NationStates Jolt Archive

While I consider myself a Christian, certain friends of mine take their spirituality far beyond my realm of comprehension, case in point:

4 more years of dead terrorists and a Christain President bringing about the Kingdom of God in America again, Praise JESUS ......

It disturbs me profusely that my friend, a "Jesus Freak," would be praising God for dead terrorists. To me, that says that he not only agrees with killing terrorists but agrees with killing, in general, and this is not only a blashempy of the Bible, the Word of God, but of the overall principle that God is looking at for all, not just America.

What say you?

I say Jesus would be incredibly pissed at what christianity has become.

That's one of the great hypocracies of American christianity.

They call Islam a violent religion, when if you think about it, what if America was a dirt poor nation dominated by foreign backed oil magnates, and the most powerful nation in the world was a violent, sex crazy muslim nation.

I have a feeling we would see a lot of violent fundamentalist Christians. It is easy to label other people when you are in power.

The commandment actually says that you can't murder. There is a big difference in murder and killing. Killing terrorists who murder innocent civilians is not murder. :sniper:

That's one of the great hypocracies of American christianity.

They call Islam a violent religion, when if you think about it, what if America was a dirt poor nation dominated by foreign backed oil magnates, and the most powerful nation in the world was a violent, sex crazy muslim nation.

I have a feeling we would see a lot of violent fundamentalist Christians. It is easy to label other people when you are in power.

Not just American Christianity :rolleyes: think crusades … we aren’t the ones that pioneered this sort of thing

The commandment actually says that you can't murder. There is a big difference in murder and killing. Killing terrorists who murder innocent civilians is not murder. :sniper:


That is bassed off an ambiguous and flawed at times translation
lol dont pull symantecs when the origional document was not even in your language

Not just American Christianity :rolleyes: think crusades … we aren’t the ones that pioneered this sort of thing

I'm talking more about modern times, religion has been big on this sort of thing for centuries. It didn't originate here, but now it is most prevelent here.

I'm talking more about modern times, religion has been big on this sort of thing for centuries. It didn't originate here, but now it is most prevelent here.


Lol correct

Personally I think that religion has done almost as much bad as good (beyond giving simple people who can’t handle the concept of nothingness some hope for the future)

That's one of the great hypocracies of American christianity.

They call Islam a violent religion, when if you think about it, what if America was a dirt poor nation dominated by foreign backed oil magnates, and the most powerful nation in the world was a violent, sex crazy muslim nation.

I have a feeling we would see a lot of violent fundamentalist Christians. It is easy to label other people when you are in power.

Christianity is not hypocritical at all...It is the Christian followers who are. But, you will find that to be true of any religion...There will always be hypocrits, people who believe differently, people who don't believe at all (but think they do)...that's just the way things are.

Oh, but I'm not saying that ALL christians are hypocritical ALL of the time, just a lot of them a lot of the time (myself included).

But yes, I think that Jesus will be thoroughly disgusted upon his return. Hell, I'm thoroughly disgusted now...well, maybe not thoroughly, but definitely disgusted...

That is bassed off an ambiguous and flawed at times translation
lol dont pull symantecs when the origional document was not even in your language

Actually the hebrew language is my native tongue.

I say Jesus would be incredibly pissed at what christianity has become.

I second that.

And I also think that Christians take the bible too seriously.


And make stuff up/take it a radically different way.
As in anti-homosexuality. It doesn't really say that in the bible (I think the moral of the story where christians take it as anti-homosexuality is, dont rape angels).

WHAT PART OF "THOU SHALT NOT KILL" DID YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?


-

Actually the hebrew language is my native tongue.
Really? Then what is the direct translation ? killing or murder … right now murder is defined as the killing by law I assume translating it does not fall neatly into one category or another


(so such things as abortion are NOT murder by definition if they are lawful)

and who's law are we using?

Very ambigious

Christianity is not hypocritical at all...It is the Christian followers who are. But, you will find that to be true of any religion...There will always be hypocrits, people who believe differently, people who don't believe at all (but think they do)...that's just the way things are.

Oh, but I'm not saying that ALL christians are hypocritical ALL of the time, just a lot of them a lot of the time (myself included).

But yes, I think that Jesus will be thoroughly disgusted upon his return. Hell, I'm thoroughly disgusted now...well, maybe not thoroughly, but definitely disgusted...

To a certain extent you are right that Christianity itself isn't hypocritical, (although the issue of admittance to heaven can be hypocritical depending on your view). However, I think that all religions require a certain lever hypocracy, unless you can freely admit that you might be wrong.

I just hope that if Jesus ever does come back, he will discern between people like me who live peacefully and didn't believe and those who kill willingly in his name.

-


God called me back: Do not murder in my name, but kill those false prophet worshipping terrorists really good. Also stop eating so much cheese!

God called me back: Do not murder in my name, but kill those false prophet worshipping terrorists really good. Also stop eating so much cheese!


What if they were christian terrorists?

God called me back: Do not murder in my name, but kill those false prophet worshipping terrorists really good. Also stop eating so much cheese!

"False prophet worshipping" terrorists? So God does endorse killing based on religion. I'm in trouble. And I'm going to eat my cheese!! It's done more for me in its limited role than God has ever done in its unlimited role.

"False prophet worshipping" terrorists? So God does endorse killing based on religion. I'm in trouble. And I'm going to eat my cheese!! It's done more for me in its limited role than God has ever done in its unlimited role.


lol I like how his modified commandment about murder included cheese (I know lighthearted and all) but personaly I would have made it a different commandment

Really? Then what is the direct translation ? killing or murder … right now murder is defined as the killing by law I assume translating it does not fall neatly into one category or another


(so such things as abortion are NOT murder by definition if they are lawful)

and who's law are we using?

Very ambigious

Gods laws are above those of mortal men. I'm pretty sure He wouldn't really like the abortion of a fetus in the womb.

Well according to my book killing and murder are two very different things. Protecting your home, wife, man-servant, children, nation by destoying your enemy is not murder. It is killing (justifiably). Sure we should try to work out our issues peacefully as much as possible. But how can you reason with people who are brainwashed into believing they will meet "Allah" when they explode themselves in a crowded place, killing children.

BTW I thought this was a discussion on religion and it's laws, not on modern day laws.

Gods laws are above those of mortal men. I'm pretty sure He wouldn't really like the abortion of a fetus in the womb.

He said it was fine with him in the Bible.

While I consider myself a Christian, certain friends of mine take their spirituality far beyond my realm of comprehension, case in point:



It disturbs me profusely that my friend, a "Jesus Freak," would be praising God for dead terrorists. To me, that says that he not only agrees with killing terrorists but agrees with killing, in general, and this is not only a blashempy of the Bible, the Word of God, but of the overall principle that God is looking at for all, not just America.

What say you?

That disturbs me too. But what also disturbs me is you referring to someone who is obviously deeply religious and calling them a Jesus Freak. I'm not religious at all, but I'm not disrespectful to them.

Gods laws are above those of mortal men. I'm pretty sure He wouldn't really like the abortion of a fetus in the womb.

Well according to my book killing and murder are two very different things. Protecting your home, wife, man-servant, children, nation by destoying your enemy is not murder. It is killing (justifiably). Sure we should try to work out our issues peacefully as much as possible. But how can you reason with people who are brainwashed into believing they will meet "Allah" when they explode themselves in a crowded place, killing children.

BTW I thought this was a discussion on religion and it's laws, not on modern day laws.

I

So YOU are pretty sure …? How do you know? How do you know he doesn’t like it more then killing of adults?


And by your book them trying to protect themselves is defiantly justifiable … you didn’t put a limit on what they can do to protect there home.

Would protecting our home include destroying theirs? If it is right to protect your home doesn’t if follow that it is wrong to destroy others homes?

And I agree that it is hard to deal with sometimes … and doesn’t make their killing any better.

But you trying to base it on the word of god when it is ambiguous and not clearly stated to start with is ridiculous

As well as you being hypocritical

I

So YOU are pretty sure …? How do you know? How do you know he doesn’t like it more then killing of adults?


And by your book them trying to protect themselves is defiantly justifiable … you didn’t put a limit on what they can do to protect there home.

Would protecting our home include destroying theirs? If it is right to protect your home doesn’t if follow that it is wrong to destroy others homes?

And I agree that it is hard to deal with sometimes … and doesn’t make their killing any better.

But you trying to base it on the word of god when it is ambiguous and not clearly stated to start with is ridiculous

As well as you being hypocritical

How am I hypocritical?

Well, we will all be judged by God, so I'll trust my path and my beliefs, you should believe in your own.

What if they were christian terrorists?
That's an oxymoron.

The commandment actually says that you can't murder. There is a big difference in murder and killing. Killing terrorists who murder innocent civilians is not murder. :sniper:
How fallacious.

That's an oxymoron.
The peaceful Christian invasions of the Amerindians... The crusades... On the contrary, Christians are quite the terrorists

That's an oxymoron.

Care to explain further, please?

What say me? I say that it is un-Christ-like to celebrate the death of human beings, even if they are terrorists or any other "evil people". These are people who need the saving power of the Lord Jesus, just like the rest of us. I also think it's foolhardy and counter-productive to try to legislate any nation into being a "Christian nation". People's hearts aren't going to be changed by law, and all that would be accomplished is creating an ugly backlash.

However, I also think that we Christians need to take a step back and realize that while politics is important and we who live in democracies have a responsibility to exercise that right, that responsibility is only with this temporary realm and not with the eternal realm. Politics should be a secondary concern when compared with sharing the gift that we have and building each other up, and that we should not destroy the work of the gospel for the sake of a disputable matter (Romans 14), such as political affiliation.

I would say that you're responsibility is to gently try to show why this guy's perspective is wrong, but also try to stay at peace with him as much as you possibly can.

Terrorists are fanatics devoted to a cause. No matter ho many of them you kill their cause will still exist and attract recruits.:headbang: If you can solve the social problem that is the basis of the cuase, then there will be no more recruits and public support will turn away from the terrorists.

Then you send in the SEALS and kill them :) :mp5: :mp5:

That's an oxymoron.

No moreso than Muslim terrorists.

That is bassed off an ambiguous and flawed at times translation
lol dont pull symantecs when the origional document was not even in your language
God uses war to bring about his judgment and has done so since OT times. That has not changed.

Who are we to question God's judgments?

I would say that you're responsibility is to gently try to show why this guy's perspective is wrong, but also try to stay at peace with him as much as you possibly can.

Unfortunately, I wouldn't even waste my time, because this same guy refuses to talk to me about anything else except why my homosexuality is sending me to hell.

pshhhh Nobody responds to my posts. :rolleyes:

I second that.

And I also think that Christians take the bible too seriously.


And make stuff up/take it a radically different way.
As in anti-homosexuality. It doesn't really say that in the bible (I think the moral of the story where christians take it as anti-homosexuality is, dont rape angels).


Read teh first two chapters of Romans to understand God's view on Homosexuality and the practice of it.

The Bible is the revealed word of God and cannot be taken too seriously. It can be mishandled. All "cult" movements within the church were based on the scripture, or rather the misshandling of it.

I say Jesus would be incredibly pissed at what christianity has become.
(This reply is predicated on the assumption that Jesus existed and that religion has any value in society - which I don't actually believe)

He certainly spent more time condemning rich people for their failure to give most of their money to those less fortunate than he did castigating those who "lived in sin". This appears to be the antithesis of how American christianity in particular (and probably many others) appears to those outside America - and possibly to those inside as well.
The impression most people get is that christians are never happier than when they're blasting someone for sexual habits that don't conform to their ideals, while turning a blind eye to starving sick people at home and abroad.

WWJD? He'd turn over your tables and rant at you all for a week or two.

-
According to strongs concordance, when properly translated the word "murder" comes from the word to kill after preparing or thinking about it. To kill from behind intent.

<about "Christian Terrorists"> That's an oxymoron.

If only that were true.

What if they were christian terrorists?

No true Christian would be a terrorist.

God approves of killing but punishes murder.


Numbers 35
21 Or in enmity smite him with his hand, that he die: he that smote him shall surely be put to death; for he is a murderer: the revenger of blood shall slay the murderer, when he meeteth him.


Matthew 22
7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.


Genesis 4
15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.


Exodus 4
24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him.


1 Samuel 17
9 If he be able to fight with me, and to kill me, then will we be your servants: but if I prevail against him, and kill him, then shall ye be our servants, and serve us.

Read teh first two chapters of Romans to understand God's view on Homosexuality and the practice of it.

The Bible is the revealed word of God and cannot be taken too seriously. It can be mishandled. All "cult" movements within the church were based on the scripture, or rather the misshandling of it.

And how do you know that the parts of the Bible that appear to condemn homosexuality weren't due to "mishandling" or "the errant belief that it was God's will" or "misunderstanding"?

He said it was fine with him in the Bible.

The way that God address the kililng in children can be found in Isaiah when the people actualy sacrificed their children to wooden and metal idols instead of the idol of "choice" or "convience." It was something along the lines of "why do you do such horrible things. I would never ask that of you."

No true Christian would be a terrorist.

So christian are effectively better as a whole than the rest of civilization? I say that christianity has nothing to do with how violent you are. While Jesus detested violence, God actively promoted in the name of Israeli power.

I

So YOU are pretty sure …? How do you know? How do you know he doesn’t like it more then killing of adults?


And by your book them trying to protect themselves is defiantly justifiable … you didn’t put a limit on what they can do to protect there home.

Would protecting our home include destroying theirs? If it is right to protect your home doesn’t if follow that it is wrong to destroy others homes?

And I agree that it is hard to deal with sometimes … and doesn’t make their killing any better.

But you trying to base it on the word of god when it is ambiguous and not clearly stated to start with is ridiculous

As well as you being hypocritical

There is no way for us to know if this war is God's will or not. So you are correct. But it is very evident in scripture that God will use unchosen nations to punish even his own people and then destroy that nation that he used.

Asiria and Babylon are good examples of such.

The peaceful Christian invasions of the Amerindians... The crusades... On the contrary, Christians are quite the terrorists
It's an oxymoron because those to whom you refer were not practicing Christians, but rather social or cultural christians.

The way that God address the kililng in children can be found in Isaiah when the people actualy sacrificed their children to wooden and metal idols instead of the idol of "choice" or "convience." It was something along the lines of "why do you do such horrible things. I would never ask that of you."

We aren't talking about children, though, are we? We are talking about fetuses. And there is a very clear OT law demonstrating that fetuses were viewed as less important than born human beings, as evidenced by the fact that the killing of one only meant a fine paid to the father, not stoning.

What say me? I say that it is un-Christ-like to celebrate the death of human beings, even if they are terrorists or any other "evil people". These are people who need the saving power of the Lord Jesus, just like the rest of us. I also think it's foolhardy and counter-productive to try to legislate any nation into being a "Christian nation". People's hearts aren't going to be changed by law, and all that would be accomplished is creating an ugly backlash.

However, I also think that we Christians need to take a step back and realize that while politics is important and we who live in democracies have a responsibility to exercise that right, that responsibility is only with this temporary realm and not with the eternal realm. Politics should be a secondary concern when compared with sharing the gift that we have and building each other up, and that we should not destroy the work of the gospel for the sake of a disputable matter (Romans 14), such as political affiliation.

I would say that you're responsibility is to gently try to show why this guy's perspective is wrong, but also try to stay at peace with him as much as you possibly can.

Here him... or her... er..

The way that God address the kililng in children can be found in Isaiah when the people actualy sacrificed their children to wooden and metal idols instead of the idol of "choice" or "convience." It was something along the lines of "why do you do such horrible things. I would never ask that of you."

Judging from the context in which you portrayed it I would say it had more to do with the idols. Remember the moral of Abraham and Isaac? Abraham proved himself worthy by being willing to slaughter his son.

No moreso than Muslim terrorists.
Read both the Quran and the Bible. The New Testament of the Bible supplants most of the Old Testament, and the New Testament is about peace and being "Christlike," not about the "conversion by the sword" which runs as a constant theme through the Quran.

Unfortunately, I wouldn't even waste my time, because this same guy refuses to talk to me about anything else except why my homosexuality is sending me to hell.
Unrepentant sin is unfavorable to God. As Christians we are set free from the bondage of sin and live in the bondage of undeserved salvation that is in itself the opposite of slavery.

If you have sin, repent. No matter how much the world tries to tell you it is not sin, it is. You don't have to be perfect, but you do have to recognize sin for sin and try to resist it.

And remember, no man knows who is hell bound and who is not. Have hope, friend.

So christian are effectively better as a whole than the rest of civilization? I say that christianity has nothing to do with how violent you are. While Jesus detested violence, God actively promoted in the name of Israeli power.

That is inaccurate. God used war to chasten his people and to destroy the wicked. God is the Almighty creator and the world is full of people who do not want to belive that. Those are the wicked. Christians should not hunt out unbelivers and try to force them into anything and the Bible does not say that. You have to rememer the seperation of the jobs of the Civil Magistrate and the body of Christ.

Unrepentant sin is unfavorable to God. As Christians we are set free from the bondage of sin and live in the bondage of undeserved salvation that is in itself the opposite of slavery.

If you have sin, repent. No matter how much the world tries to tell you it is not sin, it is. You don't have to be perfect, but you do have to recognize sin for sin and try to resist it.

And remember, no man knows who is hell bound and who is not. Have hope, friend.

cough*nutjob*endcough

And how do you know that the parts of the Bible that appear to condemn homosexuality weren't due to "mishandling" or "the errant belief that it was God's will" or "misunderstanding"?

You are asking a question of Appologetics. I can refer you to some excelent information about the accuracy of the original documents and the process of translation. But it is the Faith that the Word of God is true and all in all the revealed message form God. It is vary clear where God stand on the issue.

We aren't talking about children, though, are we? We are talking about fetuses. And there is a very clear OT law demonstrating that fetuses were viewed as less important than born human beings, as evidenced by the fact that the killing of one only meant a fine paid to the father, not stoning.


Not true, one of the greatest prophets, Jeremiah, was spoken to when he was just a speck. How can you say that what God has created is not important to Him.



Jeremiah 1 :: New International Version (NIV)
Listen to this Printer-Friendly Page Bookmark this Page
See this passage in AlbanianEnglishFrançaisDeutschItalianoLatinNorskPortuguesEspañolSvenskaTagalogArabicNederlandsPlautd ietschDanishSlovakPolishRussianRomanianCzechHungarianIcelandicKoreanBulgarianChineseHaitianMaoriCroa tianGreekSwahiliNIVNASBMSGAMPNLTKJVNLVHCSBESVCEVNKJVKJ21ASVWEYLTDARBYWYCNIRVNIV-UK
Previous chapter | This chapter | Next chapter



Jeremiah 1
1 The words of Jeremiah son of Hilkiah, one of the priests at Anathoth in the territory of Benjamin. 2 The word of the LORD came to him in the thirteenth year of the reign of Josiah son of Amon king of Judah, 3 and through the reign of Jehoiakim son of Josiah king of Judah, down to the fifth month of the eleventh year of Zedekiah son of Josiah king of Judah, when the people of Jerusalem went into exile.


The Call of Jeremiah
4 The word of the LORD came to me, saying,

5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew [1] you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."

6 "Ah, Sovereign LORD ," I said, "I do not know how to speak; I am only a child."
7 But the LORD said to me, "Do not say, 'I am only a child.' You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you. 8 Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you and will rescue you," declares the LORD .
9 Then the LORD reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, "Now, I have put my words in your mouth. 10 See, today I appoint you over nations and kingdoms to uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant."
11 The word of the LORD came to me: "What do you see, Jeremiah?"
"I see the branch of an almond tree," I replied.
12 The LORD said to me, "You have seen correctly, for I am watching [2] to see that my word is fulfilled."

We aren't talking about children, though, are we? We are talking about fetuses. And there is a very clear OT law demonstrating that fetuses were viewed as less important than born human beings, as evidenced by the fact that the killing of one only meant a fine paid to the father, not stoning.

Can you find that in the scriptures for me? I haven't read it.

Also, God made it very clear how he feels about those who cannot protect themselves. Jesus made it very clear how he feels about children.

And God also says in His Word that our lives are planned before we are born. He told Isiah that he planned this for him before he was stiched together in his womb. If you don't believe that abortion is murder, than you have a very loose understanding of the word murder.

but that is not what we are discussing at this time so I digress.

The passage in Romans mentioned beforehand concerning homosexuality is pretty explicit to me. It's quite a task to try to twist it...

Judging from the context in which you portrayed it I would say it had more to do with the idols. Remember the moral of Abraham and Isaac? Abraham proved himself worthy by being willing to slaughter his son.

Yes, but God didn't allow it to happen. It was the will, the faith. If your have questions about the context, read the scriptures. He addresses it seperatly than the worshiping of idols in order to show how much it deeply hurt Him.

Read both the Quran and the Bible. The New Testament of the Bible supplants most of the Old Testament, and the New Testament is about peace and being "Christlike," not about the "conversion by the sword" which runs as a constant theme through the Quran.

In the book of acts, two belivers of the first century church were struck dead by God for lying about how much they sold their land for. He still judges the living and the dead.

Read both the Quran and the Bible. The New Testament of the Bible supplants most of the Old Testament, and the New Testament is about peace and being "Christlike," not about the "conversion by the sword" which runs as a constant theme through the Quran.

One cannot simply read a holy book and know everything there is to know about a given religion, as religion is based so completely in interpretation.

Although there are violent passages in the Quran, just as there are in the Bible (even Christ himself said that he had come to divide families and set sons against their fathers, etc.), the vast majority of the interpretation of Islam has been as a peaceful religion committed to their own morality, but not to forcing that morality upon others.

In ancient times, Mulsims welcomed Christians as those who they believed to be brethren who were somewhat misled. However, many years, misconceptions, and wars later - both sides seem to think we have always been pitted enemies.

As for "convert by the sword," would it interest you to know that conversion by the sword is exactly why Southeast Asian countries such as Indonesia will not allow anyone into their country under the term missionary? "Christian" missionaries made quite a habit of the "convert or die" method there. These days, both "missionary" and "Christian" have such a poor connotation that, in order to discuss your religion with a native, it is best to refer to yourself as a "follower of Christ" and then explain, to the best of your ability, exactly what that means.

I used to be a Christian, before I began to learn about things such as this exact subject. I guess I'm a Christian in that I believe in the lessons of Jesus and such, but I no longer go to church or even talk about religion now. People go the wrong way about trying to spread their faith and tell everyone else they're wrong and the has the exact opposite effect. Not only do they fail to attract more followers, but they push away old ones.

In the book of acts, two belivers of the first century church were struck dead by God for lying about how much they sold their land for. He still judges the living and the dead.
They were lying to God Incarnate, not just to men. That's why they died.

That is inaccurate. God used war to chasten his people and to destroy the wicked. God is the Almighty creator and the world is full of people who do not want to belive that. Those are the wicked. Christians should not hunt out unbelivers and try to force them into anything and the Bible does not say that. You have to rememer the seperation of the jobs of the Civil Magistrate and the body of Christ.

So God used war to destroy the wicked, and the wicked are those who don't believe in God. From what I understand the old testament took place in a time where Israel was about the only nation to actually believe in God.

So when the Israelites went to war with the wicked the effectively were just expanding their borders. Amazing what governments can accomplish when they envoke God.

I am trying to figure out what side you are on. You say God used war to destroy nonbelievers, yet you say Christians should not hunt down and convert non believers.

You are asking a question of Appologetics. I can refer you to some excelent information about the accuracy of the original documents and the process of translation. But it is the Faith that the Word of God is true and all in all the revealed message form God. It is vary clear where God stand on the issue.

Well, there are many things within the Bible that an all-good God would never support. Thus, I rely on the Bible as a starting point, but go to prayer and the guidance of God for the details.

I prefer to have faith in and worship God, rather than the Bible.

The passage in Romans mentioned beforehand concerning homosexuality is pretty explicit to me. It's quite a task to try to twist it...

However, the writings of Paul are not infallible, as evidenced by his obvious mysogyny and belief that the only purpose of marriage is to keep yourself from sinning in lust.

If we are talking about abortion now, God states that you are not alive until God breathes life into your body. So some christians believe it to be blasphemy to say a baby is alive before it breaths in life.

One cannot simply read a holy book and know everything there is to know about a given religion, as religion is based so completely in interpretation.

Although there are violent passages in the Quran, just as there are in the Bible (even Christ himself said that he had come to divide families and set sons against their fathers, etc.), the vast majority of the interpretation of Islam has been as a peaceful religion committed to their own morality, but not to forcing that morality upon others.

In ancient times, Mulsims welcomed Christians as those who they believed to be brethren who were somewhat misled. However, many years, misconceptions, and wars later - both sides seem to think we have always been pitted enemies.

As for "convert by the sword," would it interest you to know that conversion by the sword is exactly why Southeast Asian countries such as Indonesia will not allow anyone into their country under the term missionary? "Christian" missionaries made quite a habit of the "convert or die" method there. These days, both "missionary" and "Christian" have such a poor connotation that, in order to discuss your religion with a native, it is best to refer to yourself as a "follower of Christ" and then explain, to the best of your ability, exactly what that means.

You are correct. No relegion whoudl use violence or force to convert believers. It contridicts that very meaning of the word "believer." I feel pretty confidant that most Muslims are peacful and that the "bad" Muslims that we are at war with now in Iraq are the exception to the norm just like the Christians involved in the inquisition were not being "good' christians. At least I hope they are the exception.

They were lying to God Incarnate, not just to men. That's why they died.

Christ was not present. This was post accesion. They were judged by God from heaven just liked he promises over and over again that he will do. Even believers are "pruned."

So God used war to destroy the wicked, and the wicked are those who don't believe in God. From what I understand the old testament took place in a time where Israel was about the only nation to actually believe in God.

So when the Israelites went to war with the wicked the effectively were just expanding their borders. Amazing what governments can accomplish when they envoke God.

I am trying to figure out what side you are on. You say God used war to destroy nonbelievers, yet you say Christians should not hunt down and convert non believers.
Isreal was God's original choosen.

God used war for His plan, but to be a Christian means to love your enemy. They did not go to war to expand their borders, they went to war to take what had been given to them by the one who created everything according to his prophets which spoke the true Word of God.

That is no longer part of the convanant and therefore Christians are no longer required to go to war for the sake of their belief.

Well, there are many things within the Bible that an all-good God would never support. Thus, I rely on the Bible as a starting point, but go to prayer and the guidance of God for the details.

I prefer to have faith in and worship God, rather than the Bible.

And that is good, to a point. The Bible is the Word of God and is the only way to know how to pray and how to be a Christian. YOu have to have it and study just like it says in 2 Timonthy 2:15.

However, the writings of Paul are not infallible, as evidenced by his obvious mysogyny and belief that the only purpose of marriage is to keep yourself from sinning in lust.

A perfect example of the misshandling of the word of God.
That was taken out of context and proper erading of the Word would show it such.

If we are talking about abortion now, God states that you are not alive until God breathes life into your body. So some christians believe it to be blasphemy to say a baby is alive before it breaths in life.

We aren't talking about abortion, but the word of God makes a clear differences between spiritual and physicle life. The breath of life is the forming of the spirit wich began before the child was concieved.

I don't think anyone should die PERIOD, unless God commands you to.

That's why i highly disagree with Bush, El War-Mongeroros. :sniper:

And that is good, to a point. The Bible is the Word of God and is the only way to know how to pray and how to be a Christian. YOu have to have it and study just like it says in 2 Timonthy 2:15.

So you want me to take an obviously flawed document and trust it implicitly even when the spirit of God tells me otherwise just because the document itself says so?

So you want me to take an obviously flawed document and trust it implicitly even when the spirit of God tells me otherwise just because the document itself says so?

The Spirit of God would not tell you that. The Bible does not contridict itself and is not flawed. It, like the one who inspired it, is flawless.

1)The Spirit of God would not tell you that. The Bible does not contridict itself and is not flawed. It, like the one who inspired it, is flawless.

. . .Remind me again how Judas Iscariot died? I seem to recall he bought it twice in two completely different ways in Acts of the Apostles and Matthew.

2)
The passage in Romans mentioned beforehand concerning homosexuality is pretty explicit to me. It's quite a task to try to twist it...

Well, homosexuality was going on Corinth (which was actually known as a den of iniquity, it being a large port city where sailors went to sow their oats), and most other parts of the Greco-Roman world, and yet you don't see Paul claiming that the Lord had given up those cities in his letters to congregations thereof. What you do see is that he continually calls out for a repudiation of loose sexual morals in general.

As such, it ain't so hard to see that the thrust of what Paul was getting at in Romans wasn't that they were being "given up" because they were engaging in homosexual acts (which is actually a hell of a misnomer, as homosexuality in our sense of the term didn't exist back then--it's not the sex with another person that makes you a homosexual so much as the desire for it, usually paired with the desire for exclusive relationship status with one person of the same gender. This concept was completely foreign to the Romans; in point of fact, if you had explained the concept to a Roman, he might well have killed you on sight for the insult to his manhood, because what he was doing was simple use of property for sexual gratification), so much as they were given up because their relationships were so casual.

If that's the case, which actually makes better sense of Romans than does the anti-homosexual interpretation, then it's fairly easy to see how someone can be homosexual and yet not automatically fall out of favor with The Lord: they simply have to not break faith with their partner, and not treat the gift of sexual pleasure with the flippancy the Romans were. I say it makes better sense than your version because in this case, it's equally applicable to heterosexuals, and it doesn't require us to believe that God would really make people a certain way just to force them to either be happy or be Godly (the two should never be distinct).

3) With respect to the main point, it's really quite sad that so many people can at once claim Christianity, and yet completely misunderstand what it's about. The magistrate should be completely seperate from religion, if for no other reason than because you can only legislate obedience to the law, not belief in it, and as belief is what is required for salvation, and belief is often compromised by heavy-handed attempts to impose on a person, then it follows that the theocracy these people hope for will only drive away the flock, not sheperd it as Christian doctrine requires. Honestly, I find them to be little more than heretics, personally.

The Spirit of God would not tell you that. The Bible does not contridict itself and is not flawed. It, like the one who inspired it, is flawless.

So Christ was born in two different years, under two different kings

Creation happened twice in two different orders

God thinks women are dirtier than men

God thinks slavery is just fine and dandy, as long as when you beat your slave, they survive at least a night and especially if the slave is your own daughter.

God orders completely evil acts, like genocide

God makes mistakes and regrets actions

God thinks you should force a rape victim to be married to her rapist.

God thinks that if an unmarried woman has sex inside a town, there is no way she could have possibly been raped.

And, as a mistranslation example : Moses got lost and led everyone to the Red Sea on his way to Mt. Sinai, instead of just going through the Sea of Reeds.

Really? Then what is the direct translation ? killing or murder … right now murder is defined as the killing by law I assume translating it does not fall neatly into one category or another


(so such things as abortion are NOT murder by definition if they are lawful)

and who's law are we using?

Very ambigious


I would like to point out that "Murder" is a Disphomism for "Kill". Which means that it is a harsher way of saying the same thing.
So whether or not it says murder or kill, the same thing is meant.