Yeah, the days of abusing the Bible to justify violence are long gone

I'm sorry, did I label someone as something in this thread and not remember doing it?

As Beecher said, I gave you a label of Christian. Anyone can do it. Anyone can claim it and say they are. It does not mean that they practice Christianity. As Eric said in his last thread, the New Testament does not teach violence and anyone that uses violence under the guise of Christianity is a false Christian.
 
As Beecher said, I gave you a label of Christian. Anyone can do it. Anyone can claim it and say they are. It does not mean that they practice Christianity. As Eric said in his last thread, the New Testament does not teach violence and anyone that uses violence under the guise of Christianity is a false Christian.

Are you implying that the Crusaders weren't Christians?
 
Are you implying that the Crusaders weren't Christians?

The Crusaders were led by conquering kings and the Roman Catholic Church, and Catholicism isn't true Christianity. They saw Jerusalem as a treasure, and not the Holy Land, even though that's what they tried to equate it to. Also, trying to use a period in time that was over 800+ years ago to claim your argument is correct, without using recent history of the church, is also silly.
 
Any Christian who tries to justify violence, of any kind, as part of God's plan or path for his or herself, is VERY misinformed about what his plan really is and probably isn't the most sane person to start with. Also, I challenge anyone on this board to find me a passage in the New Testament, which is where we Christian's are in our beliefs, that condones any type of violence as being justified. If people that claim to be Christian EVER try and use the Old Testament as fodder for violence, then they are severely misinformed to being with and don't understand what their place is based on Biblical standards.

Theres not anywhere in the NT testament where violence is practiced. Those that use "Christianity" as their claim are "wolves in sheeps clothing".

:clap:
 
not again.....the last three posts CLEARLY said NEW Testament.......stop the baiting

I'm asking for clarification regarding his position, not baiting. I would expect someone of your intellectual prowess to know the difference.
 
I'm asking for clarification regarding his position, not baiting. I would expect someone of your intellectual prowess to know the difference.

Horse Shat....you have asked this same question several times to start your little "crusade" back up again
 
Are you implying that the Crusaders weren't Christians?

If you can show me where in the New Testament where violence is condoned and where The Crusaders got their "orders" from the New Testament, then I would have to say NO! You should be able to decide for yourself based on teachings of the NT if they were really Christians or just claiming the title of Christian.
 
Wow I'm sure there's more than a couple of people who will disagree with that
Posted via VolNation Mobile

They have added books to the Bible, worship Christ's mother, and allow homosexuals to serve as clergy. That's not even close to true Christianity.
 
So, since your the self-proclaimed expert to tell me it's not the truth, feel free to set me straight on the subject.

I think Jerry Falwell should stick to the recruiting forums.

1. They never did. The Catholic Church received the Septuagint version of the Hebrew scriptures, from the Jews, at the time of Christ. Seventy years later, the Jews removed 7 Old Testament books from the Septuagint.

2. They ask Mary to intercede, no more than asking your pastor to pray for you.

3. They have no more homosexuals than Protestants, just ask Ted Haggard.
 
The Roman Catholic church is not in favor of homosexual clergy, even though I see no problem with it.

Lutherans and Episcopalians/Anglicans maybe.
 
They have added books to the Bible, worship Christ's mother, and allow homosexuals to serve as clergy. That's not even close to true Christianity.

Enlighten me on true Christianity since Roman Catholicism came first.

Is it Methodist?

Baptist?

Lutheran?

Pentecostal?

Church of Christ?

You're always right, of course.
 
not again.....the last three posts CLEARLY said NEW Testament.......stop the baiting

Riiiight....I'm sure the crusaders never heard of the New Testament, or even that fellow named Christ. In fact, by the way some in this thread view things, because they used the Bible as a battle cry they were probably just warmed over Jews who only read the Old Testament.

With all this New Testament talk, the crusade point is perfectly valid. Same with the inquisition and witch hunts for that matter. If you want to say that these people didn't read the New Testament.....or weren't privy to it....all this Old Testament, old law rubbish is a cop-out. The people of the middle ages practiced Christianity, just because they lived in a less civil time doesn't take away from that. It certainly doesn't take away from it just because you see things differently living in a modern society with different morals.

The problem with Islam today is they never learned to behave, so to speak. All religions have skeletons in their closet, claiming the bad examples from history weren't followers is beyond bogus.
 
Last edited:
I think Jerry Falwell should stick to the recruiting forums.

1. They never did. The Catholic Church received the Septuagint version of the Hebrew scriptures, from the Jews, at the time of Christ. Seventy years later, the Jews removed 7 Old Testament books from the Septuagint.

2. They ask Mary to intercede, no more than asking your pastor to pray for you.

3. They have no more homosexuals than Protestants, just ask Ted Haggard.


Is this the best you can do?? Seriously, Jerry Falwell?? :rofl:

Catholicism and Biblical Christianity are very different, and thankfully I don't have to Google it, like you did, to understand the basic fundamental differences. If you don't mind me asking, are you Christian??
 
Is this the best you can do?? Seriously, Jerry Falwell?? :rofl:

Catholicism and Biblical Christianity are very different, and thankfully I don't have to Google it, like you did, to understand the basic fundamental differences. If you don't mind me asking, are you Christian??

I would assume Jerry Falwell would know the fundamental differences.

Moral Majority always knows best.
 
Is this the best you can do?? Seriously, Jerry Falwell?? :rofl:

Catholicism and Biblical Christianity are very different, and thankfully I don't have to Google it, like you did, to understand the basic fundamental differences. If you don't mind me asking, are you Christian??

This is like arguing whether leprechans or unicorns are more likely to be real.
 
Enlighten me on true Christianity since Roman Catholicism came first.

Is it Methodist?

Baptist?

Lutheran?

Pentecostal?

Church of Christ?

You're always right, of course.

Catholicism is a state sponsored religion, Biblical Christianity is not. Big difference. Catholicism started when Constantine made it the state religion of Roman Empire because of the persecutions of the Christian's, and the fact that the sculptors were losing so much money on their pagan statues. There are many fundamental differences in Catholicism and Biblical Christianity.
 
BTW, before people start throwing out denominations again, just know that I don't believe in them the way the world portrays them.
 

VN Store



Back
Top