Reason for The Crusades explained

[Matthias]

Then don't write like one.

Do you think you’re writing like a Christian? Or even as a person with moderate social skills?

Pleasse, put it in historical context instead of making vague claims.


You just embarassed yourself on the atomic bombs.

 

[Debp]

"Love" doesn't mean ignore atrocities done to you and yours either.

Raymond Ibrahim is a historian on the Crusades. He said the Crusaders believed that loving your neighbor also meant defending the weak and innocent against the atrocities of the Muslim invaders.

If the Crusaders hadn't repelled the Muslims after they reached Spain and even into France, all of Europe would be Muslim today.

The North Coast of Africa and all the way to Syria and Turkey had been Christian lands...all Muslim countries now.

 

[Chihuahua]

Oh dear.....rationalising the most heinous of weaponry that the world had ever seen at that time, really shows how indoctrinated you are...... have you heard of a Pyrrhic victory? Look it up...

A pyrrhic victory is not relevant at all. I am not indoctrinated, I am quite familiar with real history. I live in the real world. The atomic bombs and the Soviet invasion within days of each other barely led to the end of the war and saved MILLIONS of people. Even then Imperial troops wanted to prevent the Emperor's surrender from getting out. You likely live in fairytale land where if he just asked nicely they'd give up.

Who is more emotional and irrational than a blind patriot? Patriotism can justify what Christianity condemns.

This has nothing to do with patriotism. It has to do with reality. At Saipan mothers threw their children off suicide cliff rather than surrender.

 

[Aunty Jane]

You can't even admit there is such a thing as Christian nations. Jesus isn't a king of burgers!

No nation today can be called “Christian” because of who is ruling this world......it was God who gave world rulership to the one who claimed in the beginning, that his rule was better than God’s....(Luke 4:5-7)

“We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.” (1 John 5:19 ESV)

“In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing.” (2 Cor 4:3-4 ESV)

How much of “the whole word” is satan not “the god” of....? Who is he not influencing to participate in sanguinary warfare with deep patriotic indoctrination?
If he can “blind the minds of unbelievers” then who are the “blinded” ones? Who are here arguing with Jesus and justifying what he never did? As if it is an argument you will ever win....but what happens if you lose? What does “perishing” mean?

 

[Chihuahua]

Do you think you’re writing like a Christian? Or even as a person with moderate social skills?

Yes. I don't point out a person account is new to a forum as if that means you don't need to answer a question posed. That's the behavior of children. I notice you like to make claims but not back them up.

I guess you edited your post. You did not answer the following.
Please, put it in historical context instead of making vague claims.
You just embarrassed yourself on the atomic bombs.

 

[Chihuahua]

Again, what is your historical basis for your claim they'd get you?

What happened to Tokyo was far worse and yet you chose not to address it. Instead you questioned my faith and social skills.

 

[Wrangler]

No nation today can be called “Christian” because of who is ruling this world

More denial. A nation is merely a collection of people. No individual today can be called “Christian” because of who is ruling this world. If you make exceptions for individuals, why?

Christ was in the world with who is ruling the world. Is Christ a Christian? If not, your idea of Christian has no practical application.

 

[Matthias]

Yes.

Thanks. Apart from internet forums I don’t often run into Christians who behave as you do.

I don't point out a person account is new to a forum as if that means you don't need to answer a question posed.

I answered your question. Your comment brought another question to mind: have you ever heard a forum moderator say that no one is required to answer a question? Have you ever heard a forum moderator encourage people not to answer questions in order to avoid escalating a problem?

That's the behavior of children. I notice you like to make claims but not back them up.

That’s interesting. The common complaint is that I back up what I say using sources which no cares about.

An early observation on my part about you: You‘ve expressed no problem with Christians killing and wounding other Christians in war.

I guess you edited your post. You did not answer the following.
Please, put it in historical context instead of making vague claims.
You just embarrassed yourself on the atomic bombs.

 

[Chihuahua]

Thanks. Apart from internet forums I don’t often run into Christians who behave as you do.

Which is how? Do you normally expect a person to feel you are justified in not addressing the questioning of a claim you made by pointing out you have posted here longer?

I answered your question.

No, you did not. What is the historical basis for you making such a claim? All you do is make claims and find ways to weasel out of it.

Your comment brought another question to mind: have you ever heard a forum moderator say that no one is required to answer a question? Have you ever heard a forum moderator encourage people not to answer questions in order to avoid escalating a problem?

So did you answer the question or not? You just claimed you answered it and now you are saying you do not have to answer. That was a nice strawman. No one is claiming you must answer a question. Does questioning a person's faith and social skills prevent escalation?

That’s interesting. The common complaint is that I back up what I say using sources which no cares about.

I doubt people are complaining about you providing relevant credible sources.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Sanctioned? Joan of Ark's human conquering was sanctioned. Sad but predictable you take Liberty as Slavery. We are not free to establish Christian nations but enslaved to any human violence by barbarians as we waited upon satisfactory sanction. Yea, right!

Who is running this show? Where does God or his Christ tell us to intervene in the affairs of those for whom satan is the ruler. If the whole world is lying in his power....who is exempt? There are no “Christian” nations because satan is the ruler of all of them.

Do you understand that God is the most powerful Being in the universe, and that not a thing takes place without his knowledge and permission? Where did he ask the nations to kill each other...or worse for Christians to do so? He gave world rulership, over to the devil to prove his case. So no conflict or war goes unnoticed by him......but he allows the devil a free hand...why? So that he will have enough rope to hang himself along with all who fall for the patriotic sentiments that are instilled in childhood....the ones that justify what Christ never did.

Did God created the nations who are at war with one another? Did he make some “Christian” and others not just so that bloodshed would punctuate all of human history?

Wake up mate....look at the big picture and see what God sees......our own views are inconsequential if they are at odds with the word of God. It’s all there...history written in advance. We are in the final days of satan’s rulership...and he knows it. He is no longer subtle...but now, he is right in our faces...inciting hatred and violence even in one’s own nation, pitting one patriot against another on opposing sides of politics......is there any such thing as a “civil” war? What is it a symptom of? You tell me....

 

[Matthias]

Which is how?

With grace.

Do you normally expect a person to feel you are justified in not addressing the questioning of a claim you made by pointing out you have posted here longer?

You misinterpreted, and are still misinterpreting, my intention.

No, you did not.

Please see post #137. That is where I answered your questions.

What is the historical basis for you making such a claim? All you do is make claims and find ways to weasel out of it.

Compare a conventional weapon with a nuclear weapon for us.

So did you answer the question or not?

I answered the question.

You just claimed you answered it and now you are saying you do not have to answer.

That’s right.

That was a nice strawman.

It wasn’t a strawman.

No one is claiming you must answer a question.

Then stop demanding that I do.

Does questioning a person's faith and social skills prevent escalation?

No.

I doubt people are complaining about you providing relevant credible sources.

I almost always use trinitarian sources when speaking with trinitarians. (In those rare instances when I don’t, I typically point it out to my readers.) You can remove your doubt by reading responses to my posts where I’ve quoted those sources.

 

[Chihuahua]

Nuclear weapons are far more powerful than conventional weapons.

You wrote: "No worse than other bombing raids? That’s preposterous."

• An estimated 100,000 civilians were killed in the single night, a death toll higher than either of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

And you were wrong. So now you do the old switcharoo:

Nuclear weapons are far more powerful than conventional weapons."

Really? I had no idea. You are wrong. The bombing raid over Tokyo was worse.

 

[Aunty Jane]

More denial. A nation is merely a collection of people. No individual today can be called “Christian” because of who is ruling this world. If you make exceptions for individuals, why?

Don’t look now, but to become a “Christian” one must do so individually.....it has nothing to do with nationality like it did with Israel. Those individual Christians must make decisions based on Christ’s teachings otherwise they cannot legitimately call them selves “Christians”...can they?
It’s a mere label, not an identifying lifestyle.

Christ was in the world with who is ruling the world. Is Christ a Christian? If not, your idea of Christian has no practical application.

Christ was IN THE WORLD and he was no part of its political scene, even though his own nation were oppressed by the Romans.
Jesus wasn’t a “Christian”...he was a Jew....and individual Jews had to respond to his message which was a peaceful one, not getting involved with the Zealots who were planning a rebellion. Jesus taught his own people first and after his death, the gentiles were invited into God’s Universal family. But all had to be united in word and deed. (1 Cor 1:10)

The “application” you are missing is that each Christian, on an individual basis, must necessarily follow what Christ taught and refrain from participating in what he told us to avoid. What our nations do, or not do on a political level is none of our business...God has it all under control and needs none of us to do anything about the world...that is his job and he has already told us what he will do, and how he will accomplish it......failure to read the Scriptures as a whole and to apply only cherry picked verses to justify unchristian conduct will not get you anywhere.
For example....the “swords” that Jesus told his apostles to buy, were not to be used because they would have all been killed in such an unequal exchange with armed soldiers. Jesus said that it was to fulfill Scripture, nothing more. Peter was reprimanded for resorting to violence even though his motives were noble. Do you see the issue?

 

[Matthias]

You wrote: "No worse than other bombing raids? That’s preposterous."

• An estimated 100,000 civilians were killed in the single night, a death toll higher than either of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

And you were wrong. So now you do the old switcharoo:



Really? I had no idea.

Challenge someone to fight you with the following caveat: You will use only conventional weapons and they will use only nuclear weapons.

Who ultimately wins that fight?

 

[Chihuahua]

Challenge someone to fight you with the following caveat: You will use only conventional weapons and they will use only nuclear weapons.

Who wins that fight?

So you are not going to address the fact the raid on Tokyo using conventional weapons was worse that Hiroshima and Nagasaki and that you were totally wrong. You are just going to get into a hypothetical instead of owning up to the fact you were wrong?

 

[Wrangler]

Who is running this show? Where does God or his Christ tell us to intervene in the affairs of those for whom satan is the ruler.

God is running the show. Gods children are not intervening in Satan’s domain (hell) but spreading the kingdom of God, aka Christian Nation. You are living in the past with your false claim of who is the ruler of this world. This is what Jesus said.
John 16:33 (VOICE)
33 I have told you these things so that you will be whole and at peace. In this world, you will be plagued with times of trouble, but you need not fear; I have triumphed over this corrupt world order.

 

[Matthias]

So you are not going to address the fact the raid on Tokyo using conventional weapons was worse that Hiroshima and Nagasaki and that you were totally wrong. You are just going to get into a hypothetical instead of owning up to the fact you were wrong?

You’re talking about the anomaly of one air raid. The raids on Hirsoshima and Nagasaki were worse than a typical WW air raid and there is no doubt that nuclear weapons are far more destructive than conventional weapons in a side by side comparison.

 

[Wrangler]

Challenge someone to fight you with the following caveat: You will use only conventional weapons and they will use only nuclear weapons.

Who ultimately wins that fight?

@Matthias, this is your way of confessing you lost the argument on the Crusades.

 

[Matthias]

@Matthias, this is your way of confessing you lost the argument on the Crusades.

No. Hear again the good words of @GodsGrace - “DO NO HARM to our enemies” (post #85).

The Crusades inflicted a tremendous amount of harm on both sides.

 

[Chihuahua]

With grace.

Umm, what? Which is how? Do you normally expect a person to feel you are justified in not addressing the questioning of a claim you made by pointing out you have posted here longer?

You misinterpreted, and are still misinterpreting, my intention.



Please see post #137. That is where I answered your questions.

"“If I had lived then” = If had lived at the time of the Crusades and come into contact with the Crusaders."

That's not an answer. Is there are specific crusade you are referring to? Can you focus on a particular incident?

Compare a conventional weapon with a nuclear weapon for us.

You are refusing to admit you are wrong. This is called a distraction. The difference between a conventional vs an atomic bomb doesn't have anything to do with Tokyo having it worse than the other two.

I answered the question.



That’s right.

No you simply said if you lived in the time of the Crusades, which is not really a thing anyways, it is a series of different campaign, that they would have killed you. That's a very vague claim to no evidence to support it.

It wasn’t a strawman.

It is a strawman, you implied I thought you must answer a question. Where did I do that? You are free to run with your tail behind your legs.

Then stop demanding that I do.

And the strawman persists.

No.



I almost always use trinitarian sources when speaking with trinitarians. (In those rare instances when I don’t, I typically point it out to my readers.) You can remove your doubt by reading responses to my posts where I’ve quoted those sources.

Well I haven't seen any sources thus far.