The bad side of Christianity
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Philosophy and Theology
Forum Discription: Topics relating to philosophy
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21888
Printed Date: 05-Jun-2024 at 22:07
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The bad side of Christianity
Posted By: hugoestr
Subject: The bad side of Christianity
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 04:06
|
I saw that there is a long thread on the bad side of Islam. I think that it is only fair to have a thread on the bad side of Christianity.
Where can we start? Maybe on how Christians abandoned the teachings of Jesus, who demanded nonviolence at the face of violence, and how it became a warmongering religion since the 3rd century on. How about the role that it played on colonialism? Or how about the crusades? Maybe we should have a discussion on the religious toleration that has been a feature of Christianity for most of its history... oh, wait, it hasn't. Let's explore the dark side of Christianity, and I expect the participation of Christians especially. After all, we don't want to repeat the horrible behaviors of the past... or the present in the right places. spelling edit. |
Replies:
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 04:43
Why bother starting this post? We already had tons of discussion like this before... Religion is not bad. It's the people who corrupts the religion. That's all there's to it. Selfish people want to use religious means to meet their wants and needs. It's like a knife. Knife, if used correctly, can help everyday lives. Preparing meal will be a lot easier, and can cut objects quickly such as ropes. But if it was to fall to wrong hands, it may be used to threaten or kill people. Can the murderer say that he blame on his knife for his evil crime?  ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi"> 
Join us. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 04:57
|
Bad side of Christianity? The belief they have the monopoly of the truth...
|
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 05:06
Excuse me for thinking this, but it seems like there are more statements here than actual questions.
Nevertheless, you pretty much answered it by pointing out that Crusaders abandoned the teachings of Christ.
Furthermore, I would posit that the crusade preachers led many of them into temptation by wilfully ignoring Christ's admonitions on violence. No where in the New Testament is there preached anything comparable to a crusade. There is no advocation of violence in order to convert nonbelievers. Citing crusaders and preachers using the Old Testament accounts of the Hebrews expelling gentiles from their lands is rather invalid as well. The preachers knew that Christ said he came to fulfill the Law. He also laid the foundations for the correct way to spread the Gospel and convert in the Great Commission. For those who chose to follow Christ operated under a new covenant, not the old one made with Abraham. The preachers of the crusades had at their disposal the letters of Paul, Acts, and countless saints lives as examples of spreading the Gospel in the correct manner.
There is also the historical evidence that Christianity went through a reformation in the fifteenth century. Part of this movement had at its core the removal of violent and militant strains of Christianity in order to bring it back to its Apostolic roots.
Now, speaking as a Christian, I would say that the crusaders, the preachers, as well as radical abortion clinic bombers, KKK members, and other modern examples who twist the Bible to fit their own human ends, are guilty of sin and are in need of God's grace just as much as anyone else. I would also question the sincerity of their salvation acceptance, if there are no obvious signs of redemption and sanctification in their lives.
------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 05:09
I think it's time we have a "bad side of atheism too" 
------------- |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 05:10
And you do?  ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 05:14
|
Nope... I am agnostic.
I also believe I could be wrong. It is just my culture that pushes me to be enthusiastic to expose my ideas
 |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 05:21
Why is it bad for a Christian to believe in the exclusivity of his means of salvation? It doesn't follow, as a result of his belief in exclusitivty, that he should then beat others over the head with it or use it as a justification for killing nonbelievers. On the contrary, he should still follow the instructions of Christ and the examples of Paul and the Apostles in his efforts to convert nonbelievers.
------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 05:24
Christianity has no dark side
You are either Christian or not. Simple as that.First of all, how do you define who are Christians or not?
Definition of Christian is of pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings.
I can give you my word that Jesus never preached to massacre Muslim people during Crusade. Jesus clearly said that spread the Gospel to the end of the world. You mentioned that Christians abandoned teaching of Jesus. Then, for the love of God, why do you insist that they are Christians? If they don't follow the teaching of Christ, they are not Christians. No wonder they do bad things!
There are so many hypocrits who claim to be Christians. Don't even let me start all the religious factions claiming that they are Christians. Will you say that I am Muslim if I don't follow the path of Allah? Of course not. So whay blame the evilness of Christians by looking at crimes done by non-Christians? Gott, I want to slap you silly for still thinking about it this way... ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 05:29
|
Very nice pekau.
------------- |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 09:04
|
Two words: American Evangelicals
------------- |
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 10:30
I did and got flamed badly for it |
Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 15:24
|
Well, Christians wiped off populations in 3 continents: Australia, North America, South America.
------------- Mughal e Azam |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 15:30
Yeah, I definitly say they are a darkside of Christianity. ------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey 
|
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 15:36
Not to mention the countless women burned across Europe as witches. Or the peoples of Northern Europe who were killed because they were Pagans. ------------- Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail. Edward Abbey |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 16:00
I won't speak for AngloAmerica or Australia. However, it is not fair to say that Christians wipe out populations of South America at all: after all, we are Indians, are least in part!
First, it is not fair because it is not true. Any serious genetical analysis of our populations show the Native element is still here, although diluted by massive immigration. An second and more important, because it were the priest the main protectors of the Amerindians in this continent during 300 years. The Jesuits, for instance, saved nothing less that whole countries!
If you go today to the Yucatan or the Andes will find that modern Mayans and Quechuas (Incas) are some of the most fervent Catholics of the planet. That's not a coincidence at all.
For Angloamerica and Australia, please people of there say something
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 16:02
And also in Salem... 300.000 poor women, many of them mentally ill, were condemned to die burn alive, because of witchcraft...
Pagans were very badly treated in Europe, indeed. There are parallels with the invasion of the Americas in there.
What a shame.
Pinguin
|
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 16:04
In other words, there should only be Christians who keep their mouths shut, with the end result that people do not hear the the Gospel, and finally that there are less Christians in general. Yeah, that is really smart, to ignore one of the main commands of Christ. And American - I guess that is a bad word in many "enlightened" circles these days as well.
Now if you are using the term "evangelical" as a pejorative and political term (how else would most people use it these days), then I would say any evangelical whose words and conduct do not match up with teachings of Christ and the Apostles, is a sinner and in need of forgiveness like anyone else. It doesn't matter what silly label they are tagged with.
Again, their actions are not condoned by Christ. Any person who is literate can read Christ's teachings and see that this was not preached.
Besides, in the pre-modern world, people were either Christian or Muslim by default. There were not many places where one could be born and then eventually choose their religious persuasion. So yes, there was a huge population who were nominally of one religion, who went somewhere else and subjugated another. In the case of Christians, it does not mean that the tenants of their faith required them to do this. The ones who could read for themselves, especially the preachers who advocated killing and subjugation, were/are guilty of a grave sin and are accountable before God.
Did anyone read my post at the top of the page? ------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 16:11
|
How do you know? They were just as sure what they were doing was right as you are, Byzantine.
------------- Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail. Edward Abbey |
Posted By: ulrich von hutten
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 16:13
If you exchange the term Christians with Humans, or even better MEN,
than you are on the right way.
Might be they did their abomnations in the name of their god, but the true intention was to extend their power and their affluence.
They used the name of a god, like everyone is searching for a jutification or his deads.
Here Christianty, Islam and Hinduism are having a lot in common.
Back to the top. By knowing that only, or mostly, men did all this things, your final conclusion will not be, to exterminate all men, won't it?
Christianity has as much bad sides as every creature on this planet has bad sides. Not more and not less. ------------- 
http://imageshack.us"> 
|
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 16:23
I have no doubt that many of them believed what they were doing was right. However, like I said before, the crusades and the actions of those who went on them does not match up with the official source of the Christian faith: the New Testament. What else are we to measure their actions against? It is not a religion where everything is made up as one goes along and everyone is allowed to do what they want to do.
Does what I think is right and what I am advocating match up with what Christ says in the New Testament?
------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 18:47
|
I don't see the bad side of Christianity or the bad side of Islam or the bad side of atheism or the bad side Hinduism or whatever as being very different though they may have manifested themselves at different times in different places.
We might do better with simply a topic on the bad side of humanity.
Or possibly its good side. ------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 19:00
Hi, Pekau, I agree with you that most people shouldn't be called a Christians. A smart ass once said that Jesus was the last of the Christians.
At the same time, this is an unrealistic argument for us to make. Regardless if the crusaders were true Christians or not, they killed in the name of Christ. So where the many persecutions of Jewish people done in Christ's name. Christianity lacks in the Gospels a doctrine for warfare, but St. Augustine created one that has been used ever since. It is the the concept of the "Just War." This was a radical departure from Christ, but it has been a doctrine in the Western Church for about 1400 years. It may not be in the New Testament, but this doctrine is treated almost as if it were the gospel. Whether we like it or not, Christianity as the community of people claiming to follow Jesus has been a violent group, either within themselves or with others. All religions that become state religions will most likely endorse violence and war (I know of at least one case when this didn't happen). Maybe we should then accept the bad things that other have been done in the names of other religion, and instead of picking out what is bad from each religion, we should look for what is good and focus on those who actually live the true spirit of their faith, don't you agree? ------------- |
Posted By: Menumorut
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 19:15
First, you should define what is Christianism. You may refer to the doctrines (because is not only one Christian doctrine) or to the deeds of the (people called) Christians. If you refer to the doctrine, I think a religion should not be judged for its moral and ethical precepts because religion should not be a social system but the aspiration for the knowledge of a metaphisical truth.
The mistake of Reformation consists in that it tried to reconstitute what it considered was the Apostolic Christianism on the ground of New Testament writings. This seems rather a dramaturgic act than a religion.
The redemption and sanctification is a concrete thing. There is no need of aparent signs.
This battle, who convert who is a manifestation of the fact that at most people the religion is in the head, not in the heart as a mystical experience.
Is true that much (most?) of the populations in these continents have been exterminated but also I think these territories were low peopled. |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 23:18
There is some truth in that statement. Even the "true" Christians often find themselves difficult to walk in the path of Christ. Jesus taught that temptation is not a sin, but to fall for temptation is to sin. However, Jesus was merely a man like every one of us. God sent Jesus in human flesh. He felt pain, love, betrayal, suffering, pleasure, and temptation. Jesus, effectively, is not special someone that magically change the world. Jesus was, like everyone else, a common man. In fact, the story tells us that Jesus was born in low class society.
What makes Jesus so profound is not because he is the "Son of God", but because he was able to live a sinless life and resist all temptation to the bitter end. Because he was born by virgin mother, he does not have the sin of all humanity's forefather, Adam. Since his father is sinless God himself, he bore no sin in birth.
Remember God said that punishment of sin is death. Jesus allowed himself to die on the cross... but if he lived in sinless life... he should not have died. God is of love and justice. His death despite his innocence is enough to relinquish Satan's power over humanity if they believed in Christ. Jesus was, after all, part of humanity. Jesus rose to life because he should not have died. But those that reject resurrection of Christ rejects that sinless man died and never rose again. So what are they saying? Are they saying that Jesus lived in sinful life? Are they saying that Almighty God is of injustice? This is the sole reason why those that do not believe in resurrection of Christ cannot be saved. That is how I believe it.
So technically, it is just possible for one to live in sinless life. But those that do not believe in Christ, regardless of how they lived, have sin in their life because Adam's sin still binds people, since Adam was the first and origin of humanity.
You don't need to go to Church to be saved. You don't need to donate to be saved. You don't have to read Bible everyday. What saves people to heaven is to recognize that Satan, Lord of Death, broke the rule by killing a man who lived in sinless life... hence it justifies the fact that Adam's sin passed to you is no longer valid. Therefore, Satan no longer has the right to lay sin in your life... as long as you continue to live in sinless life. Living in sinless life is to follow Jesus' instructions and God's. But even if one somehow sinned, they can ask God for forgiveness and cleanse the sin. This is possible because it was God's choice to send Jesus to the mortal world. He is of mercy and justice. While he must enforce justice and order, he can show mercy if it does not break the rules.
Some Christians say that Friday the 13th is a bad and sad day because Jesus died. I beg to differ. I love Friday the 13th. If Jesus didn't die, then we would all be done for.
What? I thought I made this clear. Why would be disregard that fact that crusadors are true Chistrian or not? They weren't. Jesus did not say slay bunch of innocent people to spread his name. You cannot spread his Gospel if they are dead. And so what if they killed in the name of Christ. I could walk to you with a sniper rifle and kill you in the name of John F. Kennedy. Will the court accuse Kennedy for the crime? Absolutely not. They will accuse me because I committed the crime. See where I am getting at? Just because they killed in Christ's name doesn't make Christ evil. It just means the crusadors are brainwashed or liars. It so happens that it was a bit of both.
[/QUOTE]
So you should condemn the Catholic and Orthodox Church. If this is how you believe, it's fine. They were the hyprocrites, and they need to pay the price. But why are you dragging Christianity into this? Jesus didn't say he's going to publish New Testament. He didn't say that his Gospel should be used for pretext of war. Jesus did not set up the Western Church doctrine and you kindly pointed out that it was Church that treat the gospel as if it was the gospel, not Christ or his ideal of Christianity. Thank you for making my point, it was sinful men who too advantage of divine Christ and they will get what they deserve, for God is just. But Christianity has nothing to do with this. Church has many definitions. Building to worship and religious organization is one, which is appropriate for Church. Jesus' definition of Church is the gathering of Christians. Well, the hypocrites are not Christians, so it doesn't apply right?
If I have to repeat this again, I will slap people silly. Typing hurts my fingers... ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 23:21
|
Well there doesn't really seem to be anything new in this thread, does there? It has all been thoroughly discussed before. Consequently, I will limit myself to a few statements.
First, I think we need to distinguish between Christians and those to whom the Didache attributes the term Christemporoi, or "Christmongers." The Christmonger is an individual who seeks personal gain, recognition, or political goals through a professed allegiance to Christ. The Christian seeks to serve Christ for the sake of service alone.
Secondly, I think we need to draw a further distinction between individuals/groups and their ideologies across the board. We can compare two ideologies, or we can compare two individuals/groups; we cannot, however, seek to compare an individual/group and an ideology. For example, I can compare a Christian and a Muslim, or I can compare Christianity and Islam; I cannot, if I seek a fruitful comparison, compare an individual Christian to Islam, or an individual Muslim to Christianity.
Thirdly, I do think that it is necessary, especially in light of the modern relativistic trend, to compare different ideologies. I think that it is less productive to compare two individuals--at least if we seek, as we so often do, to make a value judgment of the ideologies these individuals ostensibly hold.
Finally, I do not think there is a bad side to authentic Christianity, because it is the calling of every individual to seek to follow the teachings of Christ as expressed through the universal testament of the Church. I do think that there is a bad side to individual's calling themselves Christians (Christmongers and Christians alike), precisely because the imperfection of man is born out repeatedly in the universal testament of the Church. The Church carries the heavenly treasures of revelation in the earthly vessels that are her members.
I am willing to spar on these points with anyone who cares to dispute them. I am unwilling to engage in the entirely fruitless--and oft repeated--finger pointing.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2007 at 23:27
The Orthodox Church has always held that war is inherently sinful. Check the canons dealing with soldiers returning from war if you like; they all require penance. As for the Gospel, you are quite correct: Jesus did not say that he was going to publish the New Testament. The New Testament was revealed and composed in the universal Church, and its canon was set--and, if you like, published--by her.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2007 at 02:30
|
Hi, Pekau,
Let me make two quick points: First, people should take responsibility for the atrocities committed in the past in the group that they belong to. My killing in Kennedy's name makes no sense because I don't identify myself or other people recognize me as a John F. Kennedy; they do recognize me as a Christian though. Second, my point is that many of us are only too happy to judge other religions and focus on their negative part. When judging other religions, we are only too eager to equate the behavior of the believers with that the religion. We should follow the suggestion of gcle and focus on the good side of all religions. It would be the way we would like people to judge our religion. ------------- |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2007 at 02:47
Not for South America I think, but for Australia it is certainly true.
Ah! Barrack Obama! ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2007 at 03:00
|
^
The stupidist man to ever seek the presidency of the US. ------------- |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2007 at 04:23
I am confused. Your last two last paragraphs completely is opposite of the reason why you opened this forum... Allow me to quote your first post in the forum:
------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2007 at 14:22
More like educated middle class really (respectable craftsman, good family, able to go up to Jerusalem, and so on). Not a labourer. Not a peasant. Certainly not a slave.
Jesus wasn't born in a manger because his parents couldn't afford a hotel room, but because there was no room at the inn.
Still it's just a detail. ------------- |
Posted By: azimuth
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2007 at 21:28
|
i found this video from a program called wife swap or something and this woman just came from the other family.
pretty extreme i think.
and what she mean by "dark sided" non-believers or its a new term?
------------- 
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 30-Sep-2007 at 00:40
 ------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 30-Sep-2007 at 02:22
|
Pekau,
My first post was ironic. I started it because I was annoyed at having yet another thread on why Islam is terrible. This is an idea that is especially popular among warmongering Christian in the U.S. I don't know about other places. And they tend to blend the religion with the practitioners in their desire to cast Islam as a wicked religion. Yet when it is Christianity that is put on the defensive, many Christians will explain that one cannot judge Christianity by the action of its followers. Furthermore, if one commit heinous acts, then by definition they are not Christian. I wished I had express myself the way gcle did, and that is why I praised his contribution. I it my fault that I started this thread with an ironic lash: I was angered at the sight of intolerance. ------------- |
Posted By: Comet
Date Posted: 30-Sep-2007 at 03:17
I feel bad for those who actually follow Islam the way it was intended to by Allah. I'd like to say that 85 to 90% (my estimate) of Islamic practitioners do it peacefully. However, the 10-15% who are apart of Islamic fundamentalism, ruin it for those who do practice peacefully. It's funny...a lot of what the American public knows of Islam comes from the media...which shows how those 10-15% follow Islam. BTW, Christians really have no room to talk. The religion's history is full of despicable acts of violence and torture. ------------- History is never clear cut...there are hardly any absolutes |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 30-Sep-2007 at 03:35
Mein Gott, I will not type same thing again. Read the previous posts before making comments... ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 30-Sep-2007 at 03:39
Dark side? Sounds like something from Star Wars - which was probably her inspiration for it... Actually I think this is just a convenient term she invented, so she can literally see the world in black and white. You're either with me and agree with my beliefs (which means you are good), or you believe something different (so you are bad and a part of the "dark side"). I watched the video. What an incredibly selfish and egotistical lady, inflicting so much grief on her family whilst she pompously arrogates herself the title of "religious warrior". I really, really, really feel sorry for her poor children. That kind of angry zeal can have an unbalancing effect on youngsters. ------------- |
Posted By: Comet
Date Posted: 30-Sep-2007 at 06:39
I actually did read...and I agree with both of you. Just given a bit more info on the topic. Sorry to come off so strong and I should have worded my last part better. I'm glad I know someone else who speaks German  ------------- History is never clear cut...there are hardly any absolutes |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 30-Sep-2007 at 06:45
|
Though German is one of the languages I really want to learn, I am afraid I am not even close to being fluent. It's hard to master lots of Western language for oriental like me. When I have the luxery, I will definitely try to be fluent in German, French, and Mandrian. The only phrasing I can use frequently in German is "Mein Gott in himmel". Don't ask why... ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Comet
Date Posted: 30-Sep-2007 at 06:54
lol, still not bad. Your English is excellent as well. It's nice to meet you Pekau :) ------------- History is never clear cut...there are hardly any absolutes |
Posted By: kasper
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2007 at 06:48
Since when have two wrongs made a right? I honestly don't understand the point in listing the bad points of any religion. ------------- |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2007 at 10:09
I agree with your second sentence, but disagree with first sentence. It was especially funny when I got the right answer in physics quiz... using a wrong formula. Using wrong formula + stupid mistake = correct answer.
There you have it, kasper. 2 wrongs make it right... ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2007 at 14:38
Sometimes it takes people to have their identity attacked for them to understand how they attacks on Islam are unfair to the religion. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2007 at 14:51
|
That's quite an insulting remark when you think about it hugoestr. You're alleging that members who have posted here only care about discrimination when it's against them. That seems unfounded and unnecessary.
------------- |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2007 at 15:13
|
I say, all of you complainers give Hugo a break. If anyone should get insulted around hear it would be those members who constantly have to defend themselves against threads that were opened to provoke and give a negative light on certain practices and beliefs (Islam, Atheism). For your info it wasn't Christianity that has constantly been under the gun around here. An interesting observation. Where were you guys when Islam was constantly attacked on this forum. Did you protest at all as you seem to do now over this thread?
Bravo Hugo for having the guts to openly invite a discussion about the Christian community and religion, especially with the intention of bringing fair and balanced criticism. Now, aside from Atheism and Islam, Christianity can be discussed, scrutinized and bring out good information to our membership as well.
Oh, and Zaitsev. Either you are too sensitive to hold your own in debates or you have a bad habbit of attacking moderators whom you have disagreements with. I singled you out since this is not the first time you have mocked our moderators and ignored your own violations in the process. Any complaint you make on this forum is a violation. Deviating from our regular policy will result in a warning. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2007 at 15:19
|
I wasn't complaining about a moderator Seko. If you read my post you'll find I was providing non-confrontational criticism of a member's post. I've also made my position clear on the Zagros issue, which I have messages akolouthos. I also find it quite amusing that you suggest that Atheism has under more attack than Christianity. Perhaps, it is true, that Christianity is more successfully defended, but that's a different basket of fish.
------------- |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2007 at 15:20
|
Now that I have your attention any further information will be exchanged via PM if necessary. ------------- |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2007 at 16:27
I am surprised that Adolwolf is not in the wanted list. Zaitsev and Adolwolf are members who would most favor anarchy over sense of order. (I repeat, that was not an insult. It was merely different value.)
------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2007 at 16:35
|
Now now Pekau. Zaitsev, hopefully, will do just fine.
Adolwolf is regular contributor to the tavern's "What song are you listeing to?" thread. He can't be all that bad.
Anyway, enough of our gossip and back to the topic. ------------- |
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2007 at 02:41
|
Good post Hugo
It is not insulting and only asks a question that creates a common dialogue. A challenge to anyone's faith should cause them to search to find out if what they believe is true or not so if they are strong in their beliefs they shouldn't get insulted or offended. Didn't the ancient Bereans search to seek the truth when the Gospel was presented to them. I have gotten the heat many times for trying to point out radical Islam so it works both ways. I have been wrongly accused of being a Muslim hater. I am pleased when people kindly point out what they might see as an error in my understanding. I may not agree with them but it is an open dialogue and helps create understanding. Is there evil in the Christian faith? Yes!!! heaps of it(Aussie talk) !!! or in American slang tons of it!! Byzatine Emperor really brings out the point that people who do evil things in the name of Christ are not following his example and are in error. Some would question if they are really true Christians or not. ------------- Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2007 at 02:55
|
For the record, as there is obviously some confusion, the post I said was insulting was hugo's LAST post, not the first. That is where there is an insult. I'm fine with him asking questions.
------------- |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2007 at 06:07
I am glad someone chose to read my posts way back on the first page!
------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2007 at 10:51
I disagree with that. Although the absolute numbers may be small but relative figures suggest that it was as big a catastrophe as anywhere else and maybe the biggest of them all. It is reported that the native Australian population declined by 90% after the European invasions. The stories of European cruelty to the people of that region are horrifying like them smashing the head of children on trees to kill them. The catastrophe in Native Australia was as big and maybe even bigger than anywhere else. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2007 at 11:54
|
The catastrophe in Australia, while existent, is grossly exaggerated. The term Black Armband History is used to describe those who produce claims that massacres were numerous and common place. Most of these claims have no evidenciary basis at all.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2007 at 14:59
I agree ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2007 at 15:04
Yes. Quite true for all faiths. However, most of the threads concering Islam never take this into account that "people who do evil things in the name of (Islam) are not following its true example and are in error. Some would question if they are really true Muslims or not."
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2007 at 15:24
How is that relevent? ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2007 at 15:57
Easy, because trying to end the thread with a, well they are not real Christian approach is contradictory to the flow of the previous threads criticizing Islam.
Sure they are not real Christians, and the others are not real Muslims. Nevertheless, we have had redundant topics on the Islam topic, so continously pulling the they're not Christian card is not beneficial to this thread either. We are discussing Christian extremisim in its forms, no one claimed them being the "right" Christians though.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2007 at 01:42
Well that's the thing. You're saying someone did something inappopriate in the other thread to other people, so we should do it here too with a new group of people. 
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2007 at 02:00
|
No. You don't seem to be reading my post properly. I am saying that it should be up for discussion instead of being hushed up with a deviating line such as "they aren't real Christians."
If you had had read my post you'd have noticed that I agree with the fact that no major religion promotes such acts so then they wouldn't be real followers...
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2007 at 02:59
|
OK. However, with said admission made, I believe the first post and thread title are quite inaccurate. I said the same about the Islam thread, however I don't know much about Islam so I did not post their significantly.
------------- |
Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 04-Oct-2007 at 11:09
In Greece as well...Many were hunted and many temples were destroyed. The paganism lasted however as long as the 1100AD in certain areas and still today many traditions survived. In Thrace and Asia Minor, the firewalkers started carrying christian icons in order to avoid accusations for being pagans. Now let me add Voltaires account on his story "Scarmentado", when he makes a reference to a letter sent by a bishop in America, to the King of France, telling him that millions of natives were killed, because they refused to change religion. -------------  
Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va! |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 03:17
|
Ok, I will not answer this bullsh*t. (Offensive language, yes... but how many times do i need to type this over and over again)? Read my posts in this topic!!! Why are you constantly condemning Christians for the crime committed by non-Christians!!! I should slap all of you silly... ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 03:53
Well they were Christians, but not followers of Christ. |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 04:41
That's an oxymoron. By definition, Christians are follower of Christ. SO IF THEY ARE NOT FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST, AS YOU POINTED OUT, THEN THEY ARE NOT CHRISTIANS! Period.
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 05:41
If someone does something in the name of Christ... ------------- |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 05:51
Woh woh woh - calm down Pekau. What I think Adalwolf means is that they call themselves "Christians", but may not be true followers of Christ. I basically repeated what he said though. But you should be able to understand what we mean. ------------- |
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 05:58
Exactly. ------------- Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail. Edward Abbey |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 06:19
|
If someone does something in the "name of Christ" that does not in any way make them Christians. That, in fact, makes Christianity a victim. Say you had a slight disagreement with your father and were rationally discussing whether it was better to have one glass of wine or two over dinner. Then your brother charges into the room with a pike and impales your father through a wall. If he then proceeds to say he did it for you, does that make it your fault? Does that make him you? No and no.
------------- |
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 06:29
The difference is most of the acts were condoned by the Church. ------------- Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail. Edward Abbey |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 06:33
|
OK. Reverse the situation. You have a small dispute with your brother and your father supports you. He, as head of the family, is obviously a leader of sorts. You're happy working the problem out. However, your father hooks up with your sister and the mail man and they kill him. If they then say they did it for you, you now have the exact same thing. They are NOT you, and it would NOT be your fault. Despite the fact that your father was 'on your side' and your 'superior'. ------------- |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 06:44
|
I guess it is time for someone to state the obvious. For those others of you who claim to be Christians, it might be in your best interest to not say anything more or to argue. Let your initial statements stand on their own merit. I put a bit of effort into my two posts on the first page and they were pretty much ignored by the other side. Since then, I have tried not to argue with those who clearly have a rhetorical argument which they intend to play out against professed Christians.
Some of you have fallen into the traps that your detractors have set for you. You have given them the perfect opportunity to call you a hypocrite and to condemn your beliefs. I suggest that you use a measure of caution before you react in a manner that would not glorify the God and Savior that we follow. ------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 08:14
|
Here here.
------------- |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 17:04
Yes, I am aware of this... but isn't is a pure ignorance? I already stated specifically that the definition of Christian is to follow the path of Christ. All dictionaries will define it this way... but they are constantly using the term Christian to describe the crusades and other crimes that non-Christian committed. I find it amusing to see how majority of the members scoff and laugh at Afrcocenterism for their ignorance, and yet... they are doing an exact same thing here. Maybe because they have different religion, maybe they just hate Christianity... I don't know. But I remember the forum values tolerance and the will to listen to other point of views (As long as they are logical). Who are violating the rules, Knight? I am not saying that these people are totally ignorant (I knew them for some time) but I think with their little effort, they can learn who can be defined as Christians and who are not. Insisting that they killed in name of Christ does not make them officially Christian. There's no bad Christian. How can someone who follow the path of Christ do anything bad in theory.... ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 17:14
|
You don't get it. They were Christians in their time periods, doing things condoned by the Church. They were Christians. Maybe nowadays they wouldn't be considered Christian by some, but they were definately considered Christian when these acts were done. (burnings, killings, etc) ------------- Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail. Edward Abbey |
Posted By: Akolouthos
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 17:29
|
Reluctantly, I have to agree with Adalwolf. These individuals were Christians, although their actions were not.
I sin on a daily basis, as do we all. The Christian life is a constant process of falling and being raised back up. When we fall into sin and temptation, are we not still to be called Christians? Indeed it is precisely because we fall into sin and temptation that we need Christ; it is the underlying evil which forces us to truly be Christian.
In the case of the Crusaders, we may note that many of their actions were contrary to the will of God and the teachings of the Church. We must also remember that the most blatant of their transgressions were actually condemned by the Church (see Pope Innocent's response to the Siege of Constantinople). Still, in spite of their failings as men, they sought to tether themselves to Christ. Do we condemn their methods? Of course. But can we doubt their conviction and--pardon--piety? Here the answer is less certain.
This is precisely why intellectually bankrupt discussions such as this are meaningless. It is as if we were to say that democracy is inherently flawed by virtue of the fact that some who claim to promote it do so by violent means. In drawing these vile illustrations, we seek to judge an ideology by the worst failings of those who claim to adhere to it. We seek to make saints into sinners by virtue of their association with sinners; would this not be condemned by Christ? Did Christ not associate with prostitutes, soldiers, and tax-collectors?
That said, I am more interested in examining ideologies for their own sake. Any examination of an ideology based primarily on its adherents will serve only to teach us that which is already apparent: men are men, and all are deeply flawed. To engage in the type of meaningless, pseudo-intellectual criticism that this thread represents will only lead us to the type of nauseating, tit-for-tat sniping that is evident in so many contentious disputes, both on this forum and in the world as a whole.
-Akolouthos
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 18:55
|
I disagree. When these men, knowing the teachings of Christ, chose to disobey those teachings they were most certainly not Christains. They were not "caught up in the heat of the moment" or making an innocent mistake. They knew that what they were doing was breaking the commandments, and going against everything that Christ had stood for. They were not Christains. SOME of them may later have repented, honestly and truthfully recognised their wrongs. At that point would they be Christians. Adalwolf, what constitutes a Christian cannot change over that time period. Which people claim to be Christians can. These are separate issues. ------------- |
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 19:11
|
Well, then there hardly any Christians in previous centuries then. I think that the music video sums up some of the bad sides of Christianity, or those who profess it: murder of non-Christians, burning women at the stake. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAmMcBQavKE - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAmMcBQavKE I would disagree with you Zaitsev. The Church condoned actions such as these, how could the common person disagree if the church sactified murder? Or are you going to say Church clergy aren't Christians? ------------- Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail. Edward Abbey |
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 19:14
|
I think we have clarified that those in do evil in Christ's name are not truly following the example he left in the New Testament.
So to set that aside: You also have to realize that to other groups who have been harshly confronted by the dark side of Christianity, these Christians represent the faith. To the Muslims the Crusaders or the west in general has represented the faith or Jesus Christ, wrong as it might be. A Turk here referred to the Europeans and USA as being Christian. So in many Muslim's sight the west represents Christianity but of course that is a false assumption. To the Indians in California, for example, who were forcefully converted to the Roman Catholic faith the missionaries represented Christianity. To the Hawaiian who were forced to accept western culture and religion by the Protestant missionaries, who represented Christianity. To non-Christians in the USA the lone abortion bomber might represent the Christians, although if they had common sense they would see this is not true. Most Christians oppose such violence as most Muslims. The so-called Christians who represent this evil thought they were doing right, based on their understanding of God/Jesus. It was their interpretation of the Word or Misinterpretation. Wrong as it might be in reality! I was told that a Christian should tell a Muslim they are a followers of Isa or Jesus Christ and do not say that they are a Christian, the name has bad press throughout world. It also has good press because some of the largest relief organizations in the world are Christian such as World Vision, to name just one. ------------- Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε |
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 19:21
|
Good point eaglecap. However I think most nonChristians of the world saw the bad side of Christianity before the good.
------------- Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail. Edward Abbey |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 20:10
|
The thing is that Christianity for most its history has been centralized, and the hiearchy too did condone such acts against non-Christians as something necessary, and something noble. In earlier time periods when our present moral values were still not fully developed the Christian Church saw fit such acts of violence as a necessity, not to indulge in over simplification of course, because there were probably more serious Christians who pursued the way of Christ as well (omitting the uneducated lower Church hiearchy, and the ones who used the ecclesitical offices as political springboards). But, nevertheless there were genuine Christians who truely believed in such actions as well.
"John VIII to the bishops in the realm of Louis II [the Stammerer].
You have modestly expressed a desire to know whether those who have recently died in war, fighting in defence of the church of God and for the preservation of the Christian religion and of the state, or those who may in 'he future fall in the same cause, may obtain indulgence for their sins. We confidently reply that those who, out of love to the Christian religion, shall die in battle fighting bravely against pagans or unbelievers, shall receive eternal life. For the Lord has said through his prophet: "In whatever hour a sinner shall be converted, I will remember his sins no longer." By the intercession of St. Peter, who has the power of binding and loosing in heaven and on the earth, we absolve, as far as is permissible, all such and commend them by our prayers to the Lord" Gregory VI a genearation before the beginning of the first Crusade began calling for a mission to the Eastern Empire, and the Holy Land in the name of Christ. We have another example in the person of Urban II who preached the first venture to the Holy Land: " On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.
"All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. O what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ! " Nevertheless, we cannot just pick and choose either to form a statement that coincides with a preconcieved opinion that is small minded, and hateful. Robert Spencer uses that in his attacks on Islam by picking and choosing lines, and events without the larger context to prove a preconcieved judgment on Islam. Therefore, it is not right to blatantly attack Christianity either, and there were for example outspoken critics of the crusade. Here we have an example of one that criticizes the corruptions going on, but not necessarily the Crusade itself. "God allowed the Western church, on account of its sins, to be cast down. There arose, indeed, certain pseudo prophets, sons of Belial, and witnesses of anti-Christ, who seduced the Christians with empty words. They constrained all sorts of men, by vain preaching, to set out against the Saracens in order to liberate Jerusalem. The preaching of these men was so enormously influential that the inhabitants of nearly every region, by common vows, offered themselves freely for common destruction. Not only the ordinary people, but kings, dukes, marquises, and other powerful men of this world as well, believed that they thus showed their allegiance to God. The bishops, archbishops, abbots, and other ministers and prelates of the church joined in this error, throwing themselves headlong into it to the great peril of bodies and souls.... The intentions of the various men were different. Some, indeed, lusted after novelties and went in order to learn about new lands. Others there were who were driven by poverty, who were in hard straits at home; these men went to fight, not only against the enemies of Christ's cross, but even against the friends of the Christian name, wherever opportunity appeared, in order to relieve their poverty. There were others who were oppressed by debts to other men or who sought to escape the service due to their lords, or who were even awaiting the punishment merited by their shameful deeds. Such men simulated a zeal for God and hastened chiefly in order to escape from such troubles and anxieties. A few could, with difficulty, be found who had not bowed their knees to Baal, who were directed by a holy and wholesome purpose, and who were kindled by love of the divine majesty to fight earnestly and even to shed their blood for the holy of holies. "
Furthermore, another source that provides good information on Christian anti-violence movements, and Christian violence is the book Soldier Saints, and Holy Wariors, by Damon. Furthermore, in some of the pages we get contemporary sources discussing for example scepticism on conversions that may not have been geniune as in some Anglo-Saxon kings who pursued unChristian policies after conversion.
Sources: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/john2-ind878.html - http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/john2-ind878.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/g7-cde1078.htmlhttp://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-fulcher.html - http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/g7-cde1078.htmlhttp://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-fulcher.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1147critic.html - http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1147critic.html
Soldiers Saints and Holy Warriors, John Edward Damon.
------------- |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 23:01
Yes. They are not. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 05-Oct-2007 at 23:02
Especially in the era where non-religious groups are increasing in numbers, this is logical observation. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 00:07
One could say these writing were created by men and not God and once again they were not following the example of Christ. So, what is the difference between a Christian and a follower of Christ? The Roman Catholic Church has added a lot to the Bible with their traditions and hiearchy, often in contradiction to the Bible. ------------- Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 01:33
Well, there are no difference between Christians and followers of Christ... because these two terms are exactly same thing.
Catholic Church is merely a religious faction that has some similaries with Christian society, but not the same. Christians are whoever that follows the path of Christs, regardless of which political, religious or other form of factions. Christian is an unofficial organization where they truly follow the teachings of Christ. Unfortunately, there are so many hyprcrites who claim to be Christian and do things that are indeed bad. After stressing out the difference between Christian and non-Christian, I am sadden by the fact that no one is seriously take my point. The rise of Anglican Church due to justify Henry's divorce, the rise of Catholic Church in Roman and later European politics, and other branches of what many still call "Christian organization". No, I am not going to bother stating this again, unless someone actually challenges me otherwise logically. For the last time, I sincerely hope that people stop using the term Christian to refer those hypocrites that rots this world in the name of Christ. I have made the point clearly, and will not bother to post again unless someone seriously challenges me otherwise logically.
pekau ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 01:47
You didn't have the same stance when you posted Spencer's garbage. Then men never had ulterior motives when promoting violence. I never assumed anything, I do not think that Christianity is inherently violent, it is peaceful if followed the right way true, as is Islam, and the post just shows you that there were credible theologians that did support violence in the name of Christ. Yes actually it is easy to say that they were not following the true words of the New Testament, however, they were still believing in their cause for Christ. Misguided for sure, but still there.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 01:49
It is funny that when it is Christians who do evil things then we shouldn't call them Christians, but others are what they are even when they do something contrary to their faith/conscience.
------------- |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 02:06
I didn't get the sentence after this... but it's not funny because that's the basic definition of Christian. Christians can't be evil because Christ's teachings do not tolerate evil. I suppose there are so many hypocrites these days that people are slowly believing that anyone can be Christian if they justify their actions in the name of Christ, even if their actions are anything but Christian. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 02:19
How is advocating violence against non-believers a "cause for Christ?" The only cause that I know of is to bring people into a new life through a saving knowledge of Christ. Taking life away or maiming it is contradictory to the cause of Christ.
It is by the grace and mercy of God himself that an individual is saved. Someone thinking that he can exact a conversion out of another by waving a sword or gun over their head has fooled himself. They might have been able to get that person, who is fearing for their life, to profess outwardly what they do not believe inwardly. Only God can impact the soul of an individual with his grace and bring about a spiritual conversion.
------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 02:34
|
You seem to be misunderstanding me. I never claimed it was a cause for Christ. However, the fact is that some people past and present do falsly but still do believe they are doing things in the name of Christ. Just because they are falsely commiting such acts doesn't mean that they didn't do it either.
PS: Taking life is contradictory to God in all denominations, not just Christanity.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 02:36
....
It is not actually funny, its sarcasm. I also, and others here never said they were not hypocrites, but nonetheless they did these acts in the name of their faith so by that fact we are discussing them in this thread and not in another.
------------- |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 03:00
Obviously, I can agree with this last statement. I was never denying this. Also, I agree that people sinfully and wrongfully commit atrocities in the name of Christ. But, as I think you understand, the sincerity of these people in their faith should be questioned since there is no outward indication of repentence or redemption. A Christian is supposed to repent from the sins they committed or were tempted to commit before they were saved.
Yes, I know that this is your argument.
------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 03:15
I beg to disagree that Christianity has been more successfully defended. It hasn't. I will grant that more Christians attempt to defend Christianity. Furthermore, the famous Jewish teacher commanded us to reflect on our own problems shortcomings before we go out and point them out on others:
Christians have a nice beam when it comes to violence committed in their religion's name or with its religion's backing, don't you agree? ------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 03:18
This is the point of the thread, so it is relevant. ------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 03:26
No, no, no! No slapping anyone around, unless you are one of those famous non-Christians who claim to follow Christ. The Jewish teacher commanded it very clearly:
Notice that if we assume that those who follow Jesus's commands are true Christians, the above line seems to imply that only pacifists can be true Christians... which happens to be how the early historic Church interpreted the line as well. Everything changed once Christianity became a state religion. From the above we can deduce that only the few pacifist Christian groups have been true Christians since the 4th Century on.  ------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 03:28
Two word about your argument: Straw. Man. ------------- |
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 03:39
Anyone who can read can see that people who profess with their mouths to be Christians, yet commit atrocious acts which are contrary to Christ's commands, are not only sinning, but are condemned by the testimony of their own book. We have repeated this ad nauseum. The teaching and admonition of Christ remains the same, yet man, in his own depravity, has tried to twist it to fit his own designs. But he is condemned every time by the words of the one whom he professes with his mouth (not his heart) to be his savior. How then do his actions reflect upon Christ and Christianity? I think it is those who, for whatever reason, have a deep-seated hatred for Christianity, would like to reflect the deeds of these people upon Christ in order to condemn the religion.
How have I been a hypocrite in the things that I have written in this thread? Everyone seems to be systematically ignoring what I have written.
------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 03:49
Where exactly is the intolerance? It is intolerant that we won't agree with your poor argument? Here is a concrete recent example. Are all those Catholic priest who molest children not Catholic? Catholics have been taught that this is the case: they were not Catholic because Catholics don't molest little children. So I assume that the bishops that covered up the child molesters were not real Catholics either. Neither those Church officials in Rome that knew about the situation. Nor the past or current pope because they are aware of the situation but play along with local cover ups. You see how ridiculous this is? We can then claim, as some reformed Christians do, that the Roman Church is not Christian. So be it. So what exactly is the religion of Italy, Ireland, and Latin America? They are all non Christians, even when they believe they are? This is absurd, and you and other apologist know it. You are mixing two different meanings of the word Christians purposefully hoping that we will be hoodwinked by it. We are not. A true Christian, in the religious or mystical sense, will be one who follows Christ teachings in his or her daily actions. There are very, very few of them. A Christian, in a historical sense, is a person who claims to follow Christ and belongs to a Christian community, be it Eastern or Roman Catholic, Protestant or Reformed. When we talk about the historical crimes of Christianity, we must use the historical definition, otherwise we start making little sense. What do we learn from history as Christians? Our religion was a bloody mess after the 4th century. We should just accept this and be careful when we feel comfortable to attack other religions because we can't stand an equal scrutiny. As glce pointed it out, we should focus on the positives things about each religion instead, and grant that there have been very few true Christians, but there have been very few true Muslims, Hindus, Jews, etc. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Oct-2007 at 04:06
Then you shouldn't have had any problem demolishing it. Instead you attempted to avoid the argument itself and launched unsupported attacks. So really, it just makes you look a little foolish. I think it's generally accepted, hugo, thet the premise for this thread is absolute nonsense. The argument has, however, moved on to the discussion of things done "in the name of Christ" which is a reasonable and factually based debate, unlike the one your proposed. ------------- |