nebula Posted March 29, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted March 29, 2014 There are quite a few people who have and do reject Christ because of the actions of Christians. People look at Christians and the way they act is not in keeping with their words, thus they are deemed Hippocrates and as such are rejected. If they believe that being a Christian is what they see in the Christian they reject everything about it. Let me ask you, do you think God is capable of taking care of what happens on earth? If so why would you as a Christian be concerned about stopping the Nazis? If you were walking through the park, and you saw a couple of teenage boys in process of raping a child, would you come after these boys as forcefully as possible, or would you walk by trusting that God would take care of things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevenseas Posted March 29, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 30 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,373 Content Per Day: 0.76 Reputation: 683 Days Won: 22 Joined: 02/28/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted March 29, 2014 We didn't love the Nazis. We went to war against them. We didn't love the Taliban, we fought them. We don't love al-Qaeda. This is one of the reasons many reject Christianity. um...no. They reject Christ...not Christianity. God has already offered His love through His Son. The book of Romans makes it plain that people are without excuse when they reject God and turn away from Him. Saying we did not love the Nazis is a ridiculous statement. Did an army of Christians go to war against Germany and its allies? did everyone else just stay home and hope that "Christians" saved the world from a demonic beast? Were all the leaders of various countries Christians and by default everyone in that country was too and they all went to war and hated Nazis? Think about what you saying here. It really makes no sense. If anyone who was a Christian just stayed home and said "I am a Chrisitan and I will love those who are murdering men, women and children in concentration camps", how do you think that would go over? Do you think everyone would accept Christ then? How about God? What things did He command the Israelites to do in the OT? Did He say love everyone and just sin along with them and worship false gods because if you don't, people will one day hate Christians? There is only one reason a person does not accept Christ. They are rebellious. Not everyone who says they are a Christian is actually a believer.....but those who are, recognize the falseness of saying that believers are the reason that people reject Christ as their Savior. There are quite a few people who have and do reject Christ because of the actions of Christians. People look at Christians and the way they act is not in keeping with their words, thus they are deemed Hippocrates and as such are rejected. If they believe that being a Christian is what they see in the Christian they reject everything about it. Let me ask you, do you think God is capable of taking care of what happens on earth? If so why would you as a Christian be concerned about stopping the Nazis? Well that's what they say. But on the day they stand before the One they rejected, do you suppose God will excuse them because they say, "Well, I was going to accept Christ, but Johnny didn't act like what I thought a Christian should be, so I didn't." Don't you see the fallacy in that excuse? If someone says Christians keep me from Christ, then they are admitting they know how a Christian should act and they are admitting that God is really better than that. God Himself says that those who reject Him are without excuse. Humanistic ideas of God tend to side with humans.....who do not think like God and who do not believe what God says. First of all, salvation is available to whosoever will. Second, I nowhere in scripture are we told that a human being is responsible for accepts Christ. that, is the work of God through His Spirit. It is obvious that not everyone who says they are a Christina actually are Christians. Now you say there are quite a few people who reject salvation as though you know who they are. That is an excuse and I have heard it myself. Again, they are simply admitting they actually have an idea of what a Christian should be. Christians are not perfect and will never be perfect until that which is perfect is come...and that does not mean cessation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Now for this: Hippocrates was actually a Greek physician. I suppose you mean hypocrite. So, in that economy, if someone who refuses Christ calls a Christian a hypocrite the Christian actually becomes a hypocrite? I don't think so. That would make God a liar and the Bible untrue. They called Christ a liar and a blasphemer. Did that make Him one? The world does not love Christians or Christ. Let me ask you, do you think God is capable of taking care of what happens on earth? If so why would you as a Christian be concerned about stopping the Nazis? Does God come down and take care of business for us or do we act on His behalf? Seriously, are we supposed to think about heaven all day or actually live the life we have? Christ drove the money changers out of the temple area. The philosopy (because it is not scripture) that you appear to embrace, would have Him do nothing at all. As a Christian, I am actually far more concerned with the misapplication of scripture and the apparent lack on the part of many to fight spiritual battles. Hitler embodied the spirit of anti-Christ and embraced a pseudo Christian religion on one hand and seances and special knowledge on the other. A little history goes a long way. Pacifism is not a Christian concept. In Revelation, we see Jesus leading the army of God against the devil. Why do you suppose that is? Shouldn't Jesus just live and let live? One more thing....I'm way too young to have fought Hitler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butch5 Posted March 30, 2014 Group: Senior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 559 Content Per Day: 0.14 Reputation: 136 Days Won: 2 Joined: 09/09/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/01/1962 Share Posted March 30, 2014 There are quite a few people who have and do reject Christ because of the actions of Christians. People look at Christians and the way they act is not in keeping with their words, thus they are deemed Hippocrates and as such are rejected. If they believe that being a Christian is what they see in the Christian they reject everything about it. Let me ask you, do you think God is capable of taking care of what happens on earth? If so why would you as a Christian be concerned about stopping the Nazis? If you were walking through the park, and you saw a couple of teenage boys in process of raping a child, would you come after these boys as forcefully as possible, or would you walk by trusting that God would take care of things? Isn't it about what the Scriptures say and not what I would do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butch5 Posted March 30, 2014 Group: Senior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 559 Content Per Day: 0.14 Reputation: 136 Days Won: 2 Joined: 09/09/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/01/1962 Share Posted March 30, 2014 We didn't love the Nazis. We went to war against them. We didn't love the Taliban, we fought them. We don't love al-Qaeda. This is one of the reasons many reject Christianity. um...no. They reject Christ...not Christianity. God has already offered His love through His Son. The book of Romans makes it plain that people are without excuse when they reject God and turn away from Him. Saying we did not love the Nazis is a ridiculous statement. Did an army of Christians go to war against Germany and its allies? did everyone else just stay home and hope that "Christians" saved the world from a demonic beast? Were all the leaders of various countries Christians and by default everyone in that country was too and they all went to war and hated Nazis? Think about what you saying here. It really makes no sense. If anyone who was a Christian just stayed home and said "I am a Chrisitan and I will love those who are murdering men, women and children in concentration camps", how do you think that would go over? Do you think everyone would accept Christ then? How about God? What things did He command the Israelites to do in the OT? Did He say love everyone and just sin along with them and worship false gods because if you don't, people will one day hate Christians? There is only one reason a person does not accept Christ. They are rebellious. Not everyone who says they are a Christian is actually a believer.....but those who are, recognize the falseness of saying that believers are the reason that people reject Christ as their Savior. There are quite a few people who have and do reject Christ because of the actions of Christians. People look at Christians and the way they act is not in keeping with their words, thus they are deemed Hippocrates and as such are rejected. If they believe that being a Christian is what they see in the Christian they reject everything about it. Let me ask you, do you think God is capable of taking care of what happens on earth? If so why would you as a Christian be concerned about stopping the Nazis? Well that's what they say. But on the day they stand before the One they rejected, do you suppose God will excuse them because they say, "Well, I was going to accept Christ, but Johnny didn't act like what I thought a Christian should be, so I didn't." Don't you see the fallacy in that excuse? If someone says Christians keep me from Christ, then they are admitting they know how a Christian should act and they are admitting that God is really better than that. God Himself says that those who reject Him are without excuse. Humanistic ideas of God tend to side with humans.....who do not think like God and who do not believe what God says. First of all, salvation is available to whosoever will. Second, I nowhere in scripture are we told that a human being is responsible for accepts Christ. that, is the work of God through His Spirit. It is obvious that not everyone who says they are a Christina actually are Christians. Now you say there are quite a few people who reject salvation as though you know who they are. That is an excuse and I have heard it myself. Again, they are simply admitting they actually have an idea of what a Christian should be. Christians are not perfect and will never be perfect until that which is perfect is come...and that does not mean cessation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Now for this: Hippocrates was actually a Greek physician. I suppose you mean hypocrite. So, in that economy, if someone who refuses Christ calls a Christian a hypocrite the Christian actually becomes a hypocrite? I don't think so. That would make God a liar and the Bible untrue. They called Christ a liar and a blasphemer. Did that make Him one? The world does not love Christians or Christ. Let me ask you, do you think God is capable of taking care of what happens on earth? If so why would you as a Christian be concerned about stopping the Nazis? Does God come down and take care of business for us or do we act on His behalf? Seriously, are we supposed to think about heaven all day or actually live the life we have? Christ drove the money changers out of the temple area. The philosopy (because it is not scripture) that you appear to embrace, would have Him do nothing at all. As a Christian, I am actually far more concerned with the misapplication of scripture and the apparent lack on the part of many to fight spiritual battles. Hitler embodied the spirit of anti-Christ and embraced a pseudo Christian religion on one hand and seances and special knowledge on the other. A little history goes a long way. Pacifism is not a Christian concept. In Revelation, we see Jesus leading the army of God against the devil. Why do you suppose that is? Shouldn't Jesus just live and let live? One more thing....I'm way too young to have fought Hitler. No it's not a fallacy. People see Christians who don't act the way they talk and they reject Christianity and Christ. I didn't say anything about who will be responsible when they stand before Christ. However, the behavior of many that call themselves Christians does drive people from Christ. You can say they know better if you like however, many Christians don't even know how to act to follow Christ let alone the lost. They simply see them saying one thing and doing another. You are right one point, a little history goes a long way. And, if you look at that history you'll see that Pacifism is very much a Christian concept. For the first 300 years of Christian history Christian were opposed to the use of force for any reason at all. I could quote you quote after quote from Christians in the first 300 years of Church history showing the opposition to violence. Here are few for your consideration. The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 2 Clement of Alexandria 34 Above all, Christians are not allowed to correct with violence the delinquencies of sins. For it is not those that abstain from wickedness from compulsion, but those that abstain from choice, that God crowns. The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 3 Tertullian 197 AD. If we are enjoined, then, to love our enemies, as I have remarked above, whom have we to hate? If injured, we are forbidden to retaliate, lest we become as bad ourselves: who can suffer injury at our hands? The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 3 Tertullian the Christian does no harm even to his foe The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 4 Commodianus 240 A.D. Many are the martyrdoms which are made without shedding of blood. Not to desire other men’s goods; to wish to have the benefit of martyrdom; to bridle the tongue, thou oughtest to make thyself humble; not willingly to use force, nor to return force used against thee, thou wilt be a patient mind, understand that thou art a martyr. The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 5 Cyprian 250 AD. Consider the roads blocked up by robbers, the seas beset with pirates, wars scattered all over the earth with the bloody horror of camps. The whole world is wet with mutual blood; and murder, which in the case of an individual is admitted to be a crime, is called a virtue when it is committed wholesale. Impunity is claimed for the wicked deeds, not on the plea that they are guiltless, but because the cruelty is perpetrated on a grand scale. The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 5 Cyprian and that by this very fact they are invincible, that they do not fear death; that they do not in turn assail their assailants, since it is not lawful for the innocent even to kill the guilty; Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OakWood Posted March 30, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 7 Topic Count: 867 Topics Per Day: 0.24 Content Count: 7,331 Content Per Day: 1.99 Reputation: 2,860 Days Won: 31 Joined: 04/09/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/28/1964 Author Share Posted March 30, 2014 A few thoughts here: Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other George Orwell Peace is not the absence of conflict but the presence of justice Martin Luther King Jr. “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. Matthew 10:34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevenseas Posted March 30, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 30 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,373 Content Per Day: 0.76 Reputation: 683 Days Won: 22 Joined: 02/28/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted March 30, 2014 OK ~ Butch...it seems obvious from your response that you are Catholic. I don't abide by the traditions of early church fathers as I am not Catholic. I'm not pushing an agenda here and I don't think the op is either. You have not responded to what I post...you are quoting what you call the early church fathers. I'm truly not interested in your viewpoint on the early church fathers. However, just for the sake of illustrating the hypocrisy of what the early church fathers said and wrote and the actual acts of the Catholic church, here is a quick refresher: Pope Urban II (1088-1099, see art below) was responsible for assisting Emperor Alexus I (1081-1118) of Constantinople in launching the first crusade. He made one of the most influential speeches in the Middle Ages, calling on Christian princes in Europe to go on a crusade to rescue the Holy Land from the Turks. In the speech given at the Council of Clermont in France, on November 27, 1095, he combined the ideas of making a pilgrimage to the Holy Land with that of waging a holy war against infidels.1 Dr. E.L. Skip Knox gives a summary of the pope's speech, which has been recorded differently in various sources: "The noble race of Franks must come to the aid their fellow Christians in the East. The infidel Turks are advancing into the heart of Eastern Christendom; Christians are being oppressed and attacked; churches and holy places are being defiled. Jerusalem is groaning under the Saracen yoke. The Holy Sepulchre is in Moslem hands and has been turned into a mosque. Pilgrims are harassed and even prevented from access to the Holy Land. "The West must march to the defense of the East. All should go, rich and poor alike. The Franks must stop their internal wars and squabbles. Let them go instead against the infidel and fight a righteous war. "God himself will lead them, for they will be doing His work. There will be absolution and remission of sins for all who die in the service of Christ. Here they are poor and miserable sinners; there they will be rich and happy. Let none hesitate; they must march next summer. God wills it! Do you have any idea of the atrocities committed by these good Christians in the name of the Catholic church? I do not think a history of the early church fathers writings should leave out the acts of the Catholic church if one wants to have that discussion Personally, I do not want to have that disucssion nor do I care to be identified with those who commit physical acts of violence...you mentionned Hitler and WWII....I have not ever committed an act of violence against another but I have had physical violence comitted against me. I did not strike back so your points are truly mute. and have you ever heard about the Spanish Inquisition? Who ordered that? It certainly is not scriptural. At least WWII was fought for a cause and not because one religion thought everyone else should bow the knee to it I will not post farther with regards to your interest in the early church fathers. Perhaps someone else would like to discuss your beliefs with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted March 30, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 683 Topics Per Day: 0.12 Content Count: 11,128 Content Per Day: 2.00 Reputation: 1,352 Days Won: 54 Joined: 02/03/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/07/1952 Share Posted March 30, 2014 There are quite a few people who have and do reject Christ because of the actions of Christians. People look at Christians and the way they act is not in keeping with their words, thus they are deemed Hippocrates and as such are rejected. If they believe that being a Christian is what they see in the Christian they reject everything about it. Let me ask you, do you think God is capable of taking care of what happens on earth? If so why would you as a Christian be concerned about stopping the Nazis? If you were walking through the park, and you saw a couple of teenage boys in process of raping a child, would you come after these boys as forcefully as possible, or would you walk by trusting that God would take care of things? Isn't it about what the Scriptures say and not what I would do? NO IT IS NOT. Your answer is classic deflection. Please just answer the question. What would you do, and why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OakWood Posted March 30, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 7 Topic Count: 867 Topics Per Day: 0.24 Content Count: 7,331 Content Per Day: 1.99 Reputation: 2,860 Days Won: 31 Joined: 04/09/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/28/1964 Author Share Posted March 30, 2014 OK ~ Butch...it seems obvious from your response that you are Catholic. I don't abide by the traditions of early church fathers as I am not Catholic. I'm not pushing an agenda here and I don't think the op is either. You have not responded to what I post...you are quoting what you call the early church fathers. I'm truly not interested in your viewpoint on the early church fathers. However, just for the sake of illustrating the hypocrisy of what the early church fathers said and wrote and the actual acts of the Catholic church, here is a quick refresher: Pope Urban II (1088-1099, see art below) was responsible for assisting Emperor Alexus I (1081-1118) of Constantinople in launching the first crusade. He made one of the most influential speeches in the Middle Ages, calling on Christian princes in Europe to go on a crusade to rescue the Holy Land from the Turks. In the speech given at the Council of Clermont in France, on November 27, 1095, he combined the ideas of making a pilgrimage to the Holy Land with that of waging a holy war against infidels.1 Dr. E.L. Skip Knox gives a summary of the pope's speech, which has been recorded differently in various sources: "The noble race of Franks must come to the aid their fellow Christians in the East. The infidel Turks are advancing into the heart of Eastern Christendom; Christians are being oppressed and attacked; churches and holy places are being defiled. Jerusalem is groaning under the Saracen yoke. The Holy Sepulchre is in Moslem hands and has been turned into a mosque. Pilgrims are harassed and even prevented from access to the Holy Land. "The West must march to the defense of the East. All should go, rich and poor alike. The Franks must stop their internal wars and squabbles. Let them go instead against the infidel and fight a righteous war. "God himself will lead them, for they will be doing His work. There will be absolution and remission of sins for all who die in the service of Christ. Here they are poor and miserable sinners; there they will be rich and happy. Let none hesitate; they must march next summer. God wills it! Do you have any idea of the atrocities committed by these good Christians in the name of the Catholic church? I do not think a history of the early church fathers writings should leave out the acts of the Catholic church if one wants to have that discussion Personally, I do not want to have that disucssion nor do I care to be identified with those who commit physical acts of violence...you mentionned Hitler and WWII....I have not ever committed an act of violence against another but I have had physical violence comitted against me. I did not strike back so your points are truly mute. and have you ever heard about the Spanish Inquisition? Who ordered that? It certainly is not scriptural. At least WWII was fought for a cause and not because one religion thought everyone else should bow the knee to it I will not post farther with regards to your interest in the early church fathers. Perhaps someone else would like to discuss your beliefs with you. I have to point out here that Muslims had destroyed two-thirds of Christian lands in the Middle East and were attacking the Eastern Byzantine emperor when the Byzantine Emperor actually asked Urban II for assistance in stopping them. Urban II was wrong in what he said and did, but the Crusades were necessary to defend Christian Europe. As for the Spanish Inquisition, it was originally devised to weed out Muslims who had pretended to convert to Christianity. They were practising sedition and were trying to destroy Spain from within (like they are doing today in the U.S. and Europe). A series of interrogations were developed in order to test a suspects knowledge of Christianity which was used to weed out taqiyya practising Muslim offenders. Of course, it all got out of hand and was later used to interrogate and torture Jews and Protestants. Nevertheless it was originally started out of necessity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qnts2 Posted March 31, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 20 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,875 Content Per Day: 0.71 Reputation: 1,336 Days Won: 9 Joined: 03/13/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted March 31, 2014 I have to point out here that Muslims had destroyed two-thirds of Christian lands in the Middle East and were attacking the Eastern Byzantine emperor when the Byzantine Emperor actually asked Urban II for assistance in stopping them. Urban II was wrong in what he said and did, but the Crusades were necessary to defend Christian Europe. As for the Spanish Inquisition, it was originally devised to weed out Muslims who had pretended to convert to Christianity. They were practising sedition and were trying to destroy Spain from within (like they are doing today in the U.S. and Europe). A series of interrogations were developed in order to test a suspects knowledge of Christianity which was used to weed out taqiyya practising Muslim offenders. Of course, it all got out of hand and was later used to interrogate and torture Jews and Protestants. Nevertheless it was originally started out of necessity. Just for a different view, here is the history of the crusades from a Jewish site. (I do not regularly recommend AISH for other reasons, but in this case, it does give an entirely different view of the crusades). http://www.aish.com/jl/h/cc/48950796.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevenseas Posted March 31, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 30 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,373 Content Per Day: 0.76 Reputation: 683 Days Won: 22 Joined: 02/28/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted March 31, 2014 I have to point out here that Muslims had destroyed two-thirds of Christian lands in the Middle East and were attacking the Eastern Byzantine emperor when the Byzantine Emperor actually asked Urban II for assistance in stopping them. Urban II was wrong in what he said and did, but the Crusades were necessary to defend Christian Europe. As for the Spanish Inquisition, it was originally devised to weed out Muslims who had pretended to convert to Christianity. They were practising sedition and were trying to destroy Spain from within (like they are doing today in the U.S. and Europe). A series of interrogations were developed in order to test a suspects knowledge of Christianity which was used to weed out taqiyya practising Muslim offenders. Of course, it all got out of hand and was later used to interrogate and torture Jews and Protestants. Nevertheless it was originally started out of necessity. Hi Oakwood...the only reason I posted what you commented on, is because Butch was apparently trying to paint a picture that is not correct. I was not trying to indicate that one side was innocent or one side was better than the other. The whole thing is such a mess, that only God can sort it out The thread was already derailed with the insertion of the writings and interpretations of the 'early church fathers' I think the subject matter of the Crusades is very interesting, but far off the topic of this thread I will state this though, the acts committed by the Crusaders were not Christian. And let's not even begin to think about the children's crusade. God must have wept at that one for sure. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts