On the Road to Submission?

[Irelander]

Today's interpretation is irrelevant to the time period under discussion.

God gave the 6th commandment, then later led the Israelites into the Promised Land and told them to drive out the heathen and leave no one alive.

When Joshua was fighting in the Promised Land God lengthened the day so that they could pursue their enemies longer. Joshua 10:12-14

David was a man after God's own heart, yet his rule was one of war and he was a blessed warrior.

Nehemiah was overseeing the rebuilding of the wall in Jerusalem and made sure everyone was armed and ready to fight if attacked. Nehemiah 4:10-17

Jesus told the Disciples to sell garment to buy a sword. He said two of them was enough. There are not a whole lot of uses for a sword other than fighting/killing. Luke 22:36-38

All this to say that it is pretty clear in the Bible that killing does not equal sin. Hate and murder are sin.

[JAD]

Jesus told the Disciples to sell garment to buy a sword. He said two of them was enough. There are not a whole lot of uses for a sword other than fighting/killing. Luke 22:36-38.

I try to take it easy on Lk 22:35-38. Our Lord was known to be metaphorical.* Most scholars interpret :58 as "jeezy chreezy, enough already! It's a frigging metaphor, you schmucks!" A literal reading doesn't fit super well with Mt 26:52, though I don't find the two in /complete/ opposition.

Sorry for the sidebar, we can get back to panicking about a religion that's been around for 1400 years now.

*At times; not, e.g. Jn 6:53, but you'll note he had to make the point like five times, and just 1500 years later some putz managed to re-misinterpret him and jack up half the Christian world.

[OlongJohnson]

I worry a lot more about secularism than Islam.

You don't listen to Sam Harris' podcast much, I bet.

[JAD]

You don't listen to Sam Harris' podcast much, I bet.

The johnny come lately new Atheist? I can't believe he has room in his garage for his Prius with all those strawmen in there.

[BehindBlueI's]

God gave the 6th commandment, then later led the Israelites into the Promised Land and told them to drive out the heathen and leave no one alive.

When Joshua was fighting in the Promised Land God lengthened the day so that they could pursue their enemies longer. Joshua 10:12-14

David was a man after God's own heart, yet his rule was one of war and he was a blessed warrior.

Nehemiah was overseeing the rebuilding of the wall in Jerusalem and made sure everyone was armed and ready to fight if attacked. Nehemiah 4:10-17

Jesus told the Disciples to sell garment to buy a sword. He said two of them was enough. There are not a whole lot of uses for a sword other than fighting/killing. Luke 22:36-38

All this to say that it is pretty clear in the Bible that killing does not equal sin. Hate and murder are sin.

I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong or isn't applied in other parts of the timeline of Christianity (including today). I'm simply saying it's irrelevant to understanding the motivations of Christians and their leadership in the time frame of the Crusades and the lead up, as there was still significant debate on exactly what sanctioned killing meant (does God himself need to specifically authorize it, or can men make the decision based on the moral framework God set up?) and the nature of sin in killing.

St. Augustine wrote:

It was the same in Peter, when he took his sword out of its sheath to defend the Lord, and cut off the right ear of an assailant, when the Lord rebuked him with something like a threat, saying, "Put up thy sword into its sheath; for he that taketh the sword shall perish by the sword."(1) To take the sword is to use weapons against a man's life, without the sanction of the con stituted authority. The Lord, indeed, had told His disciples to carry a sword; but He did not tell them to use it. But that after this sin Peter should become a pastor of the Church was no more improper than that Moses, after smiting the Egyptian, should become the leader of the congregation. In both cases the trespass originated not in inveterate cruelty, but in a hasty zeal which admitted of correction. In both cases there was resentment against injury, accompanied in one case by love for a brother, and in the other by love, though still carnal, of the Lord. Here was evil to be subdued or rooted out; but the heart with such capacities needed only, like good soil, to be cultivated to make it fruitful in virtue.

The "lawful command" was understood to be of divine origin, not something men could grant:

why should not the Egyptians, who were unrighteous oppressors, be spoiled by the Hebrews, a free people, who would claim payment for their enforced and painful toil, especially as the earthly possessions which they thus lost were used by the Egyptians in their impious rites, to the dishonor of the Creator? Still, if Moses had originated this order, or if the people had done it spontaneously, undoubtedly it would have been sinful; and perhaps the people did sin, not in doing what God commanded or permitted, but in some desire of their own for what they took. The permission given to this action by divine authority was in accordance with the just and good counsel of Him who uses punishments both to restrain the wicked and to educate His own people;

That was is inherently sinful can be a virtue when done at God's command:

According to the eternal law, which requires the preservation of natural order, and forbids the transgression of it, some actions have an indifferent character, so that men are blamed for presumption if they do them without being called upon, while they are deservedly praised for doing them when required. The act, the agent, and the authority for the action are all of great importance in the order of nature. For Abraham to sacrifice his son of his own accord is shocking madness. His doing so at the command of God proves him faithful and submissive.

and then went on to extrapolate into man's ability to command other men to war, etc. Remember this was controversial at the time, there's no reason to write rather lengthy (and they are lengthy) discourses, call out names of other thought leaders of the day to pick apart their counter-arguments, etc. if it's solidly accepted in the time it's written.

[Hambo]

I try to take it easy on Lk 22:35-38.

Good plan. Generally speaking it's not a good idea to cherry pick single lines of scripture to make a point. Knowing what came before and comes after, as well as the context, are necessary to really understand the point.

With that, I'm out. IME these discussions go downhill quickly.