God brings peace?

[Zenith]

It doesn't matter whether you're bitten by the cat or the dog.

I've written for about 20 minutes, and I've accidentally lost all that text.
Anyway, I'll discuss the images:

The first image, the motto
I don't think Christianity ever had that as motto.

The 2nd image: the crusader
I believe most people don't know many things about the crusades.
So, a brief description: The first crusade (1096-1099) started because of a request of the Roman/Byzantine Emperor, who was having big troubles with muslim turks (since 1071 until 1096, they've conquered half of its empire - the Bytzantine Empire in 1070 was having both all balkans and all modern turkey), and if he did not request help, they would have most surley conquered the rest of his empire soon, thus expanding in Europe and imposing Islam there (which the muslims succeeded before 1400, see this image).

In 1060 it looked like this (I didn't find a picture of 1071, but it must have looked similar to this):


While in 1075 the Byzantine/Roman Empire looked like this (since 1071 the muslims started to conquer the modern turkey from the romans):

The rest territory, from north africa to turkey were under muslim control, when initially belonged to the Byzantine/Roman Empire. All was lost to Islamic attacks.

ok, most likely causes of the first crusade:

The idea that the crusades were a response to Islam dates back as far as 12th-century historian William of Tyre, who began his chronicle with the fall of Jerusalem to Umar.[27] Although the original Islamic conquests had taken place centuries before the First Crusade, more recent events would have been fresh in the minds of the European Christians of the time. For example, in 1009 the Church of the Holy Sepulchre had been destroyed by the Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah; Pope Sergius IV supposedly called for a military expedition in response, and in France, many Jewish communities were even attacked in a misdirected retaliation. Despite the Church's rebuilding after al-Hakim's death, and pilgrimages resuming, including the Great German Pilgrimage of 1064–1065, pilgrims continued to suffer attacks from local Muslims.[28] In addition, the even more recent Turkish incursions into Anatolia and northern Syria were certainly viewed as devastating by Eastern Christian chroniclers, and it is plausible they were presented as such by the Byzantines to the Pope in order to solicit the aid of European Christians.

I've also found in Britannica:

The Crusades were also a development of popular religious life and feeling in the West. The social effect of religious belief at the time was complex: religion was moved by tales of signs and wonders, and it attributed natural disasters to supernatural intervention. At the same time, laypersons were not indifferent to reform movements, and on occasion they agitated against clergy whom they regarded as unworthy. A peace movement also developed, especially in France, under the leadership of certain bishops but with considerable popular support. Religious leaders proclaimed the Peace of God and the Truce of God, designed to halt or at least limit warfare and assaults during certain days of the week and times of the year and to protect the lives of clergy, travelers, women, and cattle and others unable to defend themselves against brigandage. It is particularly interesting to note that the Council of Clermont, at which Urban II called for the First Crusade (1095), renewed and generalized the Peace of God.

It may seem paradoxical that a council both promulgated peace and officially sanctioned war, but the peace movement was designed to protect those in distress, and a strong element of the Crusade was the idea of giving aid to fellow Christians in the East. Tied to this idea was the notion that war to defend Christendom was not only a justifiable undertaking but a holy work and therefore pleasing to God.

...
Seljuq expansion southward continued, and in 1085 the capture of Antioch in Syria, one of the patriarchal sees of Christianity, was another blow to Byzantine prestige. Thus, although the Seljuq empire never successfully held together as a unit, it appropriated most of Asia Minor, including Nicaea, from the Byzantine Empire and brought a resurgent Islam perilously close to Constantinople, the Byzantine capital. It was this danger that prompted the emperor, Alexius Comnenus, to seek aid from the West, and by 1095 the West was ready to respond.

The turmoil of these years disrupted normal political life and made the pilgrimage to Jerusalem difficult and often impossible. Stories of dangers and molestation reached the West and remained in the popular mind even after conditions improved. Furthermore, informed authorities began to realize that the power of the Muslim world now seriously menaced the West as well as the East. It was this realization that led to the Crusades.

Now, this crusading army was formed, and passed through Constantinople, and all territories of modern Turkey that have been conquered by the crusaders were handles to the Byzantines/Romans (so we have in 1100 this map). After this military forced pilgrimage to Jerusalem and occupying it, most of the crusaders went back home. Of those that remained, most were frenchmen, if I remember well. Anyway, the fact is, that since then, the muslims have started to attack Jerusalem and succeeded in re-conquering it. As a result, subsequent crusaders had been sent to Jerusalem, until the 9th crusade, which was in 1271-1272 - all have failed. With the exception that the 4th crusade had been redirected to Constantinople - the capital of the Byzantine/Roman Empire, because it was an easy target, and Constantinople was very rich, etc. and they also conquered the regions around, forming the Latin Empire (the Roman/Byzantine Empire barely existed as a state as a result):


The subsequent crusades have been sent against the invading ottoman/turkish armies that have started conquering Europe. All these crusaders failed.

There was other, separate crusades as well, the Northern Crusades, headed against the pagans and the Orthodox Russia. They were very good targets, as the Catholic Pope disliked when Catholic countries fought each other, but was ok if they conquered foreign territory. (and it seems that they could have not defeated the russians, so the russians proved to be not an easy target :)) ).

Conclusion: the crusaders were driven mostly by political reasons, rather than religious, and were catholic armies. So showing an image with a crusader hating an 'infidel' for having a different religion, and going to kill him is... quite misplaced.

The 3rd image, the heretic
Perhaps most of the heretics were persecuted not as much for their different views as for not submitting themselves to the religious authority (for the catholics, for not submitting to the the Catholic Pope). Thus, the Christian Orthodox people were also considered heretics to the Catholics. And this refusal to submit to the religious authority was politically dangerous, mostly for causing disunity and refusing possible unity (i.e. a single mob that follows the political candidate, i.e. the leaders). The mob was most likely to hate and despise others for not 'thinking' (i.e. believing) the same as themselves, but the religious/political authorities were those that were pulling the strings. And, by the way, most if not all heretics were believing in God, so we use the victims to prove that God is evil (i.e. does not bring peace)?

The 4th image, the witch
I didn't study about the persecution of witches and witchcraft.
From the little I know, a few points:
a) I don't agree with witchcraft. And I don't agree with people making rituals for others to die. So I don't agree with making a witch look as an "innocent martyr", just to make a contrast with the "diabolical christians" (and wiccans and satanists seem to do this a lot, perhaps for themselves to look good, as they were the "nice, good, innocent victims")
b) I believe that people were using torture to make people confess if they are witches or not (this torture to confess method was used since pagan antiquity), which is bad.

The 6th image, Islam
The Islamic motto "Islam is a religion of peace" is incomplete. The correct, complete saying should sound like this "Islam is a religion of peace, as long as all submit" (i.e. all are muslims).

And, by the way, it's wrong to show muslims as a new version, and as if they lacked their persecutions of heretics and infidels, 'crusades' (for them, Jihads), etc.
About Jihad: In the middle age, the muslims were having their Jihads, as Jerusalem also became a holy site, and thus they made the conquering of it a holy purpose.

P.S. I don't understand why this thread is called "God brings peace?" and not "religion brings peace?". You know, I did not see God there, I've seen only men - and if a Creator exists, it wasn't Him who did those things, but men. And "God" is not "religion": if a man believes in God, himself would not go out to kill people for that; he needs a "religion" for that (religious authorities to command that, an official religion where there is a clergy and they have titles, which would cause the common man to put his trust in them and to blindly follow them).

---

I think he posted that because the German Army started WWII. The buttons on their uniforms said "God is with us," but obviously he didn't bring peace.

If God was with them, then perhaps they would have won the war, not lose it.
Nevertheless, it was good for the inspiration of the troops, to make them confident and hopeful.