A Pondering of the Peculiar

[AV1611VET]

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]

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

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[AV1611VET]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[PsychoSarah]

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]

Her opinion -_-

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

 

[PsychoSarah]

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]

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:

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?