The crusades

Sandwiches.

No, it is not healthy at all.
That makes us no different than any other violent religion. A religion which has nothing to do with God at that point.
At that point it’s like team sports except it involves death, war and suffering.

The crusades are the lowest point in Christianity which pushes away a lot of unbelievers because they are unable to separate corrupted men or women from the messages of God.
God says we are to be His ambassadors, so picking up a sword and subjugating your enemies is not a well received messages for anyone anywhere.
So, set a good example and leave your sword at home.

I suggest that you reconsider the false narrative concerning the crusades. While religion was invoked to encourage people to join the army, the real issue was that Islam had declared war on Europe. The crusades were an attempt to resist the invasion of Europe by Muslim armies. In that age, there was effectively no division of church and state. And for sure Islam makes no distinction between Islam and the nations Muslims have occupied.

Islam started the conflict. Be glad that some had the wisdom and spine to resist the advance. Otherwise the Western world would be as miserable as the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and every other blighted Muslim nation.

Islam is antichrist to the core. There is nothing good in it.

Me myself as a 19yo i really look up to those who died defending the faith in thr medieval times is it healthy to think that as a modern world we need some new crusades to restore faith and to defend christian lands thanks for the help.
God bless you all

. Otherwise the Western world would be as miserable as the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and every other blighted Muslim nation.

Hello my friend down under.
I also suggest you reconsider the false narrative of Jesus with an AK47 and a MAGA hat but I’m afraid we will be talking over each other.

Perhaps if you familiarized yourself with some ancient European traditions and mindsets you might even realize that any political movement or war has nothing to do with God and the crusades is what gives a bad name to many unbelievers because they confuse religion with God and they think that actions of men represent God.
One way that might help would be to look at the Catholic Church which you might reject because they do a lot of un biblical things.

I know that you‘re Ex-military and your mindset considering the country you’re in is in the honeymoon phase with war (like Europeans used to be before WW1] because you don’t have any war and destruction in your soil.
But for some of us who have seen war and destruction which goes back centuries in what could be called “blood feuds” we want to take a break from wars and violence so you foreigners in your honeymoon phase can come and do some war and then go home with ptsd.

Maybe by your logic Russia is also resisting the US invasion but you might reject that because you’re a team player and being a God player is secondary.

You are wrong on a number of counts. That's fine, you do not know my complete background. I was born in London, 1951. WW2 was very much fresh in the memories of my relatives who had endured the blitz. Some rationing was still in place. London was still being rebuilt. My father served in the RN and sent to Korea at the outbreak of that war.

Australia was indeed attacked in WW2. The Japanese attacked a number of northern ports, especially Darwin. I was in the RAN during the Vietnam war. Too many young Australians died in that pointless and terribly managed conflict.

I don't intend to glorify war. However, I prefer speaking English to German, even though I have some German blood - my great grandfather was German. I am sure that Australians generally would not be happy to live under the vicious rule of imperial Japan of the 30's and 40's.

If people had not been prepared to stand up against the despots that rose up from time to time over centuries, no one would enjoy the freedoms we have today. Ask the people of Africa what it is like when despots go unchallenged. It's no coincidence that many of the world's hell holes are ruled by Islam.

Americans generally are clueless as to the effects of war. Mainland America has not suffered in either WW1 or WW2.

I enjoy my freedom to practice my faith. Under the rule of Nazi Germany, imperial Japan or a Muslim caliphate, that would be impossible. I would be either dead, imprisoned or trying to hide from those who would seek my life.

I realise that my freedom is under threat, not from outside forces but from the enemy within. By this I mean the leftist force of darkness that seeks to impose its will on any and all who dissent from its antichrist agenda.

We have an intellectual despotic force, as well as Xi, Putin, Modi and Kim. It's interesting to note that it was intellectuals that empowered the rise of Hitler, driven by virulent antisemitism. Rather like we are seeing in universities now. Where will this lead? I don't know. But is as important to wield the sword of the Spirit against Satan's forces as it is to defend against invaders who seek to take over the nation.

I oppose the gun culture. Whether a Christian should take up arms against an enemy is a matter of conscience. It's easy to be a pacifist until the AK47 is pointed at you. I don't know how you preach to an incoming 155mm shell. I am grateful for those who did lay down their lives to defend the way of life that I enjoy now.

I agree with a lot of what you’ve said but keep God’s name out of war is what I’m saying.
If you want to do war like my grandfathers have done all the way back to ancient Greece and earlier, go ahead, but keep God’s name out of war and then have your illusion of victory for a few generations until another war comes up.

As Aaron said, Christ did not conquer Rome with a chainsaw or a flamethrower but by showing the other cheek. No one can conquer you with a sword when you have an un-subjugated spirit from God.

I also know the Muslims way better than you and when they desecrated churches in the early 90s in Albania, the Christians did not pickup guns to start another civil war but through peace and forgiveness they were able to coexist to this day.

This man here: Skanderbeg - Wikipedia is our national hero like George Washington is in USA, who fought the Ottoman empire. A country the size of Rhode Island fought the Ottoman empire!
Despite his bravery he couldn’t stop the inevitable while he was being used as a cannon fodder by the Vatican and the Pope. So, for 500 years Albania was under the Muslim rule. 500 years!
You know what stopped the total conversion? The un-subjugated spirit from Christ!
The Muslims first tried conversion with the sword. When that didn’t work out they tried bribery by giving money and land. When that didn’t work they tried arranged marriages. And when that didn’t work, they sort of gave up because they knew they couldn’t change the faith of the unshakable Christians.

So yes, use your own conscience and try to keep God out of it. I think Brittan was under Roman rule for 3 and a half centuries and whether you were a pacifist or a fighter that’s not what kept your identity intact.

I wonder how well the pacifist approach would have worked in Israel in 1948, Ukraine 2022 or Europe in 1939. War is indeed the domain of the secular. But God is not merely a spectator in human affairs. I've read eyewitness accounts of miracles during the Israel/Arab war of 1948. The well known preacher Derek Prince was living in Jerusalem when independence was declared. Israeli soldiers were billeted at his home at the time. God answers prayer even in times of war.

Christ conquered Rome? Or perhaps it was the moral corruption and overzealous expansion of the Roman Empire that led to her downfall. Did you know that many of the invading Barbarians who overran Rome were Christians? That includes Alaric, who sacked Rome in AD 410. They did not come with Bible and soapbox.

Me myself as a 19yo i really look up to those who died defending the faith in thr medieval times is it healthy to think that as a modern world we need some new crusades to restore faith and to defend christian lands thanks for the help.
God bless you all

Christ did not conquer Rome with a chainsaw or a flamethrower but by showing the other cheek.

I wasn't aware Christ conquered Rome.

What year was that?

.

Take a look at Aaron's post #25.

Let's just presume I didn't understand Aaron's post, so I'm asking you to explain a particular proposition which you affirmed.

If you affirm the proposition that Christ conquered Rome, please explain that to me.


Thank you.


.

Okay.
Christ conquered Rome by ideology, not weapons.
That's as simple as it gets.

This is an odd question to be honest, like you've never studied this part of history?
Is there something you disagree with? Maybe some technicality in vocabulary that i made?

I simply cannot understand the proposition that Christ conquered Rome.

- Are you talking about the fall of the Roman Empire?
- Are you talking about the state of Rome AFTER the fall, and how it sort of morphed, in a sense, into a kind of Vatican controlled religious power?

What exactly are you referring to, and how does that thing genuinely constitute the conquering of Rome by Christ?




.

Hmm. Again, going back to Aaron's post tells me that it's not the fault of the school system in USA, because even on this site here: The Fall of the Roman Empire [ushistory.org] it says that when Rome sanctioned Christianity as the official religion then it weakened itself because the emperor was not seen as 'god'.
How did this weakness begin? By showing the other cheek, by the apostilles and their followers.
And who taught them to show the other cheek? Jesus Christ!

1.) If you believe the sanctioning of Christianity in Rome is the sole cause for the fall of the Roman Empire, then perhaps you'd benefit from a broader study of Roman history. Most historians attribute the fall of Rome to a long list of extremely complex issues.

2.) You then take that one unproven assertion, ASSUME it is the singular cause, and then simply MAKE UP a CONCLUSION based on that premise, with no line of logical necessity driving your conclusion from your premise... you just make it up.

You say because your premise is true, we can then CONCLUDE the fall of Rome comes because of "turning the other cheek."
A- But the PREMISE is not proven, it's merely presumed... and it's at odds with most historians.
B- And the CONCLUSION doesn't logically follow the premise. It doesn't logically follow with any power of necessity: if the premise WERE true, there are thousands of different things we could assert from the premise, and yet you pick one only, that is unproven, and you just ASSERT IT. You make it up.

3.) I would add one more thing: even if we accept your premise about the fall of the Roman Empire, that still doesn't prove, in any way, that "CHRIST CONQUERED ROME." When Christianity was sanctioned in Rome, the situation that developed was a perverse mixture of Christianity and paganism, which left Christ and true righteousness far behind. So how does a corrupt religious system equate to "Christ conquering Rome"?
It does not.


Conclusion:
A.) Overall, everything you said is pure presumption... just presumption.
B.) None of your argument aligns with the majority of historians, or with any kind of logical deduction... it's all just presumption.
C.) The best I can tell, every single part of your argument fails.


.

I understand you better now.
Your main disagreement seems with the fact that I said “Christ conquered Rome” while saying that there are other factors.
While I realize this is true, I consider ideology to be the building block or the crumbling block of an empire and as far as historians go, then we’re in the same situation as another topic about WW2 where history is written by some form of bias by the victor.

You for example as a card carrying Republican member, tend to be more biased on this aspect than me.