1
   

My World:

 
 
Dmizer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Mar, 2007 10:43 am
@Pinochet73,
Drnaline,
I find it interesting that you are attempting to deflect the subject back on to me with out answering my question. In fact I see it was ignored by virtually all those to whom it was directed toward. I know you guys hate it when your hypocracy catches up with you.
I will answer your questions even though they detract from the subject at hand.

Quote:
Some how, I don't think the teachings of Jesus Christ parallel this type of extremist view.

How would you know, have you read the bible? Yes, in fact I can argue it thoroughly, I would bet that I know it better then yourself.

Quote:
What happened to turn the other cheek?

How many times have you done so? everyday! I have many close friends and they are devout christians. I go to thier bible studies once a week and I even go to church every Sunday. I am honest about my agnostic nature, so they keep after me.

Quote:
I think that in order to call your self a christian you need to follow Christs teachings religiously.

You think or you know? You related to Morningstarr? Who is morningstarr? I am only going of what was posted on the thread. Pinochet73 posted the quote advocating violence.

Quote:
To pick and choose which teachings you wish to follow and which ones you choose to ignore due to inconvience is hypocritical and demonstrates a lack of faith in the bibles "Divine" expression.

How did you arrive at your belief system? Maybe a little of pick and choose? You look a little guilty too or is it only wrong for us, or your interpretation of it in any case? My belief system is based only on what can be proven, So no pick or choose about it, either you can prove it or you cannot. What exactly am I guilty of? I am guilty of pointing out that some of the opinnions posted on this thread are not at all Christ like, even though you claim to be warriors for Christ. I think Christ if he were here he would rebuke those views just like he did to Peter in the Garden, when the Centurions and Sanhedrin came to arrest him.

I am agnostic, but it does not mean I am ignorant.
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Mar, 2007 09:03 pm
@Pinochet73,
First off, thank you for answering.

Quote:
I am guilty of pointing out that some of the opinnions posted on this thread are not at all Christ like,

Go figure, were human!
Quote:
even though you claim to be warriors for Christ.

Can you quote this claim from me?
Quote:
I think Christ if he were here he would rebuke those views just like he did to Peter in the Garden,

How could you think such a thing, either he is real or he is not. You cannot use it in one instance for us and use another for yourself as if you are a believer but maybe not? It's one or the other.
Quote:
I am agnostic, but it does not mean I am ignorant.

No one said you were.
0 Replies
 
Dmizer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 08:31 am
@Pinochet73,
"How could you think such a thing, either he is real or he is not. You cannot use it in one instance for us and use another for yourself as if you are a believer but maybe not? It's one or the other."

I never said Jesus as a historical figure was not real. On the contrary, he was very real. I just dispute the case for his divine nature. He was a charismatic figure who developed a following. Regardless of whether he was of a divine nature or not, he still advocated a peaceful coexistence with his fellow man. Thus the Peter in the garden statement.
As far as the warriors for christ comment, it was directed at the likes of pinochet and his ilk, not so much at yourself.
0 Replies
 
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 01:45 pm
@markx15,
markx15;12147 wrote:
It was directed at Pinochet, and I agree with your statement, you would have claim over the land, what I disagree is that land was the only reason behind the crusades, as was the religious issue, there were political influences acting with the same effect. Having existed a considerable political pull, it invalidates the religious claim of a God "sanctioned" war, IMO.



There was a personal religious issue with the Crusades, in that you were forgiven of your sins if you went on them. Of course, saving the Holy Land (and also saving Constantinople and the last vestiges of the Roman Empire [not to mention one of the Christian centers of the world], which was the place that nurtured Christianity), is probably going to be considered a plus for salvation , so there was not much wrong with having special indulgences for retaking these places and guarding pilgrims on their way to them.

On the other hand, the Islamic idea of martyrdom is much different, any attempt to destroy non-Muslims where the perpetrator dies(i.e. suicide bomb attacks) is considered martyrdom. All of the Muslims in the jihad would be automatically martyrs, because of the Koran, rather than with the pope having to decree a bunch of things first. So, while Muslims, even today, could just start any war against any group of non-Muslims and be martyred if they died, Catholics would not, and probably even be condemned by the pope.

However, without the attacks on Byzantium and the conquered land, there would be no Crusades. That was the primary reason for their launch, and stayed so for the duration (for the most part). Therefore, it's not neccessarily wrong to say that the Crusades were holy wars, but it's misleading and a half truth that draws the conclusion that they were probably launched for religious reasons.
0 Replies
 
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Mar, 2007 07:18 pm
@Pinochet73,
There can be no compromises with Islam. Neither should the Christian West overly identify with Israel. The Christian West must live and fight for itself.
0 Replies
 
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 01:34 pm
@Pinochet73,
What is Israel but an outpost of the Christian West? Without Israel, what is the West, definitely, but America? Perhaps Australia, and maybe a few European countries, for a little bit longer, but no one exactly but America.
0 Replies
 
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 03:36 pm
@Dmizer,
Wha...? I don't follow. I got the first part, and maybe a bit of the second. After that, forget it. Please say again. :dunno:
0 Replies
 
Reagaknight
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Apr, 2007 02:24 pm
@Pinochet73,
Israel is basically the Christian West, or a part of it, even if it isn't Christian, per se. Without Israel, the Christian West is America and a very few others, so Israel is necessary.
0 Replies
 
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Apr, 2007 07:53 pm
@Dmizer,
Nope. Israel is a Jewish nation of Western culture. Indeed, it is necessary, in a broad, strategic sense. Nonetheless, Christians should not consider themselves semi-Jews, or invite Jews to take over critical nodes of their civilization, such as the media, movie, and publishing industries. Furthermore, not all of Europe has abandoned Christianity. Some of it is salvageable. Besides, the mission is for ALL Christians, everywhere, to unite and build their own nation on Earth. :headbang:
0 Replies
 
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Apr, 2007 08:18 am
@Pinochet73,
Christian Holy Warriors constantly work on self-discipline. They seek internal purity, based on the deepest conviction. They make the practice of self-denial a way of life. They live exclusively for their cause.
0 Replies
 
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Apr, 2007 07:26 pm
@Dmizer,
Plan, then act. Start with what's tactically feasible, and gradually work your way up to strategy. Christian warriors must organize and train at the local level. With time, they can unite. The world must be reminded of the Christian West's power and glory. :headbang:
0 Replies
 
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 May, 2007 07:43 pm
@Pinochet73,
The Western Christian warrior must rise up, take charge, and conquer once again in the name of Christ. The time for talk is ending, rapidly.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » My World:
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/27/2024 at 04:56:01