Reason for The Crusades explained

[Wrangler]

The unspoken suggestion is that if I do not respond to the brutal threat in a brutal way, I will not be a man.

Indeed that is true. You will be a man in form but not substance.

Today's over-spiritualized want to defund the police and send in social workers. What Defunding The Police Could Mean For Social Workers - Human Services Edu

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

More than the chances of him deserving to still being married if they survive. A man's role is to protect. The masculine protects. The emasculated rationalizes protecting is beneath him (or above him).

 

[Matthias]

Indeed that is true. You will be a man in form but not substance.

Thanks. I didn’t know Desmond Doss in person but many, like myself, know his story. I think it’s important for our readers to know that you think he was ”a man in form but not substance.”

 

[Wrangler]

Do you agree with @Wrangler that “you are not following Jesus if you aren’t armed, ready to kill”?

Does anyone think Jesus advocated we live so opulently that we acquire dust collectors? The only reason for a thing is its intended use. This includes killing with a sword. My wife wanted a new coffee maker and I said OK but we cannot ever make coffee with it as I follow your reasoning with a sword.

No comment on the judge who affirmed POTUS can nationalize the Guard but cannot order them to the trouble area? The one power implies the other. Otherwise, Jesus commanded us to buy a sword so it may collect dust. That's how absurd your position is.

 

[Matthias]

Does anyone think Jesus advocated we live so opulently that we acquire dust collectors? The only reason for a thing is its intended use. This includes killing with a sword. My wife wanted a new coffee maker and I said OK but we cannot ever make coffee with it as I follow your reasoning with a sword.

No comment on the judge who affirmed POTUS can nationalize the Guard but cannot order them to the trouble area? The one power implies the other. Otherwise, Jesus commanded us to buy a sword so it may collect dust. That's how absurd your position is.

Desmond Doss: The Real Story

On April 1, 1942, Desmond Doss joined the United States Army. Little did he realize that three and a half years later, he would be standing on the White House lawn, receiving the nation's highest award for his bravery and courage under fire. Of the 16 million men in uniform during World War II...

desmonddoss.com

 

[Wrangler]

Thanks. I didn’t know Desmond Doss in person but many, like myself, know his story. I think it’s important for our readers to know that you think he was ”a man in form but not substance.”

I don't know anything about Desmond Doss. From what you shared, I don't want to know one thing about him. Your rationalizing is comical; invoke Desmond Doss (whoever that is) to discredit the reasons for the Crusades!

 

[Matthias]

I don't know anything about Desmond Doss. From what you shared, I don't want to know one thing about him. Your rationalizing is comical; invoke Desmond Doss (whoever that is) to discredit the reasons for the Crusades!

You don’t possess even an ounce of the courage he possessed.

 

[Wrangler]

@Matthias, what is your principle objection:

1. The Crusaders took it too far in committing atrocities.
2. The Christians initiated the Crusades.

 

[Matthias]

@Matthias, what is your principle objection:

1. The Crusaders took it too far in committing atrocities.
2. The Christians initiated the Crusades.

Neither of them. You continue to put on public display your ignorance.

 

[Wrangler]

You will be a man in form but not substance.

I think it’s important for our readers to know that you think he was ”a man in form but not substance.”

My comment was not directed to anyone but you.

You don’t possess even an ounce of the courage he possessed.

Again showing you lost the argument in Appeal to Ad Homenim. One need posses no courage but intellectual courage to grasp the reasons for the Crusades.

 

[Matthias]

I don't know anything about Desmond Doss. From what you shared, I don't want to know one thing about him.

Conscientious objector. “Man in form but without substance”?

You can choose to educate yourself or remain in your ignorance. I don’t care which you choose. Those who are educated about him know your assessment is wrong, whether they choose to publicly stand up to you or not.

 

[Matthias]

My comment was not directed to anyone but you.

Your argument is against Christian conscientious objection.

Again showing you lost the argument in Appeal to Ad Homenim. One need posses no courage but intellectual courage to grasp the reasons for the Crusades.

I suspect that I’ve read more about the Crusades than you have.

It would be a safe bet to say that I’ve read far more about conscientious objectors than you have.

 

[Matthias]

Today's over-spiritualized want to defund the police and send in social workers. What Defunding The Police Could Mean For Social Workers - Human Services Edu

You’ve publicly identified me by name as being “over-spiritualized“ many times in this thread. I don’t think you would deny it.

You’ve placed me in the group, despite my repeated objection. Now you‘ve asserted what the group you’ve forced me into (and want your readers to believe is true) wants.

I don’t want to defund the police and send in social workers. I’m not “over-spiritualized”. I’m not in the group. I want the police to be fully funded.

I do volunteer work with social workers. I don’t want them to be sent in in place of the police.

I‘m not asking you for a public apology. I’m asking our readers to see through you.

 

[Matthias]

I was looking for something else - something about the reliability of scripture - and unexpectedly came across this:

“… the believer, like Christ commanded, is not retaliating against his enemy or fighting back (Matt. 5:39-40).”

2 Timothy 3:12—Are all who live godly lives persecuted, or only some?

Is there a Bible contradiction in 2 Timothy 3:12? Here’s the solution from When Critics Ask by Geisler and Howe; used by permission.

defendinginerrancy.com

We’ve been told in this thread, rightly, that the Crusaders were fighting back. That’s a historical fact.

 

[Wrangler]

You will be a man in form but not substance.

I think it’s important for our readers to know that you think he was ”a man in form but not substance.”

My comment was not directed to anyone but you.

You don’t possess even an ounce of the courage he possessed.

Again showing you lost the argument in Appeal to Ad Homenim. One need posses no courage to grasp the reasons for the Crusades.

 

[Wrangler]

Your argument is against Christian conscientious objection.

Conscientious objection is not Christian but anti-Christian. See the Crusades.

 

[Wrangler]

do volunteer work with social workers.

I’d be surprised if you didn’t.

 

[Matthias]

Conscientious objection is not Christian but anti-Christian. See the Crusades.

Conscientious objectors didn’t kill anyone. Wrangler believes and teaches this is anti-Chrisitan.

The Crusaders (Roman Catholics) killed Muslims, Jews, and Christians - men, women, children; committed well-documented atrocities (raping, pillaging, torturing). Wrangler believes and teaches this is Christian.

I, a conscientious objector, stand unarmed with the weapons of the world against Wrangler’s brand.

I’ll stand alone if need be.

 

[Matthias]

I’d be surprised if you didn’t.

So would the neglected, abused, and at-risk children I serve.

 

[Wrangler]

Neither of them. You continue to put on public display your ignorance.

I'm asking a question. Care to answer it? What is your principle objection to the Crusades? (A or B is preferred answer than over-spiritualized gobbledygook.)

A. The Crusaders took it too far in committing atrocities.​

B. The Christians initiated the Crusades.​

 

[Wrangler]

You’ve publicly identified me by name as being “over-spiritualized“ many times in this thread. I don’t think you would deny it.

You’ve placed me in the group, despite my repeated objection.

It's easy to deny an identification and speak in negation until it is held up to scrutiny. What is your acceptance criteria; what would someone who is over-spiritualized look like?