Ask God for Me

[Subduction Zone]

What are you referring to?

My previous post has an example.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I could post up endless articles on Christian wars. Here is a rather low level war, it was the most recent one:

The Troubles - Wikipedia

The link even says it was not a religious war.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I could post up endless articles on Christian wars. Here is a rather low level war, it was the most recent one:

The Troubles - Wikipedia

So..............you haven't really read any lengthy histories on Christian Thought, Doctrine, or political praxis, just stuff about the pre-selected and isolated topic of "Christian Wars"? Na. Surely you've read much, much more widely than all of that in order to tie all of this together in a vain that reflects what @Silmarien has said above, right? Or else you wouldn't be on here making a big claim, right?

So, please cough up your sources. I'm waiting to see the scholarship you've tackled.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The link even says it was not a religious war.

It was the underlying reason. Northern Protestants were worried about being force into losing their religion. And the Irish were trying to protect the religious rights of the few Northern Irish Catholics:

"The conflict began during a campaign by the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association to end discrimination against the Catholic/nationalist minority by the Protestant/unionist government and police force.[34][35] The authorities attempted to suppress this protest campaign and were accused of police brutality; it was also met with violence from loyalists, who alleged it was a republican front. Increasing tensions led to severe violence in August 1969 and the deployment of British troops, in what became the British Army's longest ever operation.[36] They built 'peace walls' to keep the two communities apart. Some Catholics initially welcomed the army as a more neutral force, but it soon came to be seen as hostile and biased, particularly after Bloody Sunday in 1972.[37] The emergence of armed paramilitary organisations led to subsequent warfare over the next three decades."

 

[Subduction Zone]

So..............you haven't really read any lengthy histories on Christian Thought, Doctrine, or political praxis, just stuff about the pre-selected and isolated topic of "Christian Wars"? Na. Surely you've read much, much more widely than all of that in order to tie all of this together in a vain that reflects what @Silmarien has said above, right? Or else you wouldn't be on here making a big claim, right?

So, please cough up your sources. I'm waiting to see the scholarship you've tackled.

Quite a bit of Christian writing is tainted by Christian apologists. Do you have anything reliable that supports your beliefs? Yes, politics played a part, but one would be rather foolish to ignore the huge role that religious belief had in the various conflicts.

 

[miknik5]

Then how would you deal with the situation I presented in post 1119? Here it is again for you:

I mean, two people could say, "Kylie went to the shops today," and they'd have the foundation the same. But if one said that she went to the hardware store and then went to the furniture store, and the other person said she went to the supermarket and the baker and the green grocer, would you believe them? Of course not. The foundation of their claims - Kylie went to the shops today - may be the same, but the details are inconsistent, and you'd quite rightly think that something fishy was going on. They can't both be right, so one of them has to be wrong. But which one? You can't tell. And maybe both of them are wrong!

So tell me, in that, the foundation is the same, right?

I am not following you at all...
In your example, you are going to various stores which are all different stores...

How is this a parallel to the truth that all the churches who profess CHRIST, should have ONE FOUNDATION?

How can a hardward store, or a supermarket, or a baker, or a green grocer, have the same foundation? They aren´t the same, and they do not try to convince anyone that they are...

I thought you were having an issue with one type of institution: the church and suggesting that with all the many different denominations, you do not know who has the truth?

This is why I responded over and over again that there is only ONE FOUNDATION but that was a specific response to THE CHURCH..

 

[coffee4u]

That wasn't my point.

My point was when I see the two of you telling me things that are different in the details, I have to conclude that one of you, perhaps both, is wrong.

As I said we are fallible human beings and we will differ on details. In some areas there isn't one correct answer because God calls different people to different things but in other areas, there is only one correct answer. Will one of us be wrong? For sure. That isn't Gods fault though, that is ours for being imperfect people.

It seems as though you expect us to be perfect and in all full agreement. Our muddling has nothing to do with God or Jesus it's simply us being human. Have you ever met someone you agree 100% with? It's human nature.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It was the underlying reason. Northern Protestants were worried about being force into losing their religion. And the Irish were trying to protect the religious rights of the few Northern Irish Catholics:

"The conflict began during a campaign by the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association to end discrimination against the Catholic/nationalist minority by the Protestant/unionist government and police force.[34][35] The authorities attempted to suppress this protest campaign and were accused of police brutality; it was also met with violence from loyalists, who alleged it was a republican front. Increasing tensions led to severe violence in August 1969 and the deployment of British troops, in what became the British Army's longest ever operation.[36] They built 'peace walls' to keep the two communities apart. Some Catholics initially welcomed the army as a more neutral force, but it soon came to be seen as hostile and biased, particularly after Bloody Sunday in 1972.[37] The emergence of armed paramilitary organisations led to subsequent warfare over the next three decades."

This is what I found in one google:
The Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA) was an organisation that campaigned for civil rights in Northern Ireland during the late 1960s and early 1970s. Formed in Belfast on 9 April 1967,[1] the civil rights campaign attempted to achieve reform by publicising, documenting, and lobbying for an end to discrimination in areas such as elections (which were subject to gerrymandering and property requirements), discrimination in employment, in public housing and alleged abuses of the Special Powers Act.[2] The genesis of the organisation lay in a meeting in Maghera in August 1966 between the Wolfe Tone Societies which was attended by Cathal Goulding, then chief of staff of the Irish Republican Army (IRA).[3][4]

During its formation, NICRA's membership extended to trade unionists, communists, liberals, socialists, with republicans eventually constituting five of the 13 members of its executive council. The organisation initially also had some unionists, with Young Unionist Robin Cole taking a position on its executive council.[5] Official Sinn Féin and Official IRA influence over NICRA grew in later years, but only as the latter's importance declined,[6] when violence escalated between late 1969 until 1972, when NICRA ceased its work.
Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association - Wikipedia

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Quite a bit of Christian writing is tainted by Christian apologists. Do you have anything reliable that supports your beliefs? Yes, politics played a part, but one would be rather foolish to ignore the huge role that religious belief had in the various conflicts.

Thank you for your "none answer."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you for your "none answer."

You mean like you had?

Try again.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Quite a bit of Christian writing is tainted by Christian apologists. Do you have anything reliable that supports your beliefs? Yes, politics played a part, but one would be rather foolish to ignore the huge role that religious belief had in the various conflicts.

You ask as if you care and as if you'd read any of it. Why do I find that hard to believe?

 

[Silmarien]

Quite a bit of Christian writing is tainted by Christian apologists. Do you have anything reliable that supports your beliefs? Yes, politics played a part, but one would be rather foolish to ignore the huge role that religious belief had in the various conflicts.

Did you just call all of European history "Christian writing tainted by Christian apologists"?

That's bold, lol.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You ask as if you care and as if you'd read any of it. Why do I find that hard to believe?

No, I really do not care when apologists write anything. I have found that far too many of them are "liars for Jesus". I was wondering if you had anything of merit that supported your claims. Sadly that does not appear to be the case.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did you just call all of European history "Christian writing tainted by Christian apologists"?

That's bold, lol.

What made you think that was my claim?

 

[Kylie]

I am not following you at all...
In your example, you are going to various stores which are all different stores...

How is this a parallel to the truth that all the churches who profess CHRIST, should have ONE FOUNDATION?

Because the foundation is the same in both cases. In your case, it's "Jesus is real." In my case, it's "Kylie went to the shops."

How can a hardward store, or a supermarket, or a baker, or a green grocer, have the same foundation? They aren´t the same, and they do not try to convince anyone that they are...

The foundation is that they are all shops I can go to.

I thought you were having an issue with one type of institution: the church and suggesting that with all the many different denominations, you do not know who has the truth?

This is why I responded over and over again that there is only ONE FOUNDATION but that was a specific response to THE CHURCH..

But if one person says I went to the hardware store and then went to the furniture store, but the other person says I went to the supermarket and the baker and the green grocer, we have a problem.

They are saying different things. It's like I said, "If Miknik asks, tell her I went to the shops, but really I'm sneaking out to go to a party and I don't want her to know."

When people say different things, then it casts doubt on their truthfulness.

 

[Kylie]

As I said we are fallible human beings and we will differ on details. In some areas there isn't one correct answer because God calls different people to different things but in other areas, there is only one correct answer. Will one of us be wrong? For sure. That isn't Gods fault though, that is ours for being imperfect people.

It seems as though you expect us to be perfect and in all full agreement. Our muddling has nothing to do with God or Jesus it's simply us being human. Have you ever met someone you agree 100% with? It's human nature.

If something is objectively true, then there is only one possible answer and all people who have that correct answer will be in complete agreement with each other.

 

[coffee4u]

If something is objectively true, then there is only one possible answer and all people who have that correct answer will be in complete agreement with each other.

Yes, which is why we have said that all Christians believe that God came down in the flesh as Jesus, that he died and rose again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, which is why we have said that all Christians believe that God came down in the flesh as Jesus, that he died and rose again.

Are you sure? In England alone about one quarter of the Christians there do not believe in the resurrection:

A quarter of Christians do not believe in the resurrection

 

[klutedavid]

Quite a bit of Christian writing is tainted by Christian apologists. Do you have anything reliable that supports your beliefs? Yes, politics played a part, but one would be rather foolish to ignore the huge role that religious belief had in the various conflicts.

Religion had no part in WW1 or WW2. Religion was not a player in the Vietnam war or in Iraq.

The Korean war was definitely without any religion. The French and Russian revolutions, no religion either.

The Roman Empire lacked religion to some extent. The same goes for Alexander the Great. Egypt had religion but I don't think they ruled in the name of their God.

The crusades were definitely religious.

My beloved inquisitions were the greatest religious conquests.

Not many armed conflicts were purely based on religion, though there were a few. Most conflict was territorial expansion methinks.

 

[klutedavid]

Are you sure? In England alone about one quarter of the Christians there do not believe in the resurrection:

A quarter of Christians do not believe in the resurrection

Shame about that. The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is what the gospel comprises. Without that belief, then these so called Christians are lost.