in the world.  To prove this to yourself, look back at all the Christian sponsored ministries for the past, say 100 years.  Has any one church, either priest or preacher demanded the turning over of your hard earned money to any specific ministry?  No, they have not.  So, by the same token, ask yourself how do these charitable ministries continue to operate?  The simple answer is this:  Because we love Jesus, we love our brothers and neighbors as ourselves, and that results in the huge successes of charitable missions and ministries around the globe.  The government does not have to demand our money, it is out of love that we freely give to those in need.  No, there is no correlation between "Social Justice" and Christian charity, NONE!
  As a Bible reader, I come away with a healthy respect for the law, both God's law and our nation's law.  The Progressive liberals who appear responsible for this so-called study of Christians and the reporting of the study's findings are extremely bias in their conclusions.  This study has been published for one reason, and one reason only, to somehow convince conservative Christians that they are actually Socialists.  Do not lend credence to the published conclusions of this Baylor study.  Social and Economic justice is the antithesis of God's word.  Social and Economic justice has it's roots deeply in Communism.  Christianity has it's roots in Freedom, and love that comes directly from the teachings of Jesus Christ, not Carl Marx.  Beware of false prophets the Bible warns us.  This study is in essence a false prophesy, aimed at leading conservative, God fearing Christians down the wide path, and not the narrow one.  
  I encourage all of you to click on the link to this study, read it, but do not be fooled by it.  God's laws are not to be distorted, and the conclusions of this study will try to encourage you to believe otherwise.  It is not unlike the recent decision of the Southern Baptist Convention to seek some social equality and justice for the children of illegal Mexican alien children in this country.  America is a nation of laws, not individuals.  Those who are here illegally, have already broken the law by their mere presence.  The children they bore here are no more American citizens than their parents.  By granting an amnesty to the children of illegals does nothing but encourage the infiltration of more illegals into this country.  Christian condonement of  this behavior by illegals breaks commandment after commandment.  Thou shalt not steal.  Thou shalt not covet.  I shouldn't need to go on.  If you are an American citizen, and you feel compelled to take in illegal aliens from anywhere, then they should live with you, eat your food and wear your clothes.  If you are well with that, then you should also be responsible for their health care.  You should be responsible, not the rest of American society, that's socialist.  Placing the burden of the illegals on all of society is forced redistribution of wealth, and that too is socialism.  
  Socialist Progressives have infiltrated many if not all aspects of our government, and now they are attempting to infiltrate and cause a huge paradigm shift in the Christian churches.  If the socialists are successful in their infiltration, it will make the church a subject of the government.  The first amendment is supposed to protect the church from the state, but if the state can make demands from the churches, then I ask, who's actually in charge?  What would be the difference, from one Revolutionary War to another?  Is not one tyrannical and oppressive government the same as the other?
Seek God's Divine Providence
Do not be led astray by the words of false prophets.
Sincerely,
The Watchman