Part 2 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

IMO, the laws of probability says this place would happen. Just as IMO, there is another place similar to ours. If not more.

 

Constantine united the RC group. Banished the Arian/orthodox? group.

 

The Christians by standing up to tyranny the tyrants, the tyrants become more violent against Christians and none Christians many also of them cloak themselves in the Christian religion not to embrace it but to exploit and hide behind it so they can continue their tyranny.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do you keep lying?

 

Constantine ended the persecution of Christians, he tried to unite Christianity not Catholicism, Catholics were always united. He failed because the Arians have totally different faith, Constantine successor would eventually revert back to persecuting Catholics and defend the Arian faith in the end the succeeding emperor would agree with the Catholic faith and banish the Arians that found refuge in the deserts of Saudi Arabia where Mohammed was influence and started his new heretical Christian religion called Islam.

 

Okay, right with you so far.

So, let me get this straight. You're arguing that the Caliphates weren't Arabian, even though they were situated in the Arabian Peninsula and their rulers were Arabs? And Arabic culture hasn't been cleansed, Islam just became a part of Arabian culture.

...What does that have to do with the caliphates being Arab?

No, they're Turks and Persians, respectively.

 

None of what you just blabbered on about addressed any of my points. You said that the Muslims forced the hand of the Crusaders. How? I've already told you that it was the Crusaders that were doing the massacring.

 

my questions are probably not "conventional" enough... Only a Catholic would u/stand my Qs...

but one Q i have is this

Why is life as a Christian (Catholic Christian) SO SO hard????

i mean Jesus told us to do some hard stuff

Love neighbor as you love self... yeh, right, Jesus... no disrepsect but... Do you know the ppl in my life???? hmmmm...

Jesus said (paraphrase) that most people dont make it to heaven

so how can we love these ppl who dont love Jesus much?

- - - Updated - - -

oh wait...

i do love them...

maybe i mean

How do we LIKE them?

how do we LIVE w/ them??

well, if they are not christians we don't live w/ them... 2 Cor 6:14

- - - Updated - - -

oh wait...

i do love them...

maybe i mean

How do we LIKE them?

how do we LIVE w/ them??

well, if they are not christians we don't live w/ them... 2 Cor 6:14

 

Can we really confide in the moral sincerity of our friends on the right, if they are unwilling to recognize a need to not spare any Tax (rod) burden on the wealthiest (children) during alleged and in that alternative, real times of war?

 

Quote Posted by The Wyrd of Gawd:

Jesus was accused of being a drunk. Paul said to drink wine for good health. Noah was a wino but he was also God's best pal. Lot was a drunk but God thought that he was righteous even if he did bang his daughters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus was sinless, consequently He could not have been a drunk and so His accusers are making a false claim...whoever they are or were.

Paul has never said drink wine for good health. Paul said to his friend Timothy, "Don't drink only water. You ought to drink a little wine for the sake of your stomach because you are sick so often." 1 Timothy 5:23 NLT

Let’s us look at this counsel more closely. In those days, physical ailments, such as dysentery, were common occurrences often due to contaminated water. Consequently, other ways of quenching thirst were often recommended.

Bible scholars say that Paul was referring to unfermented grape juice. Since the Greek word translated “wine” can mean either fermented wine or unfermented grape juice, they believe Paul would not give advice inconsistent with the rest of Scripture, which warns strongly against the use of intoxicating beverages—and that he is, therefore, advising Timothy to drink pure, unfermented grape juice.

Scripture does not tell us that Noah was a wino but it cetainly does tell us that one day Noah got drunk drinking wine. (Gen. 9:21)

So you can't assume he was a wino. There is no Scripture to support such a view, it is based on people's un proven assumptions.

God found favor with Noah because, "Noah was a righteous man, the only blameless person living on earth at the time, and he walked in close fellowship with God." Genesis 6:9 NLT

Here is part of the Scripture concerning Lot, "There are no men left anywhere in this entire area, so we can't get married like everyone else. And our father will soon be too old to have children. Come, lets get him drunk with wine, and then we will have sex with him. That way we will preserve our family line through our father. So that night they got him drunk with wine, and the older daughter went in and had intercourse with her father. He was unaware of her lying down or getting up again." Genesis 19:31-33 NLT

The same thing happened again with the younger daughter the next night they got their father drunk again and this time the younger daughter had sex with her father and again he was unaware of his daughter lying down or getting up again.

So once again you cannot assume that Lot was an habitual drunk and that he was aware of having sex with his daughters for Scripture tells us his daughters got him drunk and he was unaware of having sex with them.

Lastly there is no Scripture saying that God "thought" that Lot was righteous. God doesn't have to think about whether a person is righteous or not, for He knows everything instantaneously, being that He is omniscient.

 

Shouldn't it be "immoral" for people of religion to be guided by hypocrisy than sublime Truth (value)?

 

Do you think there would be a crusade if the Muslims were not waging wars against Christians? Or when Muslim armies invading and forcing Christians to submit to their rule? Or if Muslims have not destroy the Holy Sepulchre and attacking Christian pilgrims?

You just can not accept the fact that the crusade was in response to Muslim jihadist.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you think there would be a crusade if the Muslims were not waging wars against Christians? Or when Muslim armies invading and forcing Christians to submit to their rule? Or if Muslims have not destroy the Holy Sepulchre and attacking Christian pilgrims?

You just can not accept the fact that the crusade was in response to Muslim jihadist.

 

Because it is difficult to be pure good, only the saints are consider true Catholics.

It is better to give than to receive, that is why many people exploit and take advantage of Christians and when Christians fight back they are accuse of being hypocrites.

Tolerance and acceptance at the same time we need to be on guard because it is our Christian faith and traits that is consider our weakness. Look at what happen to the Middle East, that region use to be 50+% Christian before Mohammed conquered it in 680 AD it was home to Christian centre of learning Alexandria in Egypt, Antioch and Damascus in Syria, Jerusalem in Palestine and Constantinople in what is now Istanbul Turkey. All of those centre of learning and knowledge has disappear and Islamize because early Christians of those regions were too trustful, unlike the barbarians of Europe these Muslims are hardcore they will not hesitate to exterminate other people of faith.

 

Factually and historically speaking more people have commited atrocities over religious reasons than non-religious. However that doesnt mean non religious arent violent either. It just proves humans although intelligent dont really deserve what we have. As a total, we are an extremely violent species. Religious and non religious. History is history.

 

Sure I do. I even know that they most certainly would have. Do you think that the Muslims were the only targets of the Crusades? Do you not know of the Albigensian Crusade? The Church was launching Crusades left and right against people that challenged papal power. It just so happened to be that the Muslims were the biggest challenge.

If you really think that the Crusades were undertaken due to Muslim expansion and conquest, you may want to figure out why the papal authorities fought other Christians and killed Jews under the guise of the divine. You may also want to figure out why it took the Church hundreds of years to respond to Muslim conquest.

 

Your knowledge of history is very poor. For the first 1500 years of Christianity .. The Church was the cause of tyranny, oppression and subjugation .. combined with destruction of knowledge, genocide, theft and torture.

 

The Church teamed up with the king of France and rounded all the templars up .. tortured and killed them.

I never said Islam was not evil .. but the Catholic Church was definately pure evil.

You knowledge of history seems very limited .. just google "torture Catholic Church" .. and see what you come up with .. its quite horrific to be sure.

 

And religion provide hope to all that got caught or victims of those atrocities committed by both religious and none religious people. No known Catholic saints has committed any atrocities they all died for others both for the religious and none religious

 

It still point to one direction, the crusades was the result of Muslim aggression. So you are implying that Muslims and Christians colluded with each other? And when Muslims were becoming too greedy the Catholic leaders after 600 years decided to take their fair shares by initiating the holy crusades? That is a very out of this world conspiracy and even if it is true it proof one thing, Muslim leaders can not be trusted and it was them who betrayed the Christians by becoming too greedy thus the crusades was initiated to stop their greediness and double crossing the Christians, is that what this is???? uhm very interesting hypothesis.

 

Not as poor as yours, for the first 1500 years Christians were hunted, persecuted, no Christian army was needed to bring the entire Roman empire to embrace Christianity, Christian help free the slaves, face up to the barbarians and finally was the only force left, brave and able to face up and stop Muslim aggression. That is why you are able to post materials here thanks to the ancient crusades who made it possible for modern civilization as we see and experience now to thrive.

 

Your knowledge of history is biased here is a short true story of that period of the Templars, the Templars being the true soldiers of God and the Catholic church would be betrayed not by the Catholic church but by a pope who was spiritually weak and succumb to the French King wickedness to destroy the Templars. Many Templars survive and found refuge in other Catholic monastery that are out of reach of the French King. In the end, God will punish both the French King and the Pope both died months after the Grand Master of the Templars was burn alive.

 

As much as it pains me to say it GiftedOne he's right here. But that does not erase the atrocity committed by christians on other sects.

 

One of the reasons America became filled with Europeans.

 

Nothing is erase, but it is important not to pretend that Muslims or Islam are the good guys and that it was Islam's grand ambition to use force to spread their religion that started a chain of events that included forcing Christians to fight back.

 

The primary reason America is filled with Europeans is because Europe's society and technology allowed them to explore beyond what is known, while Muslims were being oppressed, suppressed from exploring science and technology because Muslim leaders see that as against Islam's ideology.

 

Well, you just proved that poster right with this post. The Church wasn't persecuted for 1,500 years nor did it help eliminate slavery.