Reason for The Crusades explained

[Matthias]

Get out of the way as the first man has a concealed weapon.

So no action is required of me other than to get out of the way and allow the situation to unfold between them. What if I hadn’t noticed that the first man had a concealed weapon? What if the man didn’t have a concealed weapon but I mistakenly thought that he did? It all happened so fast. He’s dead now and all I did was take myself out of harm’s way.

An example of a third party is being informed by radio that a crazed individual has hijacked a large vehicle and is going to a festival in a crowded downtown area, having already hit many folks walking to the area. You can get out of the area and leave it to God, or you can smash your vehicle into his, which might kill one or both of you, but saving bystanders.

Can you guarantee that smashing my vehicle into what I hope in a few split seconds is actually the reported car - what if I’ve mistakenly thought that it was the right car but it turned out that it wasn’t? - that it would stop the crazy person?

 

[Matthias]

Can God have monkeys come out my buttocks? Is that going to happen? I cannot presume doing nothing and having me and an innocent kid die is what God wanted. It is one thing to risk my life and another to allow harm to come to another because I believe God is going to supernaturally intervene instead of giving me the courage to do what He wills.

OMG. We just discovered that what we thought was an innocent kid wasn’t innocent after all. He was a murderer who moments before stabbed and robbed a little old lady around the block, out of our sight, and an off duty police officer in civilian clothes was trying to stop him. Neither of us were armed but we bravely placed ourselves between the off duty policeman - how were we supposed to know that he was a policeman? - and the fleeing kid, allowing the murderer to escape. Unfortunately, the pursuing officer tripped when you tackled him, hit his head on the concrete, rolled into the street and was struck by an ice cream truck. He’s now listed in critical condition at the hospital. His wife and three children (ages 11, 9, and 5) have gathered outside his room but they’ve been told the chances of him surviving aren’t good.

You and I are a little shaken up but otherwise fine. I feel bad about it and I presume (that’s what got us in trouble to start with) you do too. At least we had good intentions.

 

[Matthias]

One of the best books that I’ve ever read is titled What Would You Do?: A serious answer to a standard question, written by John Howard Yoder. I highly recommend it to my readers.

What is the “standard question”?

“Sooner or later, in almost any serious discussion about peace and war, someone is sure to ask the standard question: ‘What would you do if a criminal, say, pulled a gun and threatened to kill your wife (or daughter or sister or mother, whichever one the challenger decides to use)? It’s uncanny how many persons - from seminary professors to draft board members - see this question as a way to test the consistency of the pacifist’s conviction that war is wrong.”

(p. 11)

He’s right. It’s uncanny, and I’m speaking from the perspective of someone who has faced it hundreds of times.

P.S.

No matter which side a person is on, the author addresses the question and the answer should be listened to and given a fair hearing.

 

[Matthias]

“The assumptions behind the question …

1. Determinism

The questioner usually assumes that I alone have a decision to make. My relationship with the other persons in the situation is supposed to be one which unfolds mechanically. The attacker, for example, is preprogrammed to do the worst evil he can - or at least the evil he has fixed his mind on. He is not expected to make any other decision or act in any other way.

Nor does the question as posed allow for any decision on the part of the potential victim. I alone am the one making a decision. The assumption is that how I respond solely determines the outcome of the situation. … At this point two other observations about it are necessary:

a. This mechanical model is unrepresentative of the way decisions are made in war. With all the various parties making interlocking and contradictory decisions about how to act, each impinging on all the others, no one of them can forsee what is sure to happen if one decides this way rather than that. Others are acting at the same time, changing the situation by their actions.

b. Even on the smaller scale of the individual assailant, it is not reasonable to assume that the decisions I make are the only ones being made. There are not simply two preprogrammed tracks on which events can go. Nor am I at any particular point limited to making a choice between them.

Granted, this deterministic assumption is in some sense self-fulfilling. If I tell myself there are no choices, there are less likely to be other choices. Still less will I feel a creative capacity or duty to make them possible if I don’t expect them to appear. Thus the limit is then in my mind, not in the situation.”

(John Howard Yoder, What Would You Do?, pp. 12-13)

 

[Matthias]

“2. Control

The challenge at least assumes my substantial control of the situation, if not my omnipotence. It assumes that if I seek to stop the attacker, I can. Now in some cases this may be true, but in many it is by no means certain. The more serious the threat which an attacker represents, the less likely is it that I will be able to stop him by any means at my disposal. …

Failure to be successful is a serious possibility in every case of dramatic confrontation. That is all the more true when both parties to the conflict are acting in unfamiliar roles and under exceptional pressure.

In any war at least one side loses; in some wars, no side wins. On the basis of a calculation of the probability of success, the chances are less than even that I can bring about what I consider a successful result by harming the other party. This is true on a small scale because the attacker is a powerful person or armed for a premeditated attack. It is true on the international level because many dimensions of war cannot be manipulated with certainty even by superior power.

Thus it cannot generally be the case that violence is likely to be successful. Then why label as idealistic those people who have doubts about the successful outcome of the use of violence?”

(Ibid., pp. 13,14, 15)

 

[Matthias]

“3. Knowledge

The ‘what if …?’ question presupposes, if not omniscience, at least full and reliable information. Not only does it assume on my part that events will unfold in an inevitable way; it also presumes that I am reliably informed about what that unfolding will be like. I know that if I do not kill the aggressor, he will rape my wife, kill my daughter, attack me, or whatever. I also know I will be successful if I try to take his life.

Once again, the reasoning is questionable, even on the individual level. The outcome of any kind of combat is unpredictable. Even more is this true on the international level. When military planners use hypothetical circumstances, any such scenario makes untested, unverifiable assumptions about the psychology of the enemy. …

As soon as a situation exists in which several persons are making decisions at the same time - all acting on the basis of what they think the others think and all at least partly trying to deceive the others - we can be quite sure of one thing: No one has sure knowledge of what will happen. Certainly anyone whose vision of conflict is deeper than that of the television western has some awareness of the complexity of situations and some notion of how seldom things turn out the way presicted. That is especially true when people predict positive results coming about through the use of violence.”

(Ibid., pp. 15, 16)

 

[Matthias]

“4. Individualism

The question as usually posed assumes that the decision and what happens are individual matters. Not only does that make the ‘What if …?’ question quite unrepresentative of the social and institutional dimensions of war; it even makes it untrue for any particular concrete case.

The person who is being attacked (my wife or mother or daughter) is also a responsible being and should be part of any decision-making process. If this person shares my values, then she would be guided by some of the same considerations which guide me. It would certainly be improper for me as a third party in the conflict to deal with her enemy in a way she would not want to be protected by lethal violence.”

(Ibid., p 16)

 

[Matthias]

“5. Righteousness

The logic of this approach assumes my righteousness. Not only am I able to calculate what would bring about the best outcome. I also assume that I am morally qualified to be judge, jury, and executioner - and to perform all those roles in one second. It is taken for granted that I have all it takes to be honest about this hard decision, even when it involves weighing my own welfare and interests against those of another.

This shorting out of critical objectivity may be the most improper of all the assumptions. We know that most times individuals do not have full objectivity. When we move to the group or the nation, there is even less reason to assume that a center of power is capable of standing in judgment on its own selfish temptations. Ad Reinhold Niebur pointed out, it is less possible for a group to be consistently unselfish than for an individual. The danger of being one-sided is increased precisely where power is greatest and when capacity for self-criticism is least.”

(Ibid., pp. 16-17)

 

[Wrangler]

Wrangler has rightly said that killing his enemies isn’t witnessing to his enemies. His cause is unquestioningly obeying Caesar.

To those reading these exchanges I'm having with the over-spiritualized, I pray you see the pattern; they are not balanced, not devoting themselves to the soulful needs of the body. It is a contagion launched undoubtedly by Satan himself to make the church impotent by twisting God's words. Like the serpent in the Garden, whose famous lie, "Did God really say" he inserts "unquestioningly." The logical fallacy of Strawman.

Such an emasculated church has made itself irrelevant. To read the posts of the over-spiritualized, one would get the impression that to be a Christian means to be an enemy of justice. Micah 6:8
He has told you, mortal one, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God?

Notice the pattern of Scripture to put soulful needs first in priority? Do justice with loving kindness second. (The over-spiritualized would have us believe it's all about loving kindness and doing justice is of no concern to those "true" Christians who "really" understand Scripture.) Here the priority of soulful needs repeats. Matthew 5:23-24
Therefore, if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there you remember that your brother has something against you,24 leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.

And again, justice, attending to the soulful needs right here on Earth is seen by Jesus literally feeding the 5,000 food. Matthew 6:25, 32,33:
25“For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on.
(Notice the focus of our Lord Jesus Christ is to first acknowledge the soulful needs of our body and our legitimate worry of these things? The only reason he tells us not to worry about soulful needs is because he knows it is natural for us to worry about such things. He's not telling us to ignore our nature or ignore our natural needs)
32your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.
(Acknowledgement, understanding of our plight by the Almighty is reassuring psychologically but again what of the body? It's needs are met in the next verse)
33all these things will be provided to you.

To paraphrase our Lord, the message is your soulful needs will be provided - provided we do our part (to do justice, reconcile, etc). It's not all spiritual allusions metaphors to the spirit world! The over-spiritualized cannot acknowledge the duty Christians have to the soul as well as the spirit. They are always denigrating the obligation. We are to put God first in theology not focus as if we are to be an ascetic work one day and Sabbath 6 and not at the expense of the urgent and practical needs us mortals have:
(1). to do justice (including reconciling with a brother BEFORE coming to God),
(2). buy a sword
(3). give to Caesar.

Why give to Caesar? It is an instrument of justice, which God loves Psalm 37:28. (It's an instrument of justice EVEN IF it's not a perfect instrument in man's hands.) The Crusades was not an act of witnessing but an act of justice, to wage war against evil. Justice is the purpose of war and why the act is called a just war. The sensibilities of the over-spiritualized call it "atrocious;" welcome to the soulful needs of the body.

 

[Matthias]

“The emotional twist to the question

If the situation of attacker and person being attacked stayed on the rational level, it would be much easier to debate and answer logically. But the way the question is put does not allow us to do that. It appeals to family connections and bonds of love so that it becomes a problem of emotions as well as thought. …

There’s also an appeal to my view of who I am. The unspoken suggestion is that if I do not respond to the brutal threat in a brutal way, I will not be a man. …”

(Ibid., pp. 17, 18)

Brave men like Desmond Doss faced that and proved the suggestion is false. The devil will hit every male CO with it. Look for it in this thread. (You won’t have to look far to find it.)

 

[Matthias]

“Not only is this stock case one in which an emotional appeal is made to my virility as the defender of those entrusted to me; it also tends to be a sexist argument. It assumes the potential victim is a dependent being, a woman, one who needs protection by a stronger male. She who is prey participates only as an object. What would happen to the hypothetical argument if the assailant was a woman and the victim a man?

For the purposes of the argument, I leave the challenge in the traditional gender-specific form, but not without registering objection to the sexist tilt. Within this setting, it is harder to sustain the moral challenge for the male to renounce violence; but if we can do that, the question should also be settled for other situations.”

(Ibid., p. 18)

 

[Matthias]

“Especially is this emotional dimension of the question more visible when the discussion centers on one’s duty to protect someone else. Often the questioner will heighten this aspect of the argument by saying, ‘Perhaps as a Christian you have the right to sacrifice your own welfare to be loving toward an attacker. But do you have the right to sacrifice the welfare of others for whom you are responsible?’

We must pierce through the screen of this apparent altruism and point out that it distorts the real nature of the argument. It is an altruistic form of egoism when I defend my my wife or my child because they are precisely my own. This argument does not suggest that I would have the same responsibility to defend the wives and children of Vietnamese, for example, who are being attacked by my countrymen. It does not suggest any special concern for the wife or child of the attacker. The reason I should defend my wife and child in this argument is not that they are my neighbors, innocent threatened third parties, but because they are mine. Thus this becomes an act of selfishness; though covered over with the halo of service to others, it is still self-oriented in its structure. …”

(Ibid., pp. 18, 19)

 

[Matthias]

“The options available …

We come now to the decision itself. How do we answer the question?

We must note, first of all, that the questioner wants us simply to answer either yes or no. For most questioners, the only choices which the question offers are defense - which must necessarily be lethal - and non-defense, which is sure to permit the worst to happen.

But this is a wildly illogical way to pose the problem. There are certainly several more possible kinds of outcomes. We prejudice the argument if we set up the discussion as if there were only two possible outcomes.

What are these various options?”

(Ibid., pp. 24-25)

Now why in the world do you suppose those who ask the “What if … ?‘ question would want (need?) to prejudice the argument?

 

[Brakelite]

It is called Just War theory. There are differing views on what makes a Just War and it is something theologians discuss. What one might call the qualification for that determination may differ. Either way, it comes down to an individual opinion which can include the absence of any circumstances which justify military action. I believe that wars can be just.


I do not know what you mean when you say a political war. Just War is not based on political disagreements.



Yeah, people find it easy to escape and food will magically appear for them. ISIS loved the pacifism when they forced Christian children into "marriages" where they were constantly beat and raped.



Yeah, and Jesus just stands by why children get raped. Maybe the families murdered and raped by ISIS didn't have enough faith?


How does child rape, slavery and exploitation fit in? Or the genocide of 12 million in concentration camps? I guess Jesus was asleep at the wheel. I wish I could live in fairytale land with unicorns and rainbows. I live in a world where people wonder where God is and a world where they found salvation with the liberation of their camps.

Maybe we shouldn't have gone to war, brought all of our ships to port, apologized to Hitler and Tojo and spent all of our time praying. All magical fairyland.

Discussing what nations ought to do in certain circumstances is beyond my pay grade. But what I would do personally if someone attacked my family is whatever is necessary to protect them.

 

[Brakelite]

because they are mine

More than that... They are me.

Thus this becomes an act of selfishness; though covered over with the halo of service to others, it is still self-oriented in its structure

What's the alternative. Watching them being raped and beaten and maybe killed at your feet? What the chances of still being married if they survive?

 

[Matthias]

“Thus the ‘what if …?’ question has more than two commonly conceived possible options. We have noted seven:

1. Tragedy

2. Martyrdom.
a. Victim
b. Defender

3. Another way out
a. Natural
b. Providential

4. Attempted killing
a. Successful
b. Unsuccessful

These can be ranked as to desirability. Option 4-a (successful killing) is an evil; it ends a life and deprives the attacker of any chance of repentance or growth. Option 1 (tragedy) is obviously more evil in the mind of the questioner, who would use 4-a to prevent 1. But option 4-b (unsuccessful killing) is still worse, for it brings together two evil outcomes.

The four options (2-a, 2-b, 3-a, 3-b) represent ‘saving’ or ‘happy’ outcomes. We need not weigh them exactly in terms of desirability or probability but only note that they are all morally positive in contrast with the other three.

In evaluating these options it soon becomes evident that by exercising option number 4, I close the door to the possible saving solutions (2 or 3). None of those can happen if I choose to kill. Does this also mean I do not trust God to work things out (2-a, 2-b, 3-b)? Does it also mean I do not trust myself to be courageous or creative enough to find another way (3-a)?

To renounce killing (4-a), on the other hand, is the path of trust and faith. It leaves open the possibility for Providence (3-b) or martyrdom (2). It is not lazy; it faces the challenge of creating another way (3-a). It is responsible, for it prevents the worst (4-b).”

(Ibid., pp. 30-31)

 

[Matthias]

More than that... They are me.

In a manner of speaking, they are.

What's the alternative. Watching them being raped and beaten and maybe killed at your feet? What the chances of still being married if they survive?

I’ve just finished addressing alternatives without going into detail. We can do that, if you like.

 

[rockytopva]

I believe the churches of Revelation are seven...

1. Ephesus - Messianic
2. Smyrna - Martyr - Foxes has the Roman persecutions as ten
3. Pergamos - Pergos is a tower.... Needed in the dark ages
4. Thyatira - Catholic
5. Sardis - Protestant
6. Philadelphia - A great awakening
7. Laodicea - Rich, increased with goods, and have need of nothing?

In which the Crusades sprung from the old Pergamos age... Issues? Yes? But so does the other churches as well. Even from the Old Testament issues are described in generations. People are different from generation to generation.

 

[Matthias]

What's the alternative. Watching them being raped and beaten and maybe killed at your feet?

I was speaking with a man years ago who was much more disdainful of possible alternatives than the average person tends to be. The man said to me (I’m paraphrasing): “You might enjoy watching the evil done to your family. Perhaps you could help the depraved attacker carry out his deed - hold them down for him, sing a song, offer to make the attacker a sandwich and bring him a drink (all that raping and killing takes a lot out of a guy you know). Afterwards maybe you could watch the football game on TV with him. At halftime, if your family hasn’t yet been killed, you might go back for some more raping. Come back, finish watching the game and - if he’s a really, really virile guy - go back and rape them some more, no matter if they’re dead or alive. Say, you don’t also happen to have a family dog do you? Maybe this guy would enjoy raping your dog too. I bet you’d like that. Well, after all that even the toughest of the depraved will be a little tuckered out. You could let him sleep over at your house, even tuck him in. Make him a nice hot breakfast in the morning, and send him off with a wave and a smile.”

You get the gist of it. The assumption of that person is that I would do absolutely nothing at all to try to get my threatened family out of the situation.

 

[Matthias]

More than that...

Since you’re here, I might as well ask you: Do you agree with @Wrangler that “you are not following Jesus if you aren’t armed, ready to kill”?