Reason for The Crusades explained

[Matthias]

“War isn’t cruel. Killing is loving.” - Someone who isn’t Jesus

The Crusaders (and the Catholic Church) have a history - a dark history - of treating their detractors cruelly in the name of God.

I won’t praise them for it, nor will I emulate them.

 

[Matthias]

This thread is specifically about the Crusades, and that Catholic history is being (mis)used to support Christian participation in nations (which are not the kingdom of God) killing their enemies in other nations.

Start here. Christians killing fellow Christians is an absolute abomination.

What is done to a Christian is done to the Messiah, and what is done to the Messiah is done to God.

Repent.

 

[lforrest]

I believe God has chosen to maintain a balance concerning Israel. Aspirations of conquest by anyone are thwarted eventually.

Similarly to Issac, Ishmael was also promised to be a great nation. And Christians are Spiritual co-heirs in Christ from Abraham due to Faith Galatians 3:29. Christianity will not die quietly, it will take the fulfillment of the book of Revelation. If one side takes too much God will push back.

Motivations for most are irrelevant, if one is sent to war, they go to war. When putting their enemy to the sword, they can all believe they are doing God a service to make themselves feel better about it. Maybe dehumanizing our enemy will help as well. It will still be a stain on their souls.

 

[Matthias]

“War isn’t cruel. Killing is loving.” - Someone who isn’t Jesus

The Crusaders (and the Catholic Church) have a history - a dark history - of treating their detractors cruelly in the name of God.

I won’t praise them for it, nor will I emulate them.

Apology for the Fourth Crusade

Image: Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I with Pope John Paul II. The sack of Constantinople by armies of the Fourth Crusade in 1204 ranks as one of the odder and most lamentable events of…

apholt.com

I will applaud the pope for this.

 

[GodsGrace]

“Catholics aren’t Christians.” Crazy, right?



I also asked you a question. Respond to it if you care to. If not, then don’t.

LOL
I asked YOU first!

However, I will reply first, no problem.

Jesus also said to hate our mother and father.
Did Jesus mean that literally?
No, of course not.

He meant that we are to love HIM more than even our parents.

Jesus said that we are to love our enemies.
In the OT it was an eye for an eye, etc.
Seems like there might have been many walking around sans one eye.

Jesus meant that we are to AGAPE love our enemy.
We don't love our enemy the same way we love our spouse, or a child, or a friend, etc.

Jesus meant that we are to DO NO HARM to our enemies.
We are to treat even our enemies with love.

UNTIL they want to harm us.
Then we have a right to protect ourselves.

OK
Your turn.

 

[Matthias]

Jesus meant that we are to DO NO HARM to our enemies.
We are to treat even our enemies with love.

Very good. Killing our enemies does great harm to them.

UNTIL they want to harm us.
Then we have a right to protect ourselves.

That’s not what Jesus did. That’s not what Jesus taught.

OK
Your turn.

 

[GodsGrace]

I believe God has chosen to maintain a balance concerning Israel. Aspirations of conquest by anyone are thwarted eventually.

Similarly to Issac, Ishmael was also promised to be a great nation. And Christians are Spiritual co-heirs in Christ from Abraham due to Faith Galatians 3:29. Christianity will not die quietly, it will take the fulfillment of the book of Revelation. If one side takes too much God will push back.

Motivations for most are irrelevant, if one is sent to war, they go to war. When putting their enemy to the sword, they can all believe they are doing God a service to make themselves feel better about it. Maybe dehumanizing our enemy will help as well. It will still be a stain on their souls.

Are you saying that if a Christian is called to war he is to object?

OK.. Then something should be done by the church so that the government will accept Christians as conscienscious objectors.

What are we waiting for?

 

[GodsGrace]

Very good.



That’s not what Jesus did. That’s not what Jesus taught.

What did Jesus teach?
Post some scripture.

And when are YOU going to reply to MY question??

 

[Matthias]

Are you saying that if a Christian is called to war he is to object?

OK.. Then something should be done by the church so that the government will accept Christians as conscienscious objectors.

What are we waiting for?

I’m a conscientious objector. Whatever a church might say about it, the US government recognizes and honors it. I would be a CO even if the US government didn’t recognize and honor it.

 

[Matthias]

What did Jesus teach?

Love your enemies. He practiced what he preached.

Post some scripture.

I have.

And when are YOU going to reply to MY question??

I have.

 

[Matthias]

Jesus’ war against the Romans failed because …

 

[GodsGrace]

Love your enemies. He practiced what he preached.



I have.



I have.

Cute.
YOU told me to answer FIRST...which means that YOU DID NOT reply to my question.

NOW, AFTER I replied to YOUR question...
you advise me that you already replied to MINE!!

Now...
is that loving your neighbor?
Let alone your enemy.


Jesus said FATHER FORGIVE THEM FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO.

Some enemies, Matthias, KNOW what they are doing and still do it.

1. You didn't post any scripture stating that we are not to protect ourselves.

2. You never replied to my question.

Here it is again:

If some crimininal, an enemy, broke into your home in the middle of the night,
and threatened your family with death,
and you could stop him,
would you?

Or would you love your enemy and allow him to murder your wife and children?

I know it's a rather raw question...
but it does get to the point of the matter.

 

[Matthias]

Cute.
YOU told me to answer FIRST...

No I didn’t.

which means that YOU DID NOT reply to my question.

NOW, AFTER I replied to YOUR question...
you advise me that you already replied to MINE!!

Now...
is that loving your neighbor?
Let alone your enemy.

You read something into my post that isn’t there.

Jesus said FATHER FORGIVE THEM FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO.

Some enemies, Matthias, KNOW what they are doing and still do it.

That’s right.

1. You didn't post any scripture stating that we are not to protect ourselves.

I protect myself by relying on God and Messiah. Everyone who belongs to the Messiah should.

2. You never replied to my question.

I did.

Here it is again:

If some crimininal, an enemy, broke into your home in the middle of the night,
and threatened your family with death,
and you could stop him,
would you?

That’s not what you asked me.

Or would you love your enemy and allow him to murder your wife and children?

You’re rationalizing killing your enemy (you’re now avoiding the warfare of nations; in other words, you’ve changed the subject) and leaving no room for God to protect.

I know it's a rather raw question...
but it does get to the point of the matter.

 

[Matthias]

Jesus is nodding His head approvingly?
If we love our enemies?

OK
Depends.

If someone breaks down your door at 2AM and threatens your family with death
and you could stop them
would you?

They would be your enemy.
You would do nothing and allow them to kill your wife and children?

My apologies. I just now saw your post. I would do something. Love is action, not inaction. What I wouldn’t do is kill my enemy.

This discussion always turns out to be crazy, which is why I make my statement and then exit.

Jesus, the one nodding His head in approval,
told the Apostles to sell a robe a buy a sword.

How many people did the apostles kill with their two swords?

 

[lforrest]

Are you saying that if a Christian is called to war he is to object?

OK.. Then something should be done by the church so that the government will accept Christians as conscienscious objectors.

What are we waiting for?

In the US there is an option for contentious objectors to do civil service. In WW2 about a third of a percent did so. In Vietnam it was 4.13%, and I would attribute that to the war's unpopularity. It shows that most Christians don't have such convictions about killing. Or a conviction to live with the stigma of being perceived as a coward, even if it is undeserved.

 

[GodsGrace]

My apologies. I just now saw your post. I would do something. Love is action, not inaction. What I wouldn’t do is kill my enemy.

No problem.
So I'll ignore your post no. 93.

So we kind of agree, I think.

I would do no harm to my enemy....
but if he tried to harm my family,,,,
I would surely take action against him and protect my family (the best I could).

How many people did the apostles kill with their two swords?

Well, Matthias,,,that's not the point.
The point is that Jesus told them to arm themselves.


Luke 22:35-36
35 And He said to them, "When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?" They said, "No, nothing."
36 And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.


Jesus had also sent the Apostles to preach in Matthew 10.
But they stayed near home and were in their own land.

BUT NOW....Jesus was sending them far off and there was much danger in traveling in those times.
He clearly told them "whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one".

Whoever has no sword...
is to buy one.


As to your question as to how many persons the Apostles killed....
we'll never know since we have not been told.

The absence of evidence
is not evidence of absence.

 

[GodsGrace]

In the US there is an option for contentious objectors to do civil service. In WW2 about a third of a percent did so. In Vietnam it was 4.13%, and I would attribute that to the war's unpopularity. It shows that most Christians don't have such convictions about killing. Or a conviction to live with the stigma of being perceived as a coward, even if it is undeserved.

I lived in the US all my life.
If I remember correctly, men went to prison if they objected to going to Vietnam.
They would flee to Canada in most cases.
Cacious Clay or Muhammad Ali was a case in point...
HE was able to use CO,,,but because he was Muslim....

Which was the point of my post to you.
Christians have no such privilege....
and, according to some here, seems like they should,
since they are not even willing to kill in case of self-defense.

 

[lforrest]

I lived in the US all my life.
If I remember correctly, men went to prison if they objected to going to Vietnam.
They would flee to Canada in most cases.
Cacious Clay or Muhammad Ali was a case in point...
HE was able to use CO,,,but because he was Muslim....

Which was the point of my post to you.
Christians have no such privilege....
and, according to some here, seems like they should,
since they are not even willing to kill in case of self-defense.

They did, if they were active members of a pacifist congregation.

 

[GodsGrace]

They did, if they were active members of a pacifist congregation.

Sounds like Christianity should be a pacifist organization -
according to some on this thread.

However, we've derailed enough I think.

 

[Matthias]

No problem.
So I'll ignore your post no. 93.

Thanks. There were other relevant points in the post. (Which is why I didn’t just delete it.)

So we kind of agree, I think.

I would do no harm to my enemy....
but if he tried to harm my family,,,,
I would surely take action against him and protect my family (the best I could).

What action, specifically? Knowing that there is no guarantee that any action would prevent you and or your family from being killed or severely injured.

Well, Matthias,,,that's not the point.
The point is that Jesus told them to arm themselves.


Luke 22:35-36
35 And He said to them, "When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?" They said, "No, nothing."
36 And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.

The next two verses explain why he told them to buy the swords, and why only two swords were enough.

Jesus had also sent the Apostles to preach in Matthew 10.
But they stayed near home and were in their own land.

They weren’t safe from evil doers near home and in their own land. There was danger traveling anywhere and everywhere.

BUT NOW....Jesus was sending them far off and there was much danger in traveling in those times.
He clearly told them "whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one".

Whoever has no sword...
is to buy one.

The swords - which totaled two in number - weren’t for personal defense.

As to your question as to how many persons the Apostles killed....
we'll never know since we have not been told.

The apostles didn’t kill anyone. Peter used a sword, and likely would have killed, if Jesus hadn’t intervened. The swords were not for self defense. If they were, the story would have had a much different outcome.

The absence of evidence
is not evidence of absence.

You’re making an argument for killing where Jesus himself didn’t. Neither did the apostles in any of their preserved writings.