The Crusades

[poptart]

I'm at home, it's cold and I had an insomnia attack so more or less homebound.   That being said thought I would ask something, what is the LDS churches stance on the crusades?  Wondered for a while, considering how close we all were to not being Christian anymore I've often wondered if the LDS even cared.

[cdowis]

The official  stance of the church?  It was ........a historical event. 

Of course we care, but not officially.

Edited December 24, 2017 by cdowis

[The Nehor]

We are marching on Branson, Missouri next week to drive out the infidel. Want to come?

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, poptart said:

I'm at home, it's cold and I had an insomnia attack so more or less homebound.   That being said thought I would ask something, what is the LDS churches stance on the crusades?  Wondered for a while, considering how close we all were to not being Christian anymore I've often wondered if the LDS even cared.

See the The Pearl of Great Price Student Manual (LDS Church, 2000), 42–51, online at https://www.lds.org/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual/joseph-smith-matthew?lang=eng ,

Quote

Joseph Smith—Matthew 1:19. “Only the Beginning of the Sorrows”
The suffering of the Jews following the death and Resurrection of Christ was clearly prophesied by Nephi and Jacob in the Book of Mormon (see 1 Nephi 19:14; 2 Nephi 6:9–11; 10:3–6; 25:9–16). Historical events, such as the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Holocaust, are other times since A.D.  70 when the Jews have been persecuted and destroyed.

 

[poptart]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

See the The Pearl of Great Price Student Manual (LDS Church, 2000), 42–51, online at https://www.lds.org/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual/joseph-smith-matthew?lang=eng ,

 

Weird, the Mormons came on the scene long after the Catholic church was a thing, kind of pointless to say you prophesy something after the fact, especially something that was well over a 1000 years ago.  You know, the Jewish people were always a major thorn in the empires side, they finally had to invade to make em behave.  Really they were like any other people, they existed, rebelled, were put down, rinse and repeat.  The whole persecution thing is annoying, it happened to everyone. 

TBH the Crusades, atleast initially was more about pope Urban getting the knights to quit pillaging the countryside and remove the moors who were slaughtering the innocent and the turks who were sacking the Church of the holy selplichure. 

Then again, that is something unique to the american religious experience, seems like so many here pull the muh feels logic over facts and history.

Edited December 24, 2017 by poptart

[poptart]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

We are marching on Branson, Missouri next week to drive out the infidel. Want to come?

I'll be the one with priestly robes pushing sinners to repent and give me tax deductible donations, I have the same stuff a priest would wear, wow I look holy. 

I'll also be selling indulgences, since i like you i'll give you a good deal. 

Edited December 24, 2017 by poptart

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, poptart said:

Weird, the Mormons came on the scene long after the Catholic church was a thing, kind of pointless to say you prophesy something after the fact, especially something that was well over a 1000 years ago.

That LDS lesson manual is really dealing with historical events, not predicting them, and is commenting on the religious nature of some of that history.  Mass murder by Roman Catholicism is a fact of history, and it needs to be understood how bestial people can be under the guise of religion.  We need constant reminders.

2 hours ago, poptart said:

  You know, the Jewish people were always a major thorn in the empires side, they finally had to invade to make em behave.  Really they were like any other people, they existed, rebelled, were put down, rinse and repeat.  The whole persecution thing is annoying, it happened to everyone. 

Yeh, life has been pretty harsh for everybody down through the centuries, and even today most people are suffering extreme poverty, disease, rape, and murder on vast scale -- except in the Western and other modern industrial countries.  However, the Jewish people have been a particularly annoying presence for several important reasons:  (1) they are the chosen people of God, and (2) their promises are sure and won't go away.

2 hours ago, poptart said:

TBH the Crusades, atleast initially was more about pope Urban getting the knights to quit pillaging the countryside and remove the moors who were slaughtering the innocent and the turks who were sacking the Church of the holy selplichure. 

The problem is that the Crusaders themselves sacked Jerusalem, killing all the Christians and Jews living there, in addition to the Muslims.  The Moors were the North African Muslims who occupied Spain for 500 years, and who brought high culture and great learning to Spain -- while the rest of Europe was still in the Dark Ages.  That was during the Muslim Golden Age in which all Greek learning was preserved by the Muslims in their great libraries.  We have seen nothing like that from the Muslims since then.

2 hours ago, poptart said:

Then again, that is something unique to the american religious experience, seems like so many here pull the muh feels logic over facts and history.

America has the distinction of being a space in which religious freedom allowed the Restoration of the authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ without being destroyed.  The Restoration could not have taken place otherwise.  The Mormons would simply have been exterminated in Medieval or Renaissance times.

[Atheist Mormon]

22 hours ago, poptart said:

I'm at home, it's cold and I had an insomnia attack so more or less homebound.   That being said thought I would ask something, what is the LDS churches stance on the crusades?  Wondered for a while, considering how close we all were to not being Christian anymore I've often wondered if the LDS even cared.

Do Europeans themselves care? 

[strappinglad]

They( the Muslims ) started it!

Did not !!

Did so !!!

[poptart]

2 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Do Europeans themselves care? 

Very much!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

When you're good and dead ask a Spainiard who lived near Cordoba or anyone in the Eastern part of the empire who saw firsthand the slaughter at the hands of the Turks what they thought.  Let's start with the Moors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs_of_Córdoba

Good hollywood movie for you, El Cid with Charlton Heston.  Educate yourself Pilgrim.  Considering King Alfonso X made a whole bunch of poems during the period of the Reconquista when Spain more or less liberated themselves from Muslim butchers and now are dealing with rapists culturalally enriching their lands I'm quite sure they care.

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

They( the Muslims ) started it!

Did not !!

Did so !!!

See above.

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That LDS lesson manual is really dealing with historical events, not predicting them, and is commenting on the religious nature of some of that history.  Mass murder by Roman Catholicism is a fact of history, and it needs to be understood how bestial people can be under the guise of religion.  We need constant reminders.

Yeh, life has been pretty harsh for everybody down through the centuries, and even today most people are suffering extreme poverty, disease, rape, and murder on vast scale -- except in the Western and other modern industrial countries.  However, the Jewish people have been a particularly annoying presence for several important reasons:  (1) they are the chosen people of God, and (2) their promises are sure and won't go away.

The problem is that the Crusaders themselves sacked Jerusalem, killing all the Christians and Jews living there, in addition to the Muslims.  The Moors were the North African Muslims who occupied Spain for 500 years, and who brought high culture and great learning to Spain -- while the rest of Europe was still in the Dark Ages.  That was during the Muslim Golden Age in which all Greek learning was preserved by the Muslims in their great libraries.  We have seen nothing like that from the Muslims since then.

America has the distinction of being a space in which religious freedom allowed the Restoration of the authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ without being destroyed.  The Restoration could not have taken place otherwise.  The Mormons would simply have been exterminated in Medieval or Renaissance times.

You especially see my first post, if you want I will happily send you plenty of educational links, the Spanish were especially screwed by the Moors and had to more or less single handedly fight them off, google El Cid for starters, he's one of my favorite heroes.  Think of the Spanish Robin Hood, just switch out the long bow for more classical knightly weapons and there you go. 

Also, the crusaders saved Christians, they saved many of the origonal ones in Antioch and beyond.  You think what they did in Jerusalem was bad?  Read up on what the Muslims did, they made the Christians look like choir girls.  No offense if there are any here, mom was one, I was a choir boy myself long ago, just illustrating a point.  You have much to learn friend, would be more than happy to help on that end.  Mother Church is the reason we have anything Christian at all nowadays, Her and Pope Urban II.

Edited December 25, 2017 by poptart

[Robert F. Smith]

19 minutes ago, poptart said:

..............................................

Good hollywood movie for you, El Cid with Charlton Heston.  Educate yourself Pilgrim.  Considering King Alfonso X made a whole bunch of poems during the period of the Reconquista when Spain more or less liberated themselves from Muslim butchers and now are dealing with rapists culturalally enriching their lands I'm quite sure they care.............You especially see my first post, if you want I will happily send you plenty of educational links, the Spanish were especially screwed by the Moors and had to more or less single handedly fight them off, google El Cid for starters, he's one of my favorite heroes.  .........................

I love El Cid, and yes the Spanish had to free themselves.  It is no accident that they became the most powerful nation in the world as soon as they kicked out the Moors and forcibly converted many Jews and exiled the rest (the Maranos).  The Moors had brought them high civilization, which they have since entirely lost and become a third-rate power.  Spain spent far too much time torturing and burning heretics at the stake, then came the dictator Francisco Franco, from which Spain still has not recovered.  Tourists now flock to Spain to gawk at the magnificent Moorish architecture, and little else.  The ghost of the Grand Inquisitor, De Torquemada, still haunts Spain.

19 minutes ago, poptart said:

Also, the crusaders saved Christians, they saved many of the origonal ones in Antioch and beyond.  You think what they did in Jerusalem was bad?  Read up on what the Muslims did, they made the Christians look like choir girls.  No offense if there are any here, mom was one, I was a choir boy myself long ago, just illustrating a point.  You have much to learn friend, would be more than happy to help on that end.  Mother Church is the reason we have anything Christian at all nowadays, Her and Pope Urban II.

The Crusaders were only there a short time, were soundly defeated, and left.  Fortunately, the Muslims were more civilized than the Crusaders, and allowed Christians and Jews to exist throughout the Middle East as "People of the Book."  They were tolerant where the so-called "Christians" were not.  A Jew could even be the Grand Wazir (Prime Minister) to the Caliph in Baghdad.  Today of course that Golden Age is long gone and the Muslims are equally as bestial as the Christians once were.  Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the Protestants have all been so busy persecuting dissident Christians that hardly anything authentic remains from early times.  As I said, we are very fortunate for modern religious freedom in the West.

[USU78]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I love El Cid, and yes the Spanish had to free themselves.  It is no accident that they became the most powerful nation in the world as soon as they kicked out the Moors and forcibly converted many Jews and exiled the rest (the Maranos).  The Moors had brought them high civilization, which they have since entirely lost and become a third-rate power.  Spain spent far too much time torturing and burning heretics at the stake, then came the dictator Francisco Franco, from which Spain still has not recovered.  Tourists now flock to Spain to gawk at the magnificent Moorish architecture, and little else.  The ghost of the Grand Inquisitor, De Torquemada, still haunts Spain.

The Crusaders were only there a short time, were soundly defeated, and left.  Fortunately, the Muslims were more civilized than the Crusaders, and allowed Christians and Jews to exist throughout the Middle East as "People of the Book."  They were tolerant where the so-called "Christians" were not.  A Jew could even be the Grand Wazir (Prime Minister) to the Caliph in Baghdad.  Today of course that Golden Age is long gone and the Muslims are equally as bestial as the Christians once were.  Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the Protestants have all been so busy persecuting dissident Christians that hardly anything authentic remains from early times.  As I said, we are very fortunate for modern religious freedom in the West.

Dhimmitude. It's a real thing.

[3DOP]

So poptart...

Maybe you should think about getting folk to wonder if every crusade is the same. It might be better to defend one crusade at a time. Moderns in the West hate what they have been taught was a malicious unenlightened past. The past in the West was Catholic and incompatible with modernity. Crusades are Catholic and difficult to reconcile with religious liberty. Two strikes. Maybe you could get them while the count is 0 and 2 to think it was good for the Mongols to be stopped at the gates of Vienna, and even to be happy that the the Turks were defeated at Lepanto. At best we get ball one and ball two. The count might go full if we could show how truly whacked out the Albigenses were in southern France preaching their doctrines against marriage and causing some serious social disturbance. There is no use swinging for the fences unless we really know our stuff. I think you are right and I thank you for your efforts, but modern people nowadays, even if they identify as Catholics,  will not be open to the Crusades as a whole without being led to see that they have to be examined one at a time, and that at least one or two of them is without a doubt laudable. 

Just my opinion. God bless. Keep trying. and Merry, merry Christmas to you. Our King is come tonight!

Rory   

 

[Stargazer]

What the LDS position of the Crusades might be?  They happened, that's all.  I don't think I've ever heard or read about any official LDS public address or writing which said one thing or another about the Crusades. Were the Crusades justified or righteous? That's another question.  Examine the following and judge for yourself.

"But the Crusades!" is always the answer when the complaints about Jihad surface -- as if they were the same thing.  But if we examine the whole Jihad/Crusade thing as a piece it they are clearly not the same thing at all.  It is a false equivalence..  Yes, Pope Urban and getting second sons of royalty and nobility out of the way so they didn't interfere with first sons inheriting thrones and dominions (except a lot of first sons and kings went on Crusade as well) might be a "thing."  But the Crusades didn't occur in a vacuum. 

Islam did not generally spread by sending missionaries out, a la Mormonism, to convert the world as with Christianity's the Great Commission.  Islam spread primarily by the sword, at least in the Middle East and around the Mediterranean.  And it conquered lands that had been Christian for hundreds of years.  At the time of the first crusade Muslim armies had already conquered and forcibly converted to Islam all of North Africa, were seriously encroaching on what remained of the Roman Empire (based in Constantinople and called the Byzantine Empire), and had already conquered most of the Iberian peninsula (today's Spain and Portugal).  At the time of the First Crusade (1095-1099) it had been just over 350 years since Charles Martel of France had defeated an invading Muslim army at the Battle of Tours (732), which essentially stopped the progress of Muslim takeover of Europe. But the Byzantines, who were Christian, were under serious pressure by invading Muslim armies, and had asked for help from the western Christian kingdoms.  The Crusades in the Levant, having the purpose of defending the Byzantine Empire and liberating the Holy Land spanned the time from 1095 to 1291, whereas the Muslim Jihad against western Christianity lasted from about 632 until 1683 when the Christian forces under Polish King John III Sobieski defeated the Muslim Ottoman forces under Sultan Mehmed IV at the Battle of Vienna. By this time, the Christian Byzantine Empire had been conquered by the Muslim Seljuk Turks in 1453.  In short, Islam was a-conquering Christianity for a thousand years of Jihad, while during the middle of that period Christianity attempted for 200 years return the favor by conquest of portions of the Holy Land, but by 1291 the lands of these Crusader States were re-taken.

You can't really claim an equivalence between the Muslim Jihad (632-1683) and the Christian Crusade (1095-1291). The former was primarily offensive while the latter was primarily defensive, and technically, the Jihad continues to this day.

Were the Crusades righteous?  I would say that the Crusaders did some despicable things.  Were they necessary?  Probably not, as it should have been sufficient to maintain Byzantium against the Ottomans.  Which they tried to do, too.

Make your own judgement, but if the Crusades had never happened we would have lacked some colorful history, but it probably wouldn't have made any difference in the end.  But if Martel had lost at Tours or Sobieski had lost at Vienna, we'd probably all be speaking Arabic and praying to Mecca nowadays.

 

 

[theplains]

On 23/12/2017 at 8:15 PM, poptart said:

I'm at home, it's cold and I had an insomnia attack so more or less homebound.   That being said thought I would ask something, what is the LDS churches stance on the crusades?  Wondered for a while, considering how close we all were to not being Christian anymore I've often wondered if the LDS even cared.

I found this interesting article "Christianity - A Case for the Crusades" by Rodney Stark.  It explains the other
side of the story.

http://www.sbts.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/10/SBJT-20.2-Stark-Case-for-Crusades.pdf

Thanks,
Jim

[Atheist Mormon]

On 12/23/2017 at 7:15 PM, poptart said:

I'm at home, it's cold and I had an insomnia attack so more or less homebound.   That being said thought I would ask something, what is the LDS churches stance on the crusades?  Wondered for a while, considering how close we all were to not being Christian anymore I've often wondered if the LDS even cared.

The Crusades was pure financial expedition, unwanted dangerous jobless segment male population export approved (wholeheartedly) with Pope's blessing. Crusades wreaked havoc & misery in whole Middle East........

[USU78]

44 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

The Crusades was pure financial expedition, unwanted dangerous jobless segment male population export approved (wholeheartedly) with Pope's blessing. Crusades wreaked havoc & misery in whole Middle East........

... and kept Muslim imperialists bottled up in the Levant, fighting the Crusaders and Crusader States (as well as one another) instead of making further serious inroads into Christian Europe. "Make 'em defend Muslim Central instead of attacking Central Europe and the Papacy from the Mediterranean coasts" was the strategy, promises of glory, riches, land and salvation were the sales pitch to herd the baronial cats into a moderately serious expeditionary force.

[Stargazer]

On ‎12‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 1:58 PM, Atheist Mormon said:

The Crusades was pure financial expedition, unwanted dangerous jobless segment male population export approved (wholeheartedly) with Pope's blessing. Crusades wreaked havoc & misery in whole Middle East........

That's your opinion. The facts differ significantly, and even if there were some elements of what you're saying happening, they were incidental.  The fact is that the nominally Christian Byzantine Empire was under military pressure from the Muslim armies of the Seljuks and asked the Pope for help. The Pope responded positively, and asked the states of Europe to send military aid to help them fight off the Muslims. Of course mission creep set in, and they also tried to free the Holy Land from the Muslims. 

You sound like you think the Muslims weren't wreaking any havoc at all.  I suggest you examine the history with a little more dispassion and go beyond your standard-brand reflexive anti-Christianity stance.  Quite apart from the religious elements, the Crusades were a defensive war against a Muslim offensive threat that was not finally defeated until the Battle of Vienna in 1683.

I wrote about this in more detail a few posts above yours, if you care to read a bit more about it.  theplains also provided a link to an article that you might find instructive.

[Atheist Mormon]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

That's your opinion. The facts differ significantly, and even if there were some elements of what you're saying happening, they were incidental.  The fact is that the nominally Christian Byzantine Empire was under military pressure from the Muslim armies of the Seljuks and asked the Pope for help. The Pope responded positively, and asked the states of Europe to send military aid to help them fight off the Muslims. Of course mission creep set in, and they also tried to free the Holy Land from the Muslims. 

You sound like you think the Muslims weren't wreaking any havoc at all.  I suggest you examine the history with a little more dispassion and go beyond your standard-brand reflexive anti-Christianity stance.  Quite apart from the religious elements, the Crusades were a defensive war against a Muslim offensive threat that was not finally defeated until the Battle of Vienna in 1683.

I wrote about this in more detail a few posts above yours, if you care to read a bit more about it.  theplains also provided a link to an article that you might find instructive.

I don't think so, Historical facts bear mine conclusions. But of course we tend to look the events from the perspectives that strengthens our opinions. Your patronizing attitude doesn't help here; If I  read I study historians not Apologists. I am not anti christian. I go wherever facts lead me. 

OK, I'm done wasting my time here; " Crusades were a defensive war" ?Get your facts & dates straight. the siege of Vienna happened 2-3 Centuries after Crusades. Before then Pope did not raise pinky finger to help Eastern orthodox Christianity (Byzantium). 

You mixed up your facts so amazingly (chronologically)....

[3DOP]

8 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

I don't think so, Historical facts bear mine conclusions. But of course we tend to look the events from the perspectives that strengthens our opinions. Your patronizing attitude doesn't help here; If I  read I study historians not Apologists. I am not anti christian. I go wherever facts lead me. 

OK, I'm done wasting my time here; " Crusades were a defensive war" ?Get your facts & dates straight. the siege of Vienna happened 2-3 Centuries after Crusades. Before then Pope did not raise pinky finger to help Eastern orthodox Christianity (Byzantium). 

You mixed up your facts so amazingly (chronologically)....

Stargazer doesn't have a dog in this hunt. Mormons can distance themselves from the Crusades. Many do. But he has apparently seen that there were Christians in the Middle East over a thousand years ago, wanting help against militant Islam.

As I said to Poptart, we need to take each Crusade for its own merit. Some are more worthy, others less. Granted. But every Crusade is for money? "The Crusades was pure financial expedition..." (Atheist Mormon). 

The Siege of Vienna was a declared Crusade, as was the Battle of Lepanto. This illustrates why it is important to not talk about "The Crusades" in general but in particular.

Even if a particular Crusade was bad, historically imprudent or morally indefensible, it doesn't mean that individual participants can be judged corporately. According to most non-atheists, we all appear alone before God's judgment. Crusaders were those who literally chose to fight for the cross of Christ against an enemy that sought to vanquish a Christian polity. Even if judgment is limited to this life, as atheists think, Crusaders and Crusades can only be judged individually as must non-Crusaders and atheists. If I were atheist my belief would be this: Most Crusaders were believers, following their conscience. Most wanted to do right. Motive is important even if there were not a good God. Many died, many lived. Few became wealthy. 

Let us look at one Crusade at a time and one Crusader at a time. This will enable us to avoid black and white generalizations that are historically untenable.

Rory

[Atheist Mormon]

16 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Stargazer doesn't have a dog in this hunt. Mormons can distance themselves from the Crusades. Many do. But he has apparently seen that there were Christians in the Middle East over a thousand years ago, wanting help against militant Islam.

As I said to Poptart, we need to take each Crusade for its own merit. Some are more worthy, others less. Granted. But every Crusade is for money? "The Crusades was pure financial expedition..." (Atheist Mormon). 

The Siege of Vienna was a declared Crusade, as was the Battle of Lepanto. This illustrates why it is important to not talk about "The Crusades" in general but in particular.

Even if a particular Crusade was bad, historically imprudent or morally indefensible, it doesn't mean that individual participants can be judged corporately. According to most non-atheists, we all appear alone before God's judgment. Crusaders were those who literally chose to fight for the cross of Christ against an enemy that sought to vanquish a Christian polity. Even if judgment is limited to this life, as atheists think, Crusaders and Crusades can only be judged individually as must non-Crusaders and atheists. If I were atheist my belief would be this: Most Crusaders were believers, following their conscience. Most wanted to do right. Motive is important even if there were not a good God. Many died, many lived. Few became wealthy. 

Let us look at one Crusade at a time and one Crusader at a time. This will enable us to avoid black and white generalizations that are historically untenable.

Rory

Not bad...But the notion; "But he has apparently seen that there were Christians in the Middle East over a thousand years ago, wanting help against militant Islam." was not true at all, if it was the Pope did not even raise a pinky the help Byzantium, in fact when Byzantium several centuries later, they decayed, fell into the Islam through the inaction of the Pope. Studying history I have a very hard time finding not to hold Pope responsible Europe's misery through the centuries.....I mean there are hundreds of examples of their inaction but for a very good reason; Popes hands were full with an obscene lifestyle full of debauchery, decadence of all sorts.....It wasn't enough to exploit Europe, when they got the smell of gold it was South America's turn, the horror Indians went through was nothing short of a colossal Genocide (I can't say Catholics did this on purpose ) 90% of native population fell to diseases of all kinds.....

I totally disagree "Most wanted to do right"....Crusaders were fueled by the tall tales greed and promises of dominance.

[Spammer]

28 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Not bad...But the notion; "But he has apparently seen that there were Christians in the Middle East over a thousand years ago, wanting help against militant Islam." was not true at all, if it was the Pope did not even raise a pinky the help Byzantium, in fact when Byzantium several centuries later, they decayed, fell into the Islam through the inaction of the Pope. Studying history I have a very hard time finding not to hold Pope responsible Europe's misery through the centuries.....I mean there are hundreds of examples of their inaction but for a very good reason; Popes hands were full with an obscene lifestyle full of debauchery, decadence of all sorts.....It wasn't enough to exploit Europe, when they got the smell of gold it was South America's turn, the horror Indians went through was nothing short of a colossal Genocide (I can't say Catholics did this on purpose ) 90% of native population fell to diseases of all kinds.....

What you're doing here is treating all 266 popes as if they were a single amorphous Pope-being, collecting, combining and ascribing the bad behavior of the worst popes to the Pope-being and assigning the collective evil of this imaginary being to each of the 266 individual popes, who were not imaginary, like the abstract idea of 'Pope' you have in your mind. Each pope  is a living, unique human being, an individual. Your approach not only makes for a bad history lesson, it's also unjust. 

You keep saying 'the Pope did this and the Pope did that', without specifying which of the 266 popes you're talking about. Set aside your abstract and artificial Pope-being construct and please tell us something a bit more concrete and useful: of all 266 popes, what percentage were baddies and what was the name of each?

Edited December 29, 2017 by Spammer

[Atheist Mormon]

1 hour ago, Spammer said:

What you're doing here is treating all 266 popes as if they were a single amorphous Pope-being, collecting, combining and ascribing the bad behavior of the worst popes to the Pope-being and assigning the collective evil of this imaginary being to each of the 266 individual popes, who were not imaginary, like the abstract idea of 'Pope' you have in your mind. Each pope  is a living, unique human being, an individual. Your approach not only makes for a bad history lesson, it's also unjust. 

You keep saying 'the Pope did this and the Pope did that', without specifying which of the 266 popes you're talking about. Set aside your abstract and artificial Pope-being construct and please tell us something a bit more concrete and useful: of all 266 popes, what percentage were baddies and what was the name of each?

Sorry spammer, I'm not here to educate you about Popes, you are right I am stereotyping all the Popes, I can hardly find a decent one among them, even the most recent ones collaborated with Hitler & Nazis....It is hard to put any trust that Magistrate & it's servants. 

My approach is not unjust.....They have a trail of blood and abuse (a literal abuse, violation of children at that) that is of course wound and then what they do? They find a best remedy for the wounds; it was salt...they sprinkled on generously......

The sad part is......nowadays you see them Popes....smiling at your face...making us think they are the God's best representative on Earth...Sad....truly sad...my heart aches for those faithful who were misled by the types of Mother Teresa.....

[Spammer]

20 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Sorry spammer, I'm not here to educate you about Popes, you are right I am stereotyping all the Popes, I can hardly find a decent one among them, even the most recent ones collaborated with Hitler & Nazis....It is hard to put any trust that Magistrate & it's servants. 

My approach is not unjust.....They have a trail of blood and abuse (a literal abuse, violation of children at that) that is of course wound and then what they do? They find a best remedy for the wounds; it was salt...they sprinkled on generously......

The sad part is......nowadays you see them Popes....smiling at your face...making us think they are the God's best representative on Earth...Sad....truly sad...my heart aches for those faithful who were misled by the types of Mother Teresa.....

If you can hardly find a decent one among them, then you must have reviewed the historical details of each of the 266 popes, else how could you possibly draw that conclusion? Have you done this?  You keep saying 'They' have done this. It's very vague. How many of the 266 are you talking about and what were their names? Of course, there were some bad popes, but it doesn't sound like you can identify the number or proportion of them, let alone their names.

So lets at least start with the data we know you have. How many specific popes are you talking about in your examples of bad behavior?  Can you provide a specific number?

Edited December 29, 2017 by Spammer