It's not about any moral high ground it's about historical facts.
Agreed.
It's analogous to why the Roman Empire fell. While you and I would discuss the historical facts, this guy,
@Matthias, argues ad infinitum that it shouldn't have fallen based on his interpretation of a book!
Imagine another mundane topic, such as why we moved away from the Model T. He'll write 100's of posts of why we should NOT have moved away from the Model T.
The objective of the crusade was to stop the spread of Islam and I proved that with 5 sources
You could have provided 100 sources and it wouldn't matter to this guy,
@Matthias, who totally hijacks such threads, turning them into his overly-spiritualized shoulda, woulda, coulda rather than address the actual historical OP question. Sure, he claims he answered it. But that is not true and not his passion.
Not only does he remain morally opposed to centuries of Christian nations using violence to survive, being a passivist, he pulls out words like "real" or "true" Christians won't do that, claiming it violates Scripture, So obsessed is he with his own passivist dogma, he can't acknowledge the Christians for centuries up to the present day reject his passivism. So, he
repeats his arguments, refusing to admit he lost again with the Christian nation of America defending herself against Iran.
The answer is a historical fact, not overly-spiritualized, passivist ongoing argument.
I'm not sure why they killed each other, probably greed
One problem with these overly-spiritualized types fail to acknowledge is people have more than one motivation, more than one obligation. We have an obligation to ever widening circles as Thomas Aquinas wrote regarding
Ordo amoris. They're not dealing with the real world, where we don't Sabbath 7 days per week, don't have only 1 obligation.
