No one is blocking you. What are you doing here? You’re “armed, ready to kill”. Why aren’t you out in the streets killing your enemies?
My “fanatical devotion” is to the teaching of Jesus and the apostles.
Practice what you teach and preach. I do.
Reason for The Crusades explained
- Thread starter Debp
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
No one is blocking you. What are you doing here? You’re “armed, ready to kill”. Why aren’t you out in the streets killing your enemies?
My “fanatical devotion” is to the teaching of Jesus and the apostles.
Practice what you teach and preach. I do.
Answer the question of this thread, the reasons FOR the Crusades? Control of the masses.
This is an interesting read. Not because it tells us anything new about Dirk Willems but because the author is Catholic and directs our attention to Dirk as an example of what it looks like to love our enemies.
“Every Sunday, we pray a dangerous prayer: ‘Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.’ It’s dangerous because we’re asking God to judge us as we judge others, creating our own measuring stick for God to use: ‘The measure you give will be the measure you get’ (Mt 7:2). There is good news here as well. If we need forgiveness from God, he promises it to us so long as we ourselves show mercy. We are not judged, however, by how we treat our friends, but how we treat our enemies.
Dirk Willems provides one of the most radical examples of loving an enemy. He was born a Catholic in the Netherlands, though he renounced his baptism as an infant and joined the Anabaptist movement that held only to adult baptism. For this he was arrested, as heresy was a capital crime according to civil law. While in prison, he escaped through the window using a rope of tied rags. While crossing a marshy pond to safety, a pursuing guard fell through the ice. Willems specifically thought of Jesus’ words ‘love your enemies,’ and turned back to help the guard, saving his life. In turn, Willems was arrested again, and in 1569 was burned af tbe stake. Even if we would not admire his theology, Willems shows us practically what it means to live your enemy and to ‘do good to those who persecute you’ (Lk 6:27). …”
(Jared Staudt, “What We Talk About When We Talk About Loving Our Enemies”)
The crusaders didn’t show mercy to their enemies. The crusaders didn’t love their enemies. The crusaders didn’t obey the teaching of Jesus.
The pacifist showed mercy to his enemy. The pacifist loved his enemy. The pacifist obeyed the teaching of Jesus.
@Wrangler @Armour of God @NayborBear
“Every Sunday, we pray a dangerous prayer: ‘Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.’ It’s dangerous because we’re asking God to judge us as we judge others, creating our own measuring stick for God to use: ‘The measure you give will be the measure you get’ (Mt 7:2). There is good news here as well. If we need forgiveness from God, he promises it to us so long as we ourselves show mercy. We are not judged, however, by how we treat our friends, but how we treat our enemies.
Dirk Willems provides one of the most radical examples of loving an enemy. He was born a Catholic in the Netherlands, though he renounced his baptism as an infant and joined the Anabaptist movement that held only to adult baptism. For this he was arrested, as heresy was a capital crime according to civil law. While in prison, he escaped through the window using a rope of tied rags. While crossing a marshy pond to safety, a pursuing guard fell through the ice. Willems specifically thought of Jesus’ words ‘love your enemies,’ and turned back to help the guard, saving his life. In turn, Willems was arrested again, and in 1569 was burned af tbe stake. Even if we would not admire his theology, Willems shows us practically what it means to live your enemy and to ‘do good to those who persecute you’ (Lk 6:27). …”
(Jared Staudt, “What We Talk About When We Talk About Loving Our Enemies”)
The crusaders didn’t show mercy to their enemies. The crusaders didn’t love their enemies. The crusaders didn’t obey the teaching of Jesus.
The pacifist showed mercy to his enemy. The pacifist loved his enemy. The pacifist obeyed the teaching of Jesus.
@Wrangler @Armour of God @NayborBear
“In essence, Christianity took on a distinctively Islamic flavor, promising the same heavenly reward as provided in the Qur’an (3:169-171). This pledge, used against various religion groups, found its culmination in the Crusades. When Urban II declared ‘Deus Vult!’ (God wills it!) at the Council of Clermont (1095), he began an era of slaughter still considered one of the lowest moments in Roman Catholic history.”
(Christian Jihad, pp. 190-191)
@Wrangler @Armour of God @NayborBear what you’re exalting and extolling isn’t the teaching of Jesus and the apostles. What you’re exalting and extolling is an imitation of Islam and “one of the lowest moments in Roman Catholic history”.
(Christian Jihad, pp. 190-191)
@Wrangler @Armour of God @NayborBear what you’re exalting and extolling isn’t the teaching of Jesus and the apostles. What you’re exalting and extolling is an imitation of Islam and “one of the lowest moments in Roman Catholic history”.
”To many, fanaticism is a term used to describe anyone who practices who practices their faith devoutly or more negatively stated, excessively.”
(Christian Jihad, p. 194)
“... the negative influence of the Crusade is much worse. Rather than instituting peace between the Eastern and Western Churches (with the West, under Urban, responding to the call from the Eastern Church under Alexis) warfare increased, due to the brutality of the Crusaders and the duplicity of Alexis. Each watched the other with a jaundiced eye, wary of any betrayal.
The Crusade did little to settle the disputes between Muslim and Christian empires. Neither was willing to concede defeat, and the subsequent Crusades were dismal failures, with their nadir in the carnage of the Children’s Crusade. Muslims conquered the Christian bastions after Godfrey‘s induction as ruler in Jerusalem. …
The worst effects of the Crusade were the internal and external ravages caused by the crusading movement. The savagery with which the Christians treated the Jewish population forever scarred Judeo-Christian relations. Crusaders called the Jews ‘Christ-killers,’ and sentenced them to death for the crime of Deicide: murdering God. As one historian notes, the Jews were given the option: ‘Embrace the Cross or die!’ …”
Christian Jihad, pp. 198-199)
@Wrangler @Armour of God @NayborBear you are urging a repetition of failure. The Messiah’s way is the only way to success.
And can you not hear the echo of Islam in the crusader edict put to the Jews, “Embrace or die”?
The Crusade did little to settle the disputes between Muslim and Christian empires. Neither was willing to concede defeat, and the subsequent Crusades were dismal failures, with their nadir in the carnage of the Children’s Crusade. Muslims conquered the Christian bastions after Godfrey‘s induction as ruler in Jerusalem. …
The worst effects of the Crusade were the internal and external ravages caused by the crusading movement. The savagery with which the Christians treated the Jewish population forever scarred Judeo-Christian relations. Crusaders called the Jews ‘Christ-killers,’ and sentenced them to death for the crime of Deicide: murdering God. As one historian notes, the Jews were given the option: ‘Embrace the Cross or die!’ …”
Christian Jihad, pp. 198-199)
@Wrangler @Armour of God @NayborBear you are urging a repetition of failure. The Messiah’s way is the only way to success.
And can you not hear the echo of Islam in the crusader edict put to the Jews, “Embrace or die”?
“Certainly the Crusade period, and indeed all acts of forced conversion, have done no great service to the fulfillment of the Great Commission. … The authentic Christian cannot defend the Crusades, the Inquisitions, or other horrible movements in Church history. Genuine authenticity demands a clear and unapologetic stance: God never called for a Christian army and Jesus Christ never promised salvation by bloodshed.”
(Christian Jihad, p. 210)
I see the Christian authors’ approval of “Just War” as being a contradiction of their assertion here that “God never called for a Christian army.”
Elimination of the fourth century “Just War” doctrine would remove the contradiction, but the authors don’t go that far.
(Christian Jihad, p. 210)
I see the Christian authors’ approval of “Just War” as being a contradiction of their assertion here that “God never called for a Christian army.”
Elimination of the fourth century “Just War” doctrine would remove the contradiction, but the authors don’t go that far.
NayborBear
Active Member
I tell ya what it's like! Well? How this "APPEARS" (not ONLY) TO these eyes!
They fancy themselves as the "Bride of Christ!" The WHICH? IS a very GOOD thing!
And, being "the Bride?" What transpires AFTER the Wedding?........"The HONEYMOON!"
And very much like the ?Parable of the Prodigal Son?" Upon his coming back home, has this big 'ol feast thrown for him! Which CAN be correctly associated with?......A HONEYMOON!!
A 2200 YEAR "Honeymoon!" = Mesmerized "In LOVE" to a point they "NEVER LEAVE!"
Thus taking every (cough...cough) reason or suggestion supplied by the adversary, and SOMETIMES by GOD Himself (which in MOST instances get tossed!) Because of their "INFATUATION with THEIR DEFINITION of LOVE!" (which IS supplied and encouraged by the ADVERSARY!" (true story folks)
Going back to the Parable of the Prodigal Son? Which I like to refer to one OR two ways (of which NO Disrespect intended, NOR? Is taken!)
Which I refer to as "Prodigal Son! Two Point Oh!" Or? "JESUS! 2.0!"
In regards to the OTHER Son "Working the fields" whilst his brother is out gallivanting and squandering his inheritance!
(of the which I associate with "Fighting the War" IN the Heavenlies!)
Of the which? These ones' STILL SO ENTHRALLED by this "lavish feast" to which, they have "Ripped Down" the Exit signs, and "WALLED UP THE DOOR with their UNTEMPERED Mortar? MOST of 'em COULDN'T leave should they come to a point that they even WANTED to! (called "Grieving the Spirit" folks)
And worse? WOULDN'T "KNOW" WHAT TO DO OR EVEN, "WHERE" TO GO, "SHOULD" they even FIND their way OUT!
Yet? WHEN Crusades or War breaks out, or is WAGED against adversaries?
THEY'RE IN SHOCK!
They CAN'T FATHOM THIS "side" of God in their "Inebriated State" to which they have strived SO HARD in Maintaining!
To such a point that "THIS SIDE OF GOD THE FATHER?"
DOESN'T EXIST!
NOR DOES IT FIT INSIDE THEIR DEFINITION OF WHAT "LOVE" IS!
Thus? May we present TO THE WORLD?
"GOD!!.........IN A BOX!!!"
A god who is ALL love, ALL grace, ALL mercy, NO sovereignty, NO justice, NO holiness, and NO wrath?....... IS an IDOL! —R.C. Sproul.
I don’t think it’s necessary for me to post this but I will since the authors want to make it clear to their readers -
“So that the reader does not assume that this book is yet another in a long line of antiviolence, pacifistic tomes, bent upon calling all men to a polyannic peacefest, the authors have included this appendix [Appendix A The Just War Criteria] as an explanation. While we vigorously refute the claims that the Crusades were ‘God’s work,’ we do not hold to a stance of absolute pacifism. In fact, we are both on record as supporting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. …
How does one balance such views? By embracing the Christian teaching of Just War (bellum justum).
While the New Testament never allows for a ‘Christian army’ that receives forgiveness of sin in battle, we believe that Scripture does allow one to be a Christian in the army. It is feasible for a believer in Jesus Christ to defend the innocent and fight injustice, while maintaining his or her faith. This concept of ‘just war’ developed out of just such questions. The purpose of this appendix is to examine the development of the Just War criteria.
(Christian Jihad, pp. 316-217)
“So that the reader does not assume that this book is yet another in a long line of antiviolence, pacifistic tomes, bent upon calling all men to a polyannic peacefest, the authors have included this appendix [Appendix A The Just War Criteria] as an explanation. While we vigorously refute the claims that the Crusades were ‘God’s work,’ we do not hold to a stance of absolute pacifism. In fact, we are both on record as supporting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. …
How does one balance such views? By embracing the Christian teaching of Just War (bellum justum).
While the New Testament never allows for a ‘Christian army’ that receives forgiveness of sin in battle, we believe that Scripture does allow one to be a Christian in the army. It is feasible for a believer in Jesus Christ to defend the innocent and fight injustice, while maintaining his or her faith. This concept of ‘just war’ developed out of just such questions. The purpose of this appendix is to examine the development of the Just War criteria.
(Christian Jihad, pp. 316-217)
Triumph1300
Well-Known Member
I attended Churches in Canada and The Netherlands and never saw teams with guns.
The teams with guns protecting churches must be an USA kind of thing.
If this is true it shows you were things are going in the US.
It's a result of false teaching, prosperity messages, war mongering, false prophets and more.
Last edited:
“Less than a century before Augustine, the Christian community had risen from the status of the hunted to the status of the protected. There was now the dilemma of reconciling the teachings of Jesus Christ to warfare. Following Constantine‘s authorization of Christianity, it had become the national religion. As Swift notes, ‘It is a truism that the reign of Constantine represents a watershed in the development of Christian attitudes concerning war and military service. In as much as the question is no longer whether participation in war is justified, but what conditions should govern the right to declare war.’”
(Christian Jihad, p. 217)
I agree with the authors.
I want to remind my readers that @Wrangler denies that there was ever a dilemma and he asserts that there is no such watershed moment in Christian history.
My advice: Read and study Christian history.
(Christian Jihad, p. 217)
I agree with the authors.
I want to remind my readers that @Wrangler denies that there was ever a dilemma and he asserts that there is no such watershed moment in Christian history.
My advice: Read and study Christian history.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
- Feb 14, 2021
- 20,731
- 8,987
- 113
- 57
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
There in denial. Scripture says God loves justice. Among humans, common criminals are brought to justice.
This is in contrast to uncommon criminals, aka Enemies of the State. A righteous people bring justice to their enemies. And there are many stories in Scripture of God doing this through us humans.
Another thing they are in denial of is bringing justice to enemies is aka a just war. They call it all evil, what the good guys and what the bad guys to; a 3rd denial being all that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.
NayborBear
Active Member
2 Thessalonians 2:
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
Jesus and the apostles didn’t teach, preach nor model “Just War” theory.
“Ambrose, the bishop of Milan during the formative Christian years of Augustine, provided a foundation to a theory that Augustine would later deepen.”
(Christian Jihad, p. 217)
Ambrose is writing in the 4th century.
@Armour of God @NayborBear
“Augustine lived in a time of barbarian invasion. In fact, as he lay on his death bed in 430, Vandals were at the gates of Hippo. He concluded that, to be considered just, warfare must have the purpose of vindicating justice. Augustine, though, clearly considers only Christian duties and responsibilities, in an army fielded by secular government. It was beyond Augustine’s realm of thought that a ‘Christian army’ might be assembled to prosecute war.”
(Christian Jihad, p. 218)
@Wrangler @Armour of God @NayborBear can you see the difference between what Augustine had in mind and what Pope Urban II had in mind?
(Christian Jihad, p. 218)
@Wrangler @Armour of God @NayborBear can you see the difference between what Augustine had in mind and what Pope Urban II had in mind?
“The Roman philosopher-orator Cicero (106-43 B.C.), whose work was a foundation on which Augustine could build, obviously contributed much to the Christian theologian’s thinking.”
(Christian Jihad, p. 218)
@Wrangler @Armour of God @NayborBear
The foundation, your foundation, is rooted in paganism.
”Cicero posited three ethical criteria involved in the waging of just war, which he believed must be used only as a last resort in defense of national security: (1) There must be a formal declaration of war. (2) The aim must be to secure peace. (3) Prisoners must be treated humanely.”
(Ibid.)
Did the crusaders treat prisoners humanely?
You’re not answering questions. (Remember Wrangler’s measuring stick.)
No. The crusaders did not treat prisoners humanely. The pope wasn’t following “Just War“ doctrine.
(Christian Jihad, p. 218)
@Wrangler @Armour of God @NayborBear
The foundation, your foundation, is rooted in paganism.
”Cicero posited three ethical criteria involved in the waging of just war, which he believed must be used only as a last resort in defense of national security: (1) There must be a formal declaration of war. (2) The aim must be to secure peace. (3) Prisoners must be treated humanely.”
(Ibid.)
Did the crusaders treat prisoners humanely?
You’re not answering questions. (Remember Wrangler’s measuring stick.)
No. The crusaders did not treat prisoners humanely. The pope wasn’t following “Just War“ doctrine.
Jesus did not say, “Peter strike with more precision.” He said, “Peter, put away thy sword.”
Last edited:
“As the church continued to grow in number and influence, the pacifistic response to martyrdom became replaced with the desire to see civil codes enacted to shape social interaction. The key question that led to the formulation of the Just War criteria was: Is it ever justified to defend oneself against attack? Augustine posited a solution that served Christians for hundreds of years. The doctrine indicated a subtle shift from complete pacifist approach to a defensive one.”
(Christian Jihad, p. 219)
@Wrangler @Armour of God @NayborBear no subtle shift from complete pacifism to defensive militarism is possible without the church being in complete pacifism to begin with. The shift happened, but not in the pre-Constantine era of church history.
(Christian Jihad, p. 219)
@Wrangler @Armour of God @NayborBear no subtle shift from complete pacifism to defensive militarism is possible without the church being in complete pacifism to begin with. The shift happened, but not in the pre-Constantine era of church history.
“In The City of God, Augustine holds that humankind, immersed in sin, is incapable of true peace. Evil is inherent in the thoughts of men and women and must be restrained. Therefore, warfare is not only understandable, it is inevitable.”
(Christian Jihad, p. 219)
@Wrangler @Armour of God @NayborBear
Augustine is partially right. But do you not see the difference between carnal man and spiritual man?
Jesus, the apostles, and the followers of Jesus are fully capable of true peace. See Scripture and Church history.
”We do not use the weapons of the world.” - This is spiritual man. This is where I am.
”We do use the weapons of the world.” - This is carnal man. This is where you are.
Please read Romans 13 again. The role of the pagan government.
(Christian Jihad, p. 219)
@Wrangler @Armour of God @NayborBear
Augustine is partially right. But do you not see the difference between carnal man and spiritual man?
Jesus, the apostles, and the followers of Jesus are fully capable of true peace. See Scripture and Church history.
”We do not use the weapons of the world.” - This is spiritual man. This is where I am.
”We do use the weapons of the world.” - This is carnal man. This is where you are.
Please read Romans 13 again. The role of the pagan government.
“In his allegiance to Cicero, Augustine also agrees ...”
(Christian Jihad, p. 221)
@Wrangler @Armour of God @NayborBear
I have no allegiance to Cicero. Jesus and the apostles had no allegiance to Cicero. Whether you are aware of it or not, you have allegiance to Cicero.
My simple advice: Have no allegiance to pagans.
(Christian Jihad, p. 221)
@Wrangler @Armour of God @NayborBear
I have no allegiance to Cicero. Jesus and the apostles had no allegiance to Cicero. Whether you are aware of it or not, you have allegiance to Cicero.
My simple advice: Have no allegiance to pagans.
Similar threads
