A Pondering of the Peculiar

[CabVet]

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

How are the Crusades different from the massacres described in the Old Testament? Both were about God's people killing infidels.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

I'm not going to get into this with an unbeliever; but for the record:

Those "massacred" had 430+ years warning to vacate the land they were squatting on and let the Jews have their territory back.

The Jews were coming back to the Promised Land under kill-or-be-killed conditions; whether it was from organized martial resistance, or rogue pockets of vigilantes.

 

[CabVet]

I'm not going to get into this with an unbeliever; but for the record:

Those "massacred" had 430+ years warning to vacate the land they were squatting on and let the Jews have their territory back.

The Jews were coming back to the Promised Land under kill-or-be-killed conditions; whether it was from organized martial resistance, or rogue pockets of vigilantes.

If you don't agree with the Crusades, would you rather leave Jerusalem under Muslim control? Muslims were warned 2000+ years before the Crusades that those lands were not theirs. Yet, during the crusades they were still squatting on Jewish land.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well for the record, she did say this:

... 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?

I can believe that, because within religions there are various levels of how strongly they feel that the bible is absolute law. Personally, I don't think witches exist, so I would have to ask... Do the people that say that claim to have burned witches, because you might want to report them to the authorities.

 

[CabVet]

the land they were squatting on

Your disdain for human life never ceases to amaze me.

 

[Seipai]

If you don't agree with the Crusades, would you rather leave Jerusalem under Muslim control? Muslims were warned 2000+ years before the Crusades that those lands were not theirs.

Of course it all depends upon your point of view. I know that Muslims make certain claims of that area so according to their holy book it is the Jews that are squatting.

And the Babylonians probably have an even more legitimate claim to the area.

 

[CabVet]

Of course it all depends upon your point of view. I know that Muslims make certain claims of that area so according to their holy book it is the Jews that are squatting.

And the Babylonians probably have an even more legitimate claim to the area.

But we all know who the land really belongs to, the Bible says so.

 

[AV1611VET]

How are the Crusades different from the massacres described in the Old Testament? Both were about God's people killing infidels.

God's people are supposed to kill infidels, are they?

Wasn't the purpose of the Crusades to liberate the Gentiles from Jerusalem?

Didn't Jesus say Jerusalem would be liberated when He liberated it?

Isn't this called: THE TIMES OF THE GENTILES?

This would mean then, that the Crusaders set out to liberate Jerusalem on their own ... a task reserved for Jesus at His return.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you don't agree with the Crusades, would you rather leave Jerusalem under Muslim control?

I don't have any choice.

Muslims were warned 2000+ years before the Crusades that those lands were not theirs. Yet, during the crusades they were still squatting on Jewish land.

And they'll squat there until the end of the Tribulation too ... and there's not a thing anyone is going to do about it.

 

[CabVet]

God's people are supposed to kill infidels, are they?

According to the OT, yes.

Wasn't the purpose of the Crusades to liberate the Gentiles from Jerusalem?

Yes, the squatters and you very well put.

Didn't Jesus say Jerusalem would be liberated when He liberated it?

Chapter and verse, please.

Isn't this called: THE TIMES OF THE GENTILES?

If that's the case, why are you guys so worried about Jerusalem remaining under Jewish control? Why not give it back to the gentiles? Oh, that would bring peace, I forgot.

This would mean then, that the Crusaders set out to liberate Jerusalem on their own ... a task reserved for Jesus at His return.

Yeah, right.

 

[CabVet]

I don't have any choice.

Yes or no is too hard, I know.

And they'll squat there until the end of the Tribulation too ... and there's not a thing anyone is going to do about it.

Your disdain for human life never ceases to amaze me. Who was it that said we should love the sinners? I keep forgetting.

 

[46AND2]

Of course not.

Simple logic mind. When will you start to learn?

The truthful statement that "God cannot lie" made by an omnipotent God about himself is illogical in and of itself. If he can't lie, he is not omnipotent.

However, an omnipotent God CAN say that about himself, if he is a liar, and no break in logic occurs.

Therefore, using simple logic, the God of the Bible is a liar, correct?

 

[AV1611VET]

Chapter and verse, please.

Luke 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

The TIMES OF THE GENTILES started in 70 AD, and will end at Jesus' return.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your disdain for human life never ceases to amaze me. Who was it that said we should love the sinners? I keep forgetting.

What's wrong?

Sore because I'm not justifying the Crusades, as some think I should be doing?

 

[PsychoSarah]

What's wrong?

Sore because I'm not justifying the Crusades, as some think I should be doing?

No.

 

[AV1611VET]

No.

This attitude about witch burning and the Inquisition and Crusades is why I think scientific methodists may have done the same thing on the Muslim servers (verified, by the way) -- that is, pestered the Muslims that, if they were truly Koran believers, they should not be hypocrites and do something about their "Great Satan."

Of course, history didn't disappoint them in that respect.

I'm sure they were mortified, but certainly not disappointed in that respect.

 

[juvenissun]

The truthful statement that "God cannot lie" made by an omnipotent God about himself is illogical in and of itself. If he can't lie, he is not omnipotent.

However, an omnipotent God CAN say that about himself, if he is a liar, and no break in logic occurs.

Therefore, using simple logic, the God of the Bible is a liar, correct?

You still don't get it.
God can not do many things. It is because of the definition of God.

Do you understand what a definition is? Catch up with the lesson 1 in your logic 101!

 

[46AND2]

You still don't get it.
God can not do many things. It is because of the definition of God.

Do you understand what a definition is? Catch up with the lesson 1 in your logic 101!

I have been given MANY definitions of God, juve. What is YOUR definition? Is he omnipotent?

 

[juvenissun]

I have been given MANY definitions of God, juve. What is YOUR definition? Is he omnipotent?

OK, let's see, assume we define God is omnipotent.

If you find something God can not do, then it violates the definition. Then God is not omnipotent. The consequence is that this god (not omnipotent) is not the God you first defined. So, you should not mix this god with that God.

Understand?

Now, the next part of the question is: IF we find something God (omnipotent) can not do, and we do not want to change the definition of God, then what should we do?

I guess you might be able to figure it out.

 

[46AND2]

OK, let's see, assume we define God is omnipotent.

If you find something God can not do, then it violates the definition. Then God is not omnipotent. The consequence is that this god (not omnipotent) is not the God you first defined. So, you should not mix this god with that God.

Understand?

Now, the next part of the question is: IF we find something God (omnipotent) can not do, and we do not want to change the definition of God, then what should we do?

I guess you might be able to figure it out.

Lol. you want to change the meaning of words again. Too funny. You define God in such a way that you have to change the definitions of words IN THE DEFINITION of God. Hate to break it to you, but this is most CERTAINLY not logical.

But there's a problem, see, changing the meaning of the word omnipotent doesn't work, because God of the Bible didn't actually SAY omnipotent. He said he can do ALL things, is ALL powerful, things like that.

And funny enough, THAT definition of ALL is the same definition you argued for in the ALL/EVERY debate.