Who were responsible for the crusades.?

URAVIP2ME said:

I hope you are Not serious about anyone going up to an attacker and saying attack me instead.

Click to expand...

Of course not. Obviously, the scenario was hyperbole.

I would imagine in the above scenario if the attacker's sole purpose was to single out your wife with you being there he would Not hesitate to neutralize you first, attack you first. So, how would possessing a gun guarantee you would Not be a victim.

Click to expand...

It never does. But it does help to even the odds.

I would imagine an intruder would enter by surprise. If your wife was threatened by a gun-possessing assailant he might not hesitate to use it first on you before you could use a gun to shoot him.

Click to expand...

There is of course, always the risk of that scenario. But as I said, it does help to even the odds.

When No escape is possible there is No biblical teaching against reasonably defending oneself or another. In other words, to stop the attack by taking defensive action but without killing the person if at all possible. Any thoughts about Exodus 22:2-3.

Click to expand...

Which has been my position all along. Although regrettably, "If at all possible" sometimes includes "It doesn't happen."

There are No guarantees that we would never face violent attacks. Throughout history God's people have faced violent crime as found at Genesis 4:8; Job 1:14-15,17 but Scripture wants us to think ahead and do the best we can do to avoid potential situations that could lead to, or put us in a bad position needing the use of violent acts as per Proverbs 16:32; 1 Peter 3:11.

Click to expand...

And that I can more or less agree with. One does not go out looking for trouble. But you certainly need to be properly prepared if it comes your way.

siti said:

Well OK - so I presume that would at least include oppressive pagan Rome if (as in the case of the first recipients of Paul's counsel) that's where you happened to be practicing your Christian submissiveness, and of course, the Fatimid Caliphate if you happened to live in that government's territory. It would, by extension also include (I presume) communist China, Nazi Germany and Kim Jong Un's current dictatorial rulership in North Korea. You can't have your cake and ha'penny I'm afraid.

Click to expand...

You are correct. All of these rulers are appointed for their various times and places in history. Each has their role to play. That is what the scriptures say. Romans 13:1-7

Now I presume your next question is going to be something along the lines of, "Why would a good God allow blah, blah, blah...?" The premise, of course being, that a "good God" would only allow nice things to happen.

The answer, at least in part anyways, is that God is not concerned with our comfort, but rather with our character. He uses these circumstances to 'grow' His people. One simple fact that is often difficult for the casual observer to grasp is this: The church flourishes in persecution. The two fastest growing churches in the world are right now located in Communist China and Saudi Arabia. The fastest perishing, least influential, and most maligned churches are located in North America and Europe. The church is dying in North America and Europe. But that's OK. God will use the influence of other nations and the scourge of secularism to whip it back into shape.

UpperLimits said:

Now I presume your next question is going to be something along the lines of, "Why would a good God allow blah, blah, blah...?" The premise, of course being, that a "good God" would only allow nice things to happen.

Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about what God allows, I was talking about what Christians claim God tells them they should do but don't. From my POV I see no reason to assume that God (if there is one) should be "good" in any case, and even if "He" was, I don't see any reason to assume that "His" version of "good" should correspond exactly to that of a group of humans of a particular religious persuasion. There is absolutely no convincing Christian scripture principle that supports Christian warmongering and there is plenty to support Christian pacifism. That was the point.

siti said:

I wasn't talking about what God allows, I was talking about what Christians claim God tells them they should do but don't........... There is absolutely no convincing Christian scripture principle that supports Christian warmongering and there is plenty to support Christian pacifism. That was the point.

Click to expand...

Remember there is a BIG difference between Christendom and Christianity.
I find it's so-called Christians claim..... Jesus warned MANY would just come falsely in his name at Matthew 7:21-23.
Jesus and his first-century followers did Not even get involved in the issues of the day between the Jews and Romans yet advocate warring. No humans are now to do the fighting - Matthew 26:52; Revelation 13:10 - because Jesus with 'angelic armies' will come to the rescue - Revelation 19:14-16.

Jewish Law as found in Torah, required us to defend the defenseless, which may require a military response if one is attacked. If Jesus supposedly spoke for God and taught to ignore the Torah Commandments, then that would make him a "false prophet".

So, those who say that a society cannot react militarily if attacked really have a serious problem, namely how can Jesus be for the Law and yet end some aspects of the Law without being a "false prophet"?

So, I don't see Jesus' response on this being an absolute but more of a general direction. IOW, "give peace a chance", which is why we greet and part from each other with the word "shalom" that is considered the greatest wish we can bestow on another while on Earth.

metis said:

Jewish Law as found in Torah, required us to defend the defenseless, which may require a military response if one is attacked. If Jesus supposedly spoke for God and taught to ignore the Torah Commandments, then that would make him a "false prophet".

So, those who say that a society cannot react militarily if attacked really have a serious problem, namely how can Jesus be for the Law and yet end some aspects of the Law without being a "false prophet"?

So, I don't see Jesus' response on this being an absolute but more of a general direction. IOW, "give peace a chance", which is why we greet and part from each other with the word "shalom" that is considered the greatest wish we can bestow on another while on Earth.

Click to expand...

Precisely. I find one thing people consistently conflate and misconstrue in this whole argument is the simple fact that while the individual is commanded to basically (as much as is practical) be pacifist in nature, the responsibility of the sword and justice WAS given to government. As long as you don't confuse the two roles, the rest pretty much sorts itself out.