Reason for The Crusades explained

[Armour of God]

Notice the pattern of evasion. Although he’s on a forum, he truly does not want to have a back and forth conversion, let alone debate.

He just want to pontificate - even though his historical facts and theological understanding is false or weak.







Again, the evasive pattern emerged prompting one to repeat questions that aren’t answered.

He confuses his theology with historical facts. For instance, he decries Christian nationalism on theological grounds while denying the earliest Christians made the empire Christian sponsor at the earliest opportunity.

Again, it takes a very closed minded person to deny centuries of evidence and millions of Christians acting in opposition to his theological claims.

True. His evading my question. Its like being dishonest and I have no time for it.
He thinks he would let the invaders kill him and his family. We would defend ourselves. That's where we differ

 

[Matthias]

Can you guarantee that I can stop them?

No one can @Armour of God.

 

[Matthias]

True.

False.

His evading my question.

I didn’t evade your question. I answered it.

Its like being dishonest and I have no time for it.

See above.

He thinks he would let the invaders kill him and his family.

No. That’s not what I think.

We would defend ourselves. That's where we differ

I would also defend myself. Where we differ is in how we would go about it.

@Wrangler would kill you, just as he would me, if “Caesar” ordered him to, and think he was serving God.

 

[Armour of God]

False.



I didn’t evade your question. I answered it.



See above.



No. That’s not what I think.



I would also defend myself. Where we differ is in how we would go about it.

@Wrangler would kill you, just as he would me, if “Caesar” ordered him to, and think he was serving God.

Oh so now your saying you would defend yourself. How ironic. That's exactly what the Crusaders did... Defended themselves.
Thank you very much and good night, or day to you

 

[Matthias]

Oh so now your saying you would defend yourself. How ironic.

I’ve said it all along. You would know that if you had read my posts.

That's exactly what the Crusaders did... Defended themselves.

The Crusaders also killed people who were not attacking them and committed other atrocities.

2 Corinthians 10:4 isn’t a passage the Crusaders were interested in obeying.

Thank you very much and good night, or day to you

 

[Matthias]

”Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.” - Jesus

Is that a description of the attitude and behavior of the Crusaders? It isn’t.

”You are not a follower of Jesus if you aren’t armed, ready to kill.” - not Jesus

Is that a description of the attitude and behavior of the Crusaders? It is.

@Armour of God you didn’t answer the question when I asked you if you agreed or disagreed with “You are not a follower of Jesus if you aren’t armed, ready to kill”.

 

[Wrangler]

True. His evading my question. Its like being dishonest and I have no time for it.
He thinks he would let the invaders kill him and his family. We would defend ourselves. That's where we differ

Also, where we differ is the moral characterization. He promotes the most cowardly way to act and calls it more moral that choosing life - and whatever actions are necessary to sustain it - he calls immoral, anti-Christ, etc. Powerful but incorrect rhetoric.

 

[Wrangler]

Oh so now your saying you would defend yourself. How ironic. That's exactly what the Crusaders did... Defended themselves.
Thank you very much and good night, or day to you

In my many exchanges with this pacifist, I noticed a dichotomy. In theory, he says one thing. In practice, he means another.

Some pacifists are so extreme, the consider "defending oneself" to be limited to blocking parries, always allowing evil to try again to their hearts content. Throwing your own punch to stop them or taking it to the enemy; why that makes you the offender. Such pacifists cannot even overcome one who resists arrest with that way of thinking, let alone stop an enemy in the field or their means of production to make war.

At all times, the Islamic Jihadi has the capacity to end the bloodshed, by surrendering. They can stop the bloodshed in Gaza, in Lebanon and Iran. It's not up to the victor to stop, to give in to propaganda. These Islamic Jihadi's are so evil, they don't hesitate to use their women and children to protect their weapons. That's how you know they are barbaric! That's how you know they are evil.

In Christian nations, we use our weapons to protect our women and children. That's not moral equivalence. That's moral inversion.

 

[Matthias]

Also, where we differ is the moral characterization. He promotes the most cowardly way to act and calls it more moral that choosing life - and whatever actions are necessary to sustain it.

Desmond Doss. Do you know who he is @Armour of God?

 

[Matthias]

In my many exchanges with this pacifist, I noticed a dichotomy. In theory, he says one thing. In practice, he means another.

There is no dichotomy. My words match my actions. Anyone who knows me will tell you that they do @Armour of God.

 

[Armour of God]

In my many exchanges with this pacifist, I noticed a dichotomy. In theory, he says one thing. In practice, he means another.

Some pacifists are so extreme, the consider "defending oneself" to be limited to blocking parries, always allowing evil to try again to their hearts content. Throwing your own punch to stop them or taking it to the enemy; why that makes you the offender. Such pacifists cannot even overcome one who resists arrest with that way of thinking, let alone stop an enemy in the field or their means of production to make war.

At all times, the Islamic Jihadi has the capacity to end the bloodshed, by surrendering. They can stop the bloodshed in Gaza, in Lebanon and Iran. It's not up to the victor to stop, to give in to propaganda. These Islamic Jihadi's are so evil, they don't hesitate to use their women and children to protect their weapons. That's how you know they are barbaric! That's how you know they are evil.

In Christian nations, we use our weapons to protect our women and children. That's not moral equivalence. That's moral inversion.

I'm sleeping well after exposing @Matthias hypocrisy.
First he says the crusades shouldn't have defended themselves then admits that he would defend himself. I rest my case

 

[Matthias]

I'm sleeping well after exposing @Matthias hypocrisy.
First he says the crusades shouldn't have defended themselves then admits that he would defend himself. I rest my case

You lost your case. I said no such thing about the Crusaders.

 

[Matthias]

Desmond Doss. Do you know who he is @Armour of God?

@Wrangler didn’t know who he is and it made no difference to him when he found out. He is a pacifist, one of the most famous, and perhaps the most courageous, in the history of the U.S. military. Highly decorated for his extraordinary service in World War II. You may have seen the movie made about him - Hacksaw Ridge.

Wrangler insisted in this thread - before and after finding out who Desmond Doss is - that he is a coward, and worse.

Desmond Doss - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Private First Class Desmond Thomas Doss Medal of Honor

On October 12, 1945, US Army medic Desmond Doss became the first conscientious objector to be awarded the Medal of Honor.

www.nationalww2museum.org

Wrangler is really doing a number on you @Armour of God.

 

[Matthias]

”Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.” - Jesus

Is that a description of the attitude and behavior of the Crusaders? It isn’t.

”You are not a follower of Jesus if you aren’t armed, ready to kill.” - not Jesus

Is that a description of the attitude and behavior of the Crusaders? It is.

@Armour of God you didn’t answer the question when I asked you if you agreed or disagreed with “You are not a follower of Jesus if you aren’t armed, ready to kill”.

I’ve answered all of your questions. Are you ever going to answer my question @Armour of God? You’ve had an abundant amount of time to think it over.

 

[Wrangler]

I'm sleeping well after exposing @Matthias hypocrisy.
First he says the crusades shouldn't have defended themselves then admits that he would defend himself. I rest my case

He never had a case, only a fanatical opposition to Christians doing what they needed to survive nearly a millennia ago. He loves the omelet but never stops bitterly complaining that eggs were broken in the process, which offends his delicate sensibility.

Sleep well, my friend.

 

[Matthias]

He never had a case, only a fanatical opposition to Christians doing what they needed to survive nearly a millennia ago. He loves the omelet but never stops bitterly complaining that eggs were broken in the process, which offends his delicate sensibility.

Sleep well, my friend.

Christianity has a long history, both ancient and modern, of conscientious objection @Armour of God, but that is only part of my case. @Wrangler hasn’t put in the work needed to know that (and rejects it out of hand when it is presented to him, as this thread documents). I have. Have you?

 

[Armour of God]

He never had a case, only a fanatical opposition to Christians doing what they needed to survive nearly a millennia ago. He loves the omelet but never stops bitterly complaining that eggs were broken in the process, which offends his delicate sensibility.

Sleep well, my friend.

Hahaha I love that little parable about the omelette. It's because his really a vegan and is offended that the eggs were broken but still eats the omelette anyway

 

[Armour of God]

I’ve answered all of your questions. Are you ever going to answer my question @Armour of God? You’ve had an abundant amount of time to think it over.

Take the log out of your eye first then you will be able to take the speck out of your brothers

I answer no more question to you about this. You have proven to be a hypocrite as you would defend yourself as the crusaders did.
I rest my case.

Case awarded to the Crusaders. Did the righteous thing by defending themselves and their families against evil as commanded by Paul in Ephesians 6

Case closed

 

[Matthias]

Christianity has a long history, both ancient and modern, of conscientious objection @Armour of God, but that is only part of my case. @Wrangler hasn’t put in the work needed to know that (and rejects it out of hand when it is presented to him, as this thread documents). I have. Have you?

There are hundreds of books which dispel the false teaching of @Wrangler and company on this issue. One that I‘ve highly recommended to my students and to my readers over the years on the early church period is:



I’ve quoted from it multiple times on the forum.

 

[Matthias]

“You are not a follower of Jesus if you aren’t armed, ready to kill.”

Anyone who has read the Ante Nicene Church Fathers knows this assertion is obviously not at all what they believed.

Early Church Fathers on War, Violence, and Pacifism | Anabaptist Faith

This article is the third of a series on the doctrine of nonresistance, which is based on Jesus’ command to do no violence. More specifically, nonresistance is the view that even when striving for justice, Christians, unlike earthly governments, must only employ methods other than violence. This...

anabaptistfaith.org

Keep in mind what the advocate of the teaching has said in this thread about conscientious objectors. The simple way to protect yourself from the teaching is via either formal or informal education on the subject.

Read widely, deeply, thoughtfully, and critically. He can’t deceive a person who is educated on the subject.