I'm aware of a certain group of knights led by Count Emicho who attacked Jewish communities along the Rhine in Germany (named the Rhineland massacres), but he was condemned for his actions, and it was not common for knights to randomly attack Jews outside of battles.
Only one defender of the Crusaders in this thread prior to you has spoken against the atrocities committed by the Crusaders - against Mislims, Jews, and Christians. “Atrocity” is a word that should never be applicable to a follower of Jesus. The Crusaders were as brutal and as savage as the Muslims were. “Brutal” and “savage” are descriptive terms that should never be applicable to a follower of Jesus. I think you downplay it when you call war “messy”.
I don't understand what you're asking.
I was leading you to think about how a follower of Jesus should live in the world. I teach and preach that the followers of Jesus should follow his example, the example of the apostles, and the example of the earliest Christians -> not making war on their enemies.
I've already addressed this.
I was looking for clarification and elaboration from you.
They were a small minority and heavily persecuted at the time too.
God was on their side. Wasn’t he?
They weren't in no position to fight a war even if they wanted to.
Did they want to?
And many were killed because of it too.
Yes. They suffered martyrdom rather than take up the weapons of the world and use them against their enemies.
I think you're conflating different things: How we should treat our enemies as individuals and how nations should treat their enemies.
That’s a helpful comment. Jesus, I would suggest, was not teaching the nations what to do. He didn’t call upon the Romans, for example, to put down their weapons. He was teaching his followers what to do. Nations should defend their citizens.
What Jesus taught was how we should treat each other as individuals; it's not addressed to how nations should conduct themselves, though I do believe in just wars.
Jesus and the apostles had nothing to say about just wars. That concept comes much later, from Augustine. In other words, it’s a post-biblical teaching. The early Church was adamantly opposed to fighting for (and against) the nations of the world. The great commission was to spread the gospel, not kill the enemies of the various nations they lived in.
How do individual soldiers treat one another in war? Not as Jesus instructed his followers to treat their enemies. Right? Jesus’ teaching is for his followers, not for nations. The nations of the world have not yet become the kingdom of God. They won’t until Jesus returns.
As individuals, we should love our enemies. But does that imply that Christians should be like lambs to the slaughter?
Jesus, the apostles, and the church until the time of Constantine were like lambs to the slaughter. I’m a 1st century Christian living in the 21st century. God can protect me from the slaughter, just as he protected the Christians in the early Church. God can also allow me to be killed, just as he allowed Jesus, the apostles, and some of the earliest Christians to be killed. I trust God with and for my life. I teach others to do likewise. Jesus and the apostles should be our example.
I don't believe that was ever Jesus' intent. There are instances where self-defense is justified.
Self defense is always justified. The NT tells us how to defend ourselves and provides examples.
It is my answer. You don’t have to agree with it but to say that it isn’t an answer isn’t true.
When they obeyed God was when He helped them win wars.
When they disobeyed God he also helped them win wars. On paper, they had no chance at all. They won only because God helped them win.
They were under the Old covenant. The followers of Jesus are under the New covenant. An “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” attitude / spirit isn’t applicable to followers of Jesus.
Explain it how you see it.
God at times used the enemies of Israel to defeat Israel. God at times used the enemies of Israel to save Israel. He can still do that today, both for unbelieving and disobedient Israel and for the followers of Jesus.
I've never said that, so, why would I support it?
I imagine that there are a great many things that you haven’t said - as well as things that you have said - that I don’t know anything at all about. We seldom speak and I’ve read very few of your posts. (I have the “Christians Only” forums closed on screen. I have no posting privileges there and don’t want to. How often do you post in forums where members who are registered “Other Faith” are restricted to?) I didn’t know if you support it or not. That’s why I asked you about it.
I put the teaching in quotes but didn’t attribute it to you, nor to anyone else. Why didn’t you ask who said it? It is an evil teaching, and something which at no time has ever been a requirement to be or become a follower of Jesus. It is @Wrangler’s teaching. Maybe he will listen to you if you try to reason with him. (You couldn’t do that if you agreed with his teaching.) I hope for his sake that you and others who don’t support his teaching will at least try.
I think you misunderstand what I've been saying even though I've tried to make myself clear.
I don’t think I’ve misunderstood you but, if I have, I’d like you point out to me exactly where you think I have. My feedback to you is that I believe you have expressed yourself clearly.
Counter-questions for you:
Do you believe “You are not a follower of Jesus if you are not prepared to be martyred?”
No. I know many followers of Jesus who are not prepared to be martyred.
Was Jesus non-violent when he turned the money changers tables over and drove them out with a whip?
No. He used whips to drive out the offenders and their livestock. He didn’t kill anyone. Right?
