A Pondering of the Peculiar

AV1611VET · Jan 25, 2014

PsychoSarah said:
However, if you look at the Old Testament, the punishment of the serpent is to crawl upon the earth and eat dust, not the extreme punishment in revelations.

What's your point?

AV1611VET · Jan 25, 2014

AV1611VET said:
In your opinion, were they in spite of the Bible, or with respect to the Bible?

PsychoSarah said:

so I imagine that, in the minds of the perpetrators, they were doing it for the sake of the bible, not in spite of it.

Click to expand...

In ... your ... opinion, were they in spite of the Bible, or with respect to the Bible?

(I already know the opinion of the perpetrators.)

PsychoSarah · Jan 25, 2014

AV1611VET said:
What's your point?

That they might not be the same serpent, or that the New Testament was attempting to place the devil as the serpent in that story to increase the validity that the devil committed crimes against humanity. However, kinda looks like an afterthought addition to me, that the serpent be so early in the Old Testament and yet not be stated or suggested to be the devil until so near the end of the New Testament.

AV1611VET · Jan 25, 2014

PsychoSarah said:
That they might not be the same serpent, or that the New Testament was attempting to place the devil as the serpent in that story to increase the validity that the devil committed crimes against humanity. However, kinda looks like an afterthought addition to me, that the serpent be so early in the Old Testament and yet not be stated or suggested to be the devil until so near the end of the New Testament.

Well, all I can say is that you apparently don't see the unity of the Bible like we do.

Do you apply the same logic to Jesus in the New Testament being the Messiah mentioned in the Old?

PsychoSarah · Jan 25, 2014

AV1611VET said:
In ... your ... opinion, were they in spite of the Bible, or with respect to the Bible?

(I already know the opinion of the perpetrators.)

Inquisition: spite, many believers were killed pointlessly on weak accusations, and even if all who were killed were heretics, the bible would have encouraged conversion, not tortured confessions and then sentences of death. The Inquisition encouraged the sin of bearing false witness against neighbors, and tortured believers into lying about their faith so that they would have the relief of death.

Crusades: mixed, the soldiers who fought did so for the sake of the church, but I feel that the church officials did it in spite of the bible, considering the fact that they wanted to increase their reach and power, even though the Muslims were allowing Christians to go to Jerusalem all they wanted, they just had to pay extra taxes. The Muslims were being surprisingly decent, because at the time they viewed Jews and Christians as better than pagans, because they were also people of the book, so to speak.

PsychoSarah · Jan 25, 2014

AV1611VET said:
Well, all I can say is that you apparently don't see the unity of the Bible like we do.

Do you apply the same logic to Jesus in the New Testament being the Messiah mentioned in the Old?

No, Jesus is a strange case in the bible. I personally think that Jesus's background story, such as his birth, tend to be a bit mixed up. Don't get me wrong, I highly doubt that Jesus wasn't a real person. However, since he never stated his background in great detail, I think the authors of the New Testament attempted to tailor one to fit the prophecy. This appears to be the case when you look at the birth story of Jesus especially. Luke and Matthew had pretty different ideas on the events leading up to and after the birth of Jesus.

PsychoSarah · Jan 25, 2014

Especially when you consider the fact that King Herod, who is a pivotal character, was dead before Jesus was born.

AV1611VET · Jan 25, 2014

PsychoSarah said:
Inquisition: spite,

Crusades: mixed,

So I take it then that, in your opinion, the Inquistion did not have God's blessings behind it; and the Crusades ... you can't tell?

AV1611VET · Jan 25, 2014

PsychoSarah said:
No, Jesus is a strange case in the bible. I personally think that Jesus's background story, such as his birth, tend to be a bit mixed up. Don't get me wrong, I highly doubt that Jesus wasn't a real person. However, since he never stated his background in great detail, I think the authors of the New Testament attempted to tailor one to fit the prophecy. This appears to be the case when you look at the birth story of Jesus especially. Luke and Matthew had pretty different ideas on the events leading up to and after the birth of Jesus.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion.

PsychoSarah · Jan 25, 2014

AV1611VET said:
So I take it then that, in your opinion, the Inquistion did not have God's blessings behind it; and the Crusades ... you can't tell?

Well I am not god, I can never be sure, but I feel that the Inquisition would be more offensive than the Crusades.

AV1611VET · Jan 25, 2014

PsychoSarah said:
Especially when you consider the fact that King Herod, who is a pivotal character, was dead before Jesus was born.

Which King Herod?

Herod the Great? Herod Antipas? Herod Agrippa I? Herod Agrippa II?

Seipai · Jan 25, 2014

AV1611VET said:
So I take it then that, in your opinion, the Inquistion did not have God's blessings behind it; and the Crusades ... you can't tell?

Since she is an atheist I don't think Sarah thinks any of those had God's blessings behind them.

AV1611VET · Jan 25, 2014

PsychoSarah said:
Well I am not god, I can never be sure, but I feel that the Inquisition would be more offensive than the Crusades.

I find them both highly offensive and anti-Biblical.

But then, I don't think like a scientific methodist.

CabVet · Jan 25, 2014

AV1611VET said:
So I take it then that, in your opinion, the Inquistion did not have God's blessings behind it; and the Crusades ... you can't tell?

No, his opinion is that the Inquisition happened in spite of the Bible and that Crusader soldiers did what they did because of what they read in the Bible (not in spite of it). I thought he was very clear. Your question was not about God's blessing, it was specifically about the Bible, don't move the goalposts now.

But answer me this please, how are the Crusades any different than the massacres described in the OT?

PsychoSarah · Jan 25, 2014

AV1611VET said:
Which King Herod?

Herod the Great? Herod Antipas? Herod Agrippa I? Herod Agrippa II?

No King Herod was alive and in the area to persecute Jesus and demand the Slaughter of Innocents (which is only recorded in the bible. The record keepers and historians of the time would have never allowed such an event to go un recorded, so chances are the Slaughter of Innocents never happened. Which is a good thing, because killing babies is awful).

PsychoSarah · Jan 25, 2014

The closest King Herod to being around died about a decade before the birth of Jesus. Oh, so close.

PsychoSarah · Jan 25, 2014

CabVet said:
No, his opinion is that the Inquisition happened in spite of the Bible and that Crusader soldiers did what they did because of what they read in the Bible (not in spite of it). I thought he was very clear.

Her opinion -_-

CabVet · Jan 25, 2014

PsychoSarah said:
Her opinion -_-

Sorry, didn't scroll back enough to see that it was your opinion.

PsychoSarah · Jan 25, 2014

Seipai said:
Since she is an atheist I don't think Sarah thinks any of those had God's blessings behind them.

True that, any opinion I put on the matter is theoretical. I can have thoughts on what I feel god would view such events as without believing in god's existence though.

AV1611VET · Jan 25, 2014

Seipai said:
Since she is an atheist I don't think Sarah thinks any of those had God's blessings behind them.

Well for the record, she did say this:

PsychoSarah said:
But, if the goal was to create war, it defiantly worked. The Crusades, inquisitions, etc., would have never occurred if it weren't for the bible.

... and I somewhat agree with her.

After all, if it were not for the Bible, the Inquisition & Crusades indeed may never have occurred in the name of Jesus Christ.

But that's like saying: If it wasn't for God, there would be no atheists.

Anyone can take the Bible and use It to justify their evil ... like the Crusaders and the Inquisition did.

What disturbs me though, are the scientific methodists today who think they had a point in doing what they did.

I've been called a hypocrite because I'm not out burning witches.

Can you believe that?

A Pondering of the Peculiar

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Chaotic Neutral

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Chaotic Neutral

Chaotic Neutral

Chaotic Neutral

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Chaotic Neutral

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Regular Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Question everything

Chaotic Neutral

Chaotic Neutral

Chaotic Neutral

Question everything

Chaotic Neutral

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency