Reason for The Crusades explained

[Hazelelponi]

I’m not defending Islam. I’m standing against Christians who imitate Islam.

What do you mean imitate Islam?

 

[Triumph1300]

There are many verses in their scriptures about killing non-Muslims. And they especially mention Jews and Christians.

There is something profoundly symbolic in this, just this last weekend in Australia:

A Muslim Australian father of two running toward gunfire to protect Jewish families celebrating Hanukkah.

While extremists tried to manufacture hatred between communities, Ahmed enacted its opposite, a moment of human solidarity so undeniable it exposes how hollow and manipulative the politics of division truly are.

 

[Matthias]

What do you mean imitate Islam?

Thank you for asking.

I mean a Christianity that does to its enemies what Islam does to its enemies, rather than doing what Jesus, the apostles and the early Christians did to their enemies.

True Christianity, not Islam, is the true religion of peace.

 

[soberxp]

United Pentecostals.
One of the fastest growing denominations today.

I have no interest in religious sects.

Paul said we all belong to Christ,

I just have my personal understanding of studying the Bible.

But whether Jesus Christ is God, an angel, or a human does not affect my faith in him. However, the doctrine of the Trinity seems to constantly emphasize that if Jesus Christ is not God, then one should not believe, or else it’s all meaningless...

By the way, what is the relationship between this and Jehovah's Witnesses?

Perhaps I only care about the Bible and the topics I am interested in,

and I don’t pay much attention to anything related to sects.

 

[Matthias]

What do you mean imitate Islam?

The Crusaders killed their enemies - Muslims, Jews, and Christians.

Do you support that?

 

[soberxp]

The Crusaders killed their enemies - Muslims, Jews, and Christians.

Do you support that?

No, should be as Buddhist, Drop your knife, and you'll become a Buddha immediately.

LOL..

But Both the Quran and modern nations oppose wars of aggression. If one's homeland is invaded by an enemy, taking up arms to resist is a reasonable action, and Allah views this as commendable...

I just want to say that no matter what you choose, as long as it is in accordance with God's justice, there will be a religious scripture to support your choice.

The Crusades can hardly be defined as anything other than acts of aggression, as they extended beyond national borders.

So for an individual, the most reasonable way to prove one's righteousness is, like the early church, to entrust oneself to God when persecuted, rather than to so-called "justice".


Justice can be abused by human beings.

 

[Matthias]

No, should be as Buddhist, Drop your knife, and you'll become a Buddha immediately.

LOL..

I’m not a Buddha. I act like Jesus, the apostles and the early Christians when threatened with violence. I reject the temptation of the devil to kill my enemies, and because of that I’ve been labelled in this thread by a unitarian imitating the Roman Catholic Crusaders as being antiChristian.

Besides being ironic, it’s light persecution inflicted on me at the hands of the unitarian. It’s nothing compared to the heavy persecution that Jesus, the apostles and the early Christians endured at the hands of their unitarian - and other nonChristian (i.e., pagan) - enemies.

 

[soberxp]

I’m not a Buddha. I act like Jesus, the apostles and the early Christians when threatened with violence. I reject the temptation of the devil to kill my enemies, and because of that I’ve been labelled in this thread by a unitarian imitating the Roman Catholic Crusaders as being antiChristian.

Besides being ironic, it’s light persecution inflicted on me at the hands of the unitarian. It’s nothing compared to the heavy persecution that Jesus, the apostles and the early Christians endured at the hands of their unitarian - and other nonChristian (i.e., pagan) - enemies.

There is no pagan today as in the OT.
But ignorance of our God.

 

[Matthias]

I’m reading a book written by A.W. Tozer that was recommended to me last night by a Christian member of the forum. Tozer quotes Revelation 2:10b (“Be faithful even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown of life.”)

The apostles and the early Christians who did not kill their enemies -> persecuted, tortured, and killed by their enemies; they remained faithful to the Messiah’s teaching about how to treat our enemies “even to the point of death.”

Were they antiChristian or were they Christian?

Consider too the other assertion lodged by the violent unitarian against the man of peace - “man in form but not substance”.

Were the apostles and early Christians who did not kill their enemies “men in form but not in substance”?

I stand unarmed with the weapons of the world against the unitarian armed with the weapons of the world. The worst he can do to me is the same that a Crusader or a Muslim armed with the weapons of the world can do to me. I will not do to him what he is prepared to do to me.

 

[Matthias]

There is no pagan today as in the OT.
But ignorance of our God.

If that is true then it is an even greater indictment of the unitarian and non-unitarian men of violence. The Bible is readily available to most of mankind.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Thank you for asking.

I mean a Christianity that does to its enemies what Islam does to its enemies, rather than doing what Jesus, the apostles and the early Christians did to their enemies.

True Christianity, not Islam, is the true religion of peace.

Before God, governments are instituted to protect those under their care, not to abdicate that duty in the name of misplaced sentimentality. A ruler who refuses to restrain evil is no less morally culpable than a corrupt judge who refuses to render justice. Scripture is clear that civil authority exists to punish evildoers and to promote peace and order for the good of the citizens.

Historic Christianity has always understood this. The freedom to preach and spread the Gospel presupposes a measure of civil peace and security. The Church does not wield the sword, but God has ordained that the state does—so that evil is restrained and the innocent are protected.

Even Jesus appealed to basic moral reason when He said that if a homeowner knew when a thief was coming, he would keep watch to prevent the break-in. That is not cruelty; it is prudence. Love does not mean passivity in the face of real danger.

No one calls it virtue to invite violence into one’s home. Protecting wives, children, and neighbors from harm is not hatred—it is responsibility. Scripture commands men to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, and Christ’s love was not passive. He laid down His life so that she might live. A man who refuses to protect his family has misunderstood love entirely.

In the same way, a nation that refuses to defend its people and its borders will not preserve peace for long. Nonviolence as a personal ethic may be admirable, but God has established nations precisely to restrain chaos and protect life. Justice, rightly exercised, is not opposed to love—it is one of its necessary expressions.

 

[Matthias]

Before God, governments are instituted to protect those under their care, not to abdicate that duty in the name of misplaced sentimentality. A ruler who refuses to restrain evil is no less morally culpable than a corrupt judge who refuses to render justice. Scripture is clear that civil authority exists to punish evildoers and to promote peace and order for the good of the citizens.

I made that point earlier, and often, in this thread.

Historic Christianity has always understood this.

There was a time in historic Christianity when Christians weren’t the government; when Christians were persecuted by the government. It was during that time that the apostles wrote. It was the duty of the Roman government - as it was the God-given duty of all non-Christian governments of the world - to protect their citizens, including protecting non-violent Christianity.

The freedom to preach and spread the Gospel presupposes a measure of civil peace and security. The Church does not wield the sword, but God has ordained that the state does—so that evil is restrained and the innocent are protected.

Excellent. But then came the changed situation with Constantine. The Church joined with the State and served the State by endorsing taking up the sword to defend the State - contrary to what Jesus, the apostles and the early Christians did. This is a corruption of Christianity.

Even Jesus appealed to basic moral reason when He said that if a homeowner knew when a thief was coming, he would keep watch to prevent the break-in. That is not cruelty; it is prudence. Love does not mean passivity in the face of real danger.

That’s right. Jesus did not say “Kill the burglar when he breaks into your home.”

No one calls it virtue to invite violence into one’s home. Protecting wives, children, and neighbors from harm is not hatred—it is responsibility.

That’s right.

Scripture commands men to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, and Christ’s love was not passive. He laid down His life so that she might live. A man who refuses to protect his family has misunderstood love entirely.

Right again.

In the same way, a nation that refuses to defend its people and its borders will not preserve peace for long. Nonviolence as a personal ethic may be admirable, but God has established nations precisely to restrain chaos and protect life. Justice, rightly exercised, is not opposed to love—it is one of its necessary expressions.

You would join with the Roman Empire in persecuting the Christians who obeyed the government as long as it did not require them to do what the Messiah commanded his followers not to do?

P.S.

”Put away your sword.” “We do not use the weapons of the world.”

How do Christians obey that while serving in the world’s government militaries? We don’t.

Christian military killing Christian military: That’s not a problem for you?

Christian military killing non-combatants: That’s not a problem for you?

Acting as Jesus, the apostles and the early Christians who did not serve in the militaries of the world: That’s a problem for you?

 

[soberxp]

Before God, governments are instituted to protect those under their care, not to abdicate that duty in the name of misplaced sentimentality. A ruler who refuses to restrain evil is no less morally culpable than a corrupt judge who refuses to render justice. Scripture is clear that civil authority exists to punish evildoers and to promote peace and order for the good of the citizens.

Historic Christianity has always understood this. The freedom to preach and spread the Gospel presupposes a measure of civil peace and security. The Church does not wield the sword, but God has ordained that the state does—so that evil is restrained and the innocent are protected.

Even Jesus appealed to basic moral reason when He said that if a homeowner knew when a thief was coming, he would keep watch to prevent the break-in. That is not cruelty; it is prudence. Love does not mean passivity in the face of real danger.

No one calls it virtue to invite violence into one’s home. Protecting wives, children, and neighbors from harm is not hatred—it is responsibility. Scripture commands men to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, and Christ’s love was not passive. He laid down His life so that she might live. A man who refuses to protect his family has misunderstood love entirely.

In the same way, a nation that refuses to defend its people and its borders will not preserve peace for long. Nonviolence as a personal ethic may be admirable, but God has established nations precisely to restrain chaos and protect life. Justice, rightly exercised, is not opposed to love—it is one of its necessary expressions.

I cannot fully agree with your understanding. Humans were never created for the purpose of killing, and not everyone possesses the courage to resist when confronted with violent individuals.

However, cowardice does not imply wrongdoing,

nor does protecting others.

The error lies in your misunderstanding of God’s will.

Righteous violence and unjust violence hold no distinction—both propagate violence.

Proclaimed righteousness is not necessarily correct,

but proclaimed violence is undoubtedly problematic.

Violence permeates matters both at the national and individual levels,

from the individual to entire nations and even the entire world,

and thus, true peace can never be attained.

Any form of evil can be disguised as righteousness to wage wars, holy wars, or crusades—

there is nothing truly good except God alone.

May God not let you bear What you can't bear.

 

[Wrangler]

It becomes corrupt when people like you are taking it out of context to justify evil behaviour.

LOL. I am putting Christ's commands INTO context to justify soulful behavior. Christ said give to Caesar what is Caesar's. The overly spiritualized somehow read a "DO NOT UNLESS" into it.

 

[Matthias]

@Hazelelponi would you please address the “give to Caesar [who was not a Christian] what belongs to Caesar without any regard for what Jesus and the apostles taught / teach disciples to do” argument made by the guffawing unitarian?

 

[Matthias]

You had a question and I answered it.

Thank you. The Crusaders whom you extol would have killed you (and possibly done worse than that to you before they did) and told themselves they were serving God in doing so. @Wrangler pointed out to his readers that they were men who did not witness. They were men who acted like their enemy.

 

[Matthias]

You who say that Roman Catholics aren’t Christians and that the Crusaders defended Christian land: the Crusaders did not defend Christian land; they defended Catholic land. They did it with ferocity that matched and in some details exceeded that of the Muslims.

 

[Aunty Jane]

LOL. I am putting Christ's commands INTO context to justify soulful behavior. Christ said give to Caesar what is Caesar's. The overly spiritualized somehow read a "DO NOT UNLESS" into it.

Two expressions that you have used more than once, are....“overly spiritualized” and “soulful behaviour”.

Would you care to define those two expressions as they pertain to Scripture and the commands of the Christ, as I cannot seem to find them, or any reference to either of them....

 

[soberxp]

You who say that Roma Catholics aren’t Christians and that the Crusaders defended Christian land: the Crusaders did not defend Christian land, they defended Catholic land. And they did it with ferocity that matched and in some details exceeded that of the Muslims.

The Crusades of today still exist.

 

[Debp]

Thank you. The Crusaders whom you extol would have killed you (and possibly done worse than that to you before they did) and told themselves they were serving God in doing so. @Wrangler pointed out to his readers that they were men who did not witness. They were men who acted like their enemy.

I always heard negative things about The Crusades. Never did anyone teach that the Muslims did horrible atrocities to the Christians which finally started the Crusades hundreds of years after Muslim torture, kidnapping and murder in Christian lands.