Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Anyone can take the Bible and use It to justify their evil ... like the Crusaders and the Inquisition did.
I'm not going to get into this with an unbeliever; but for the record: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.
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?
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.
God's people are supposed to kill infidels, are they?How are the Crusades different from the massacres described in the Old Testament? Both were about God's people killing infidels.
I don't have any choice.If you don't agree with the Crusades, would you rather leave Jerusalem under Muslim control?
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.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.
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.
I don't have any choice.
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.
Of course not.
Simple logic mind. When will you start to learn?
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.Chapter and verse, please.
What's wrong?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?
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."
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!
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?