Reason for The Crusades explained

[Matthias]

Of course one is not wearing a sword to just kill or to create an opportunity to kill with it. Who really does, except a warped insane individual.

I’m trying to read between the lines. How do I know from this whether or not you agree that a person is not a follower of Jesus if they aren’t armed, ready to kill [human beings], imitating the Crusaders?

Do you think that Wrangler believes other wise. I don't think so.

I think you’ve shifted the terrain. Wrangler is teaching that the followers of Jesus will act like the Crusaders and if they do not then they aren’t followers of Jesus and they aren’t really men. This goes back to him confirming that he is attacking and degrading the conscientious objectors masculinity.

Don't you think yo have made a mountain out of this subject already …

I do.

… and for what useful purpose?

I’m no longer trying to persuade Wrangler. I‘m trying to persuade others.

I don't see one.

That’s a pity but I believe you.

 

[Brakelite]

I'm asking a question. Care to answer it? What is your principle objection to the Crusades? (A or B is preferred answer than over-spiritualized gobbledygook.)

A. The Crusaders took it too far in committing atrocities.​

B. The Christians initiated the Crusades.​

All of the above. With one caveat. The Christians who initiated the crusades were nominal Christians who initiated crusades against other Christians who they disagreed with doctrinally and politically, as well as Islam.

 

[Matthias]

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

 

[Wrangler]

All of the above. With one caveat. The Christians who initiated the crusades were nominal Christians who initiated crusades against other Christians who they disagreed with doctrinally and politically, as well as Islam.

Before we get into that, I'm curious to know your answer to the thread question, the reasons FOR the Crusades?

Regarding disagreements politically and doctrinally, I'm not sure the Crusades were battles against other Christian denominations - unless you are playing word games - since the Reformation was several centuries in the future. Certainly not the First Crusade, which was the biggest and most successful one to protect Europe from being Islamized. From wiki:

Over time, the crusading movement expanded to include campaigns against pagans, Christian dissidents, and other enemies of the papacy, promoted with similar spiritual rewards and continuing into the 18th century.​

​

In scholarly usage, the term is frequently applied more broadly to include papally authorised conflicts ...Terminology evolved ... Other early expressions invoked the cross (crux), and by around 1250, canon lawyers were distinguishing between campaigns in the Holy Land—crux transmarina ('the cross overseas')—and those within Europe—crux cismarina ('the cross this side of the sea'). Participants, who traditionally sewed a cross onto their garments, came to be known as crucesignati ('those signed with the cross').​

21st century Americans have a difficult time grasping the overlap between church and state for most of recorded history since the Roman Empire. The Empire itself embraced Christianity as the State sponsored religion in the 4th century. In the 8th century, Charlemagne formed the Holy Roman Empire that lasted 1,000 years until Napoleon. In the meantime was the Great Schism, just a couple of generations before the Pope called the Crusades.

I remember learning in history class that it was not clear at the time, who would win out in terms of the central organizing principle of Western Civilization, the church or the state as far as setting public policy. So, while we think of them as distinct, our ancestors thought of it as a continuum, state-church.

 

[Wrangler]

It is a direct answer to your heart.

More over-spiritualized gobbledygook.

 

[Wrangler]

View attachment 75918

The Crusades is Church history.

 

[Matthias]

The Crusades is Church history.

We agreed that it is a couple of days ago. I know you remember that so you’re writing this for another purpose.

 

[Wrangler]

“It is not true that being unarmed means you are not a follower of Jesus.

Lot of negatives in that sentence. I do find it funny the desperate Appeal to Authority in going to AI to make your case that a Christian should not follow Christ's commands! LOL

 

[Wrangler]

Dirk Willems: Loving His Enemy to Death

Dirk Willems was born in a small village called Asperen, Netherlands, about 1540. He was an Anabaptist, believing in salvation through Jesus Christ and a public declaration of His Lordship through believer's baptism.He believed that the true church was composed of born-again believers, that...

www.bc4gc.org

“Men in form not in substance.”

If you are someone who thinks that is true, please read his story and think again.

Not sure why you keep making these kinds of posts. For every exception to the rule, there are 100,000's who served in the military HONORABLY doing their duty in killing and assisting those who killed.

The over-spiritualized implication of posts such as this is false, that only those who don't kill are honorable.

 

[Wrangler]

We agreed that it is a couple of days ago. I know you remember that so you’re writing this for another purpose.

Reinforcement against your propaganda. You keep demonstrating agreement in theory that the Crusades are part of church history while in practice, posting "church history" that excludes them.

A casual reader happening upon your posts in this thread might think this thread is reasons AGAINST the Crusades.

 

[Matthias]

Lot of negatives in that sentence.

There is a lot to object to in your teaching.

I do find it funny the desperate Appeal to Authority in going to AI to make your case that a Christian should not follow Christ's commands! LOL

I’m not desperate, I didn’t appeal to authority (I’m particularly distrustful of anything written by AI; my admonition to everyone is carefully evaluate the content of what any authority says: “Read widely, deeply, thoughtfully, and critically”), and my case isn’t that a Christian should not follow Christ’s commands. You know better than that. My case is that you‘ve misunderstood this particular teaching of his.

 

[Matthias]

Not sure why you keep making these kinds of posts.

If you truly aren’t sure, it’s because you’ve chosen to be ignorant. I’ve explained to my target audience why I‘m making those kinds of posts.

For every exception to the rule, there are 100,000's who served in the military HONORABLY doing their duty in killing and assisting those who killed.

For the first 300 years of Christianity, the followers of Jesus didn’t serve in the military. You should have verified that by now. Throughout history there have been Christians who followed their example.

The over-spiritualized implication of posts such as this is false, that only those who don't kill are honorable.

I’ll take advantage of this opportunity you’ve afforded me to remind my readers that you‘ve said that followers of Jesus who object to bearing arms against their enemies aren’t genuine followers of Jesus, and that you‘ve attacked and degraded their masculinity. Case in point: Desmond Doss. Conscientious objector. Follower of Jesus. National hero.

 

[Matthias]

Reinforcement against your propaganda. You keep demonstrating agreement in theory that the Crusades are part of church history while in practice, posting "church history" that excludes them.

You would like for your casual reading audience to believe that what you’ve said here is true.

It is a fact, not a theory, that the Crusades are a part of Church history. I’ve posted about that history and about other parts of church history. I haven’t excluded any part of church history, and you’ve complained about that.

A casual reader happening upon your posts in this thread might think this thread is reasons AGAINST the Crusades.

This thread also contains posts made by other members, Christian members, who have given their reasons against the Crusades.

 

[Matthias]

Looking back through the thread, the reasons for the Crusades was pretty much exhausted in the OP. If the only thing under discussion was the reasons for, the thread could have ended at post #5.

 

[Wrangler]

For the first 300 years of Christianity, the followers of Jesus didn’t serve in the military.

So what? They were considered beneath a Roman. You’re taking the history of being a subject and pretending it is dogmatic way to live as a citizen. Give to Caesar, what is Caesar’s has no practical application in your world view.

 

[Matthias]

So what?

I’ve explained it to my readers.

They were considered beneath a Roman. You’re taking the history of being a subject and pretending it is dogmatic way to live as a citizen.

See my post on that issue. (No one asked me about it and no one responded to it when I raised it.)

Give to Caesar, what is Caesar’s has no practical application in your world view.

That’s false. I pay taxes just like (almost) everybody else does.

 

[walter]

Have you met Amigo de Cristo?

Sorry I did not recognize what you were referring to, Jesus words are Paramount to me, so I agree with you.

"Amigo de Cristo" (Friend of Christ)

 

[walter]

"of the same faith"

Please give me one scripture that explains we should engage in war against our brothers and sisters that live in another Nation?

 

[walter]

It's not a sin for one to serve in the armed forces to defend their nation.

Surely you are not trying to use what your conscience is leading you to do to make the false claim that all that serve in the military are going to hell are ya?




If all the Christians would have thought like this back in the 1940s, we're all be speaking German right now.

Sometimes war and the threat of war is necessary for there to be peace. No way around that until Jesus returns.




Really? You don't know God's Word good enough to already know this???

2 Thessalonians 1:7-9
And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power




James 2:13
For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.





We see the NT does NOT say those with weapons are in sin.

Luke 22:36
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Luke 22:36 is a verse where Jesus instructs His disciples to take provisions for their journey, emphasizing that if they do not have a sword, they should sell their cloak to buy one. This reflects a shift in their circumstances, indicating the need for preparedness in facing upcoming challenges including the need for self defense.

If one "lives" by the sword (any deadly weapon) this means the weapon is what they live by as in their faith and trust in weapons comes before the Lord which of course is idolatry. Trust the Lord first and foremost.

If it's a sin to have a deadly weapon then you are accusing Jesus of committing sin when He told them to get a sword the second time He sent His disciples out. (Luke 22:36). Accusing Jesus of sinful behavior ends badly.

And you would be saying Romans 13 is advocating sin for the "servant of God" who bares the sword

Romans 13:4
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Don't be one of those that twist scripture by following the baby killing liberal perverts are not being led by the Holy Spirit of Jesus.




You seem a little too trigger happy over there.
Maybe the authorities in your area need to keep an eye on you!

Proverbs 11:1 states, "A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight."

One being led of the Lord would have weapons, but not go around talking so gleefully about killing people.

It's only in extreme circumstances that a Christian would think of killing someone and only in self defense so Christians aren't going around joyously talking about killing people.

It's not smart tactically to let people know you are armed. It spoils the element of surprise which is critical for successful self defense.




I reported someone for using the "F" word and nothing was done about it.

First I like to see what Jesus says, do you have any scriptures in mind? I use AI sometimes, but that is definitely not my first choice!

And could you highlight the words from Jesus that explain your Viewpoint?

 

[Brakelite]

Before we get into that, I'm curious to know your answer to the thread question, the reasons FOR the Crusades?

Regarding disagreements politically and doctrinally, I'm not sure the Crusades were battles against other Christian denominations - unless you are playing word games - since the Reformation was several centuries in the future. Certainly not the First Crusade, which was the biggest and most successful one to protect Europe from being Islamized. From wiki:

Over time, the crusading movement expanded to include campaigns against pagans, Christian dissidents, and other enemies of the papacy, promoted with similar spiritual rewards and continuing into the 18th century.​

​

In scholarly usage, the term is frequently applied more broadly to include papally authorised conflicts ...Terminology evolved ... Other early expressions invoked the cross (crux), and by around 1250, canon lawyers were distinguishing between campaigns in the Holy Land—crux transmarina ('the cross overseas')—and those within Europe—crux cismarina ('the cross this side of the sea'). Participants, who traditionally sewed a cross onto their garments, came to be known as crucesignati ('those signed with the cross').​

21st century Americans have a difficult time grasping the overlap between church and state for most of recorded history since the Roman Empire. The Empire itself embraced Christianity as the State sponsored religion in the 4th century. In the 8th century, Charlemagne formed the Holy Roman Empire that lasted 1,000 years until Napoleon. In the meantime was the Great Schism, just a couple of generations before the Pope called the Crusades.

I remember learning in history class that it was not clear at the time, who would win out in terms of the central organizing principle of Western Civilization, the church or the state as far as setting public policy. So, while we think of them as distinct, our ancestors thought of it as a continuum, state-church.

Probably easier for me to answer through AI...

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/crusades-that-were-not-against-SEAlo4XkSZC.4JPbQU62lQ