Obama At National Prayer Breakfast

[5.56NATO]

At the National Prayer Breakfast, President Obama reminded attendees that violence rooted in religion isn’t exclusive to Islam, but has been carried out by Christians as well.

Obama said that even though religion is a source for good around the world, there will always be people willing to “hijack religion for their own murderous ends.”

“Unless we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ,” Obama said. “In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”

Obama also denounced Islamic State terrorists for professing to stand up for Islam when they were actually “betraying it.”

“We see ISIL, a brutal vicious death cult that in the name of religion carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism,” he said criticizing them for “claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions.”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/02/05/obama-at-national-prayer-breakfast-people-committed-terrible-deeds-in-the-name-of-christ/




See how 0bama is attempting to equivalate christianity with isis while simultaneously disconnecting isis from islam? So far everything I've read about islam is being put into action by isis and the rest of the jihadsters.

And that's not all for Resident 0bama, behold;


Perpetrators of Sudan’s Genocide Invited to the National Prayer Breakfast
Sudan’s foreign minister, a hardcore Islamist with a long history of orchestrating mass atrocities and other crimes against humanity, has been invited to attend the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, DC on Thursday, February 4.

The National Prayer Breakfast is an annual event hosted by members of the United States Congress and organized on their behalf by The Fellowship Foundation. Religious and political leaders from around the world are invited to the breakfast, also known as the “Presidential Prayer Breakfast,” since the President of the United States is always in attendance. Reportedly, in addition to foreign minister Ali Ahmed Karti, the U.S. State Department has invited Dr. Ibrahim Ghandur, the deputy chairman of the National Congress Party – Sudan’s ruling political party – to the breakfast.

Sudanese and American activists will gather outside the event’s Washington Hilton location at 9:00 a.m. to protest the inclusion of these representatives of Sudan’s genocidal government as attendees are exiting the hotel. They have also created an online petition to the National Prayer Breakfast’s 2015 co-chairs, Senators Robert Casey (D-PA) and Roger Wicker (R-MS), along with Fellowship Foundation leader, Douglas Coe, urging that the invitation to Karti be rescinded.
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/02/04/perpetrators-of-sudans-genocide-invited-to-the-national-prayer-breakfast/

[alismith]

His speech sort of sounds like a similar dialog that I've heard right here, by one of our resident socialists, comparing Islam to Christianity.

Go figure.

[jet3534]

His speech sort of sounds like a similar dialog that I've heard right here, by one of our resident socialists, comparing Islam to Christianity.

Go figure.

He compares Christian action in the middle ages to Islamic action in the present time. Just more of the moral equivalence demonstrated by libs.

[Oswald Bastable]

He compares Christian action in the middle ages to Islamic action in the present time. Just more of the moral equivalence demonstrated by libs.

Yup, for libtards, two wrongs always make a right, as long as it follows the marxist agenda.

[L1A1Rocker]

Bambam demonstrates more and more often that he is anti Christian. I don't know what his faith is, but he is no Christian.

[Kadmos]

What you all seem to miss is that it's not about Christian bashing, or about putting them on some sort of equal level.

It's about saying "Muslims aren't the only ones who have historically used religion as an excuse to commit violent or vile acts"

This can happen in pretty much any religion, and sorry, but historically "Christianity" has been one of the worst.

Again, not saying Christians or Christianity are bad, simply saying that plenty of Christians have, and continue to, use their faith as a way to try to infringe on others.

There are Jews, ultra orthodox, who in Israel were cursing at, even spitting on little girls because they believed their attire was inappropriate.

Most Jews would say that's a terrible thing. Just like most Christians would say bombing an abortion clinic is a terrible thing, just like most Muslims would say beheading a captive is a terrible thing.

Nonetheless, there are those in each religion that would do those things. And they would claim they are right to do so.

The lesson isn't two wrongs make a right, it's that two wrongs make two wrongs, and we need to understand that the wrongs that come out of any particular religion aren't indicative of the entire, or even the majority, of that religion.

It's not excusing Muslims or degrading Christians, it's saying Religion can, and has been used as a call for violence.

[Oswald Bastable]

And the spin begins here!

[Kadmos]

And the spin begins here!

Like there was no spin in this little gem?



Yup, for libtards, two wrongs always make a right, as long as it follows the marxist agenda.

[Oswald Bastable]

And so IT proves, that indeed, two perceived wrongs, make a right...

Brilliant!

Let us now accept any and all depravity, based on said philosophy.

Moral equivalence is always based upon a lack of morals.

[Kadmos]

And so IT proves, that indeed, two perceived wrongs, make a right...

Brilliant!

Let us now accept any and all depravity, based on said philosophy.

Moral equivalence is always based upon a lack of morals.

I didn't admit to any "spin", I merely pointed out the hypocrisy of you claiming spin, when what you said was nothing but spin.

Had you actually read what I said you would see it wasn't about "moral equivalency" it was about extremists using religion as an excuse for violence, and other people using those acts of violence to condemn an entire religion.

The problem isn't the religion, the problem is the people who commit acts of violence.

But I will admit part of the reason this kind of thing is said is to make you understand that were the problem actually to be the religion, and thus you deem the religion not worthy of existence...then Christianity would have to be considered hardly worthy of existence either.

The problem is pointing the finger at Islam is not just ignoring the history of other religions, but it continues the cycle of hatred, and becomes part of the problem.

[Oswald Bastable]

Ah...IT has schooled me, to make me understand the righteousness of death by evil...it's not really evil if it can be shown to have happened historically...

By that dictum, the final solution was an apt reaction to historical, world and national events.

A very good thing to know, moving forward...

Ack...


There are Jews, ultra orthodox, who in Israel were cursing at, even spitting on little girls because they believed their attire was inappropriate.

is analogous to burning people alive, crucifying them, stoning them to death, chopping their heads off...

No, there's no application of moral equivalence going on here...move along folks...

[LAGC]

Oswald is just pissed that Obama stopped telling lies long enough to tell the truth for a change.

And Christianity's ugly history is a truth that needs to be told, repeatedly and often, lest history ever repeat itself.

:coffee:

[Oswald Bastable]

Strangely enough, IT doesn't understand that history is repeating, right before IT's eyes.

And still IT attempts moral equivalence.

Is there any further proof needed of the moral degeneracy of the left?

[LAGC]

You need to specify which IT you're talking about. Otherwise people might get confused. :o

[Oswald Bastable]

IT thinks there's a difference...

Now that's funny!!!

[LAGC]

C'mon, Oswald. You've been around long enough to know that Kadmos plays good cop and I play bad cop.

Don't be arrogant, now...

:coffee:

[Oswald Bastable]

And IT even believes we give a shit...

Now that is even funnier...

[LAGC]

You obviously do, or you wouldn't be hiding behind the object pronouns. :D

[Oswald Bastable]

Object pronouns matter...

Particularly when some of us are human, and others are less than such.

Kinda like those damned dirty jooos...

You do know the whole purpose of that breakfast was to reinstitute the idea that the jews should be annihilated, yes?

But hey...you and it feel free to advance all your useless, socialist ideas, again and again...and also feel free to try to distance yourself from implementation of same...which has resulted in over a billion deaths.

Never let it be said a marxist let death of a fellow man stopped him...as long as it wasn't his...

[LAGC]

Object pronouns matter...

Particularly when some of us are human, and others are less than such.

Just remember, my friend... some of the worst atrocities in human history happened when some group of humans thought certain others were "less than such."

That's not an atmosphere you ever want to be finding yourself on the receiving end of, especially if you think that's the direction we are heading in this country.

Just sayin'... :conf44:

[Kadmos]

Ah...IT has schooled me, to make me understand the righteousness of death by evil...it's not really evil if it can be shown to have happened historically...

By that dictum, the final solution was an apt reaction to historical, world and national events.

A very good thing to know, moving forward...

Ack...

Man you are thick. No one is saying it's not evil. What is being said is the evil acts committed by some do not mean the religion itself is evil.

But it does mean that the religion can be turned to evil purposes.

Some have used the religion of Islam to do evil in its name.

Just as some used the religion of Christianity to do evil it its name.

The question is what is the "takeaway"?

Either both religions are of themselves evil, or both have been at some point twisted by some to do evil it the name of the religion.


There is one thing that is certain....either religion can be fairly easily twisted into a force for evil, death, destruction, even genocide.




is analogous to burning people alive, crucifying them, stoning them to death, chopping their heads off...

No, there's no application of moral equivalence going on here...move along folks...

No, it's not analogous. But for the most part Jews don't have the same sort of history as Christians or as Muslims. Long before the common era we had stopped trying to make war, we never did try to convert people by force, nor did we ever care if non-Jews lived in "our" lands....so long as they didn't try to stop us practicing our religion in peace.

We didn't seek to conquer, nor did we spend time thinking up interesting and novel ways to torture fellow human beings.

Am sure of course there have been incidents that could be compared to some small degree.

But the fact is Jews have no history of say rounding up 50 Christians and burning them alive, in contrast to an incident in Blois, France where the opposite was in fact done. Far from the only incident, another incident saw 100 burned alive, another 600, another 2,000.


Yet somehow I still say most Christians are basically good people....just like I say most Muslims are.

[Oswald Bastable]

Just remember, my friend... some of the worst atrocities in human history happened when some group of humans thought certain others were "less than such."

That's not an atmosphere you ever want to be finding yourself on the receiving end of, especially if you think that's the direction we are heading in this country.

Just sayin'... :conf44:

A. Good...prevalence of helping, encouraging life, encouraging honest business, encouraging honest lives, livelihoods, actions, outcomes.

B. Bad...prevelance of denigrating, discouraging self-sufficiency, encouraging envy, encouraging taking without earning, encouraging lies without end...

Which of the two are more beneficial to society...over all?

It's A or B...those are the only two options in this poll...

Choose!

[LAGC]

A. Good...prevalence of helping, encouraging life, encouraging honest business, encouraging honest lives, livelihoods, actions, outcomes.

B. Bad...prevelance of denigrating, discouraging self-sufficiency, encouraging envy, encouraging taking without earning, encouraging lies without end...

Which of the two are more beneficial to society...over all?

It's A or B...those are the only two options in this poll...

Choose!

That's the root problem with conservative thinking, my friend. Nature doesn't work in black-and-white.

There are very few moral absolutes in this universe. The sooner we all recognize that, the sooner we all get along.

Conservatives tend to think people are inherently bad, "sinners" from birth, or otherwise wayward if they don't have a strict authoritarian upbringing to "show them the way."

Liberals tend to think people are inherently good, but that institutions corrupt them and cause them to be greedy or evil.

I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle. Not "Choice A" or "Choice B."

[Oswald Bastable]

Man you are thick.

Not really...evil is evil...yes?

And one who denies evil should at least be able to separate evils past, from evils present, yes?

Unless of course one is attempting some form of equivalence...which is obviously the case here.

Hey, let's go 2000+ years back to the destruction of Jericho...you rotten bastard jews...you fucks are no different from Christians, it was just earlier in history...right? You were just as evil as the Christians of the crusades yes? Biblical depictions of battles show jews were as violent and vindictive as any Christian or Muslim since AD times....yes?

Moral equivalence is a very slippery slope...hence the reason for 10 specific commandments.

However, in come cases it seems it depends on whose ox is being gored....and how much time has passed since said ox, was gored...

[Oswald Bastable]

That's the root problem with conservative thinking, my friend. Nature doesn't work in black-and-white.

There are very few moral absolutes in this universe. The sooner we all recognize that, the sooner we all get along.

Conservatives tend to think people are inherently bad, "sinners" from birth, or otherwise wayward if they don't have a strict authoritarian upbringing to "show them the way."

Liberals tend to think people are inherently good, but that institutions corrupt them and cause them to be greedy or evil.

I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle. Not "Choice A" or "Choice B."

I knew you were incapable of making a choice.

But here's where you're wrong.

Conservatives tend to think people are inherently good...this is why they start businesses and hire people to work for them. They believe people want to make their mark on the world, they accept that, and try to enhance abilities for people to do so.

Liberals tend to think people are corrupt, therefore they need to be directed, channeled and forced to accept a party (marxist) line in order force them into conformation with an unworldly belief.

There is no "middle" there....

There is freedom on the one side, and tyranny on the other.

We know well which side you fall under.

[LAGC]

Conservatives tend to think people are inherently good...this is why they start businesses and hire people to work for them. They believe people want to make their mark on the world, they accept that, and try to enhance abilities for people to do so.

Bullshit. Most people don't start businesses as a "public service" -- they do so to line their own pockets. If they can make more money by getting workers underneath them to do the work for them while they sit back and roll in the profits, all the better from their selfish, greedy perspective.


Liberals tend to think people are corrupt, therefore they need to be directed, channeled and forced to accept a party (marxist) line in order force them into conformation with an unworldly belief.

Ah, but see... that's where you are wrong, grasshopper. Liberals aren't Marxists.

Marxists also believe in quite a few moral absolutes. Whereas liberals don't. That's what makes this country so special.

By and large, we tolerate each other and live and let live. We don't get to force authoritarian ideologies down each other's throats at gunpoint, although we can certainly try to persuade each other that our beliefs are more correct.

But I understand that you are so far off to the right that even the political center looks like radical leftism to you.

[Oswald Bastable]

Bullshit. Most people don't start businesses as a "public service" -- they do so to line their own pockets. If they can make more money by getting workers underneath them to do the work for them while they sit back and roll in the profits, all the better from their selfish, greedy perspective.

DOH!!! Silly me, people invest money to make more money....and that's so blatantly evil...

And in the process they create jobs that raise others up from nothing...and that's so blatantly evil...

And it's particularly evil if the guy who put all the money up front initially, gains the most at the end...cuz he tricked all those people into taking good jobs that made him rich, despite the fact that him not starting this business would mean those jobs were never created...

You and Kad, really are very stupid men.

[LAGC]

DOH!!! Silly me, people invest money to make more money....and that's so blatantly evil...

And in the process they create jobs that raise others up from nothing...and that's so blatantly evil...

Perhaps it's as "good" as we can do for now, with our current state of limited resources. But no need to sugar-coat it.

I mean, Ayn Rand may have been a selfish, cold-hearted atheist bitch, but at least she didn't try to beat around the bush about what capitalism was all about.

Capitalists believe first and foremost that "Greed is good." -- OWN it, and don't try to claim it's a Biblical concept either.


And it's particularly evil if the guy who put all the money up front initially, gains the most at the end...cuz he tricked all those people into taking good jobs that made him rich, despite the fact that him not starting this business would mean those jobs were never created...

If there's a demand for a given good or service, there will always be a supply. Doesn't matter who does the "job creating."

[Kadmos]

Not really...evil is evil...yes?

And one who denies evil should at least be able to separate evils past, from evils present, yes?

Unless of course one is attempting some form of equivalence...which is obviously the case here.

Hey, let's go 2000+ years back to the destruction of Jericho...you rotten bastard jews...you fucks are no different from Christians, it was just earlier in history...right? You were just as evil as the Christians of the crusades yes? Biblical depictions of battles show jews were as violent and vindictive as any Christian or Muslim since AD times....yes?

Moral equivalence is a very slippery slope...hence the reason for 10 specific commandments.

However, in come cases it seems it depends on whose ox is being gored....and how much time has passed since said ox, was gored...

You must have missed this bit


....Long before the common era we had stopped trying to make war...

I'm not trying to deny the history of my people, and I know there are those who still do things that I consider evil in my religion's name.

Thankfully, it hardly compares to what has been done in Christianity's name...or in Islam's.

It doesn't give mine "a pass", it could happen again...although it's unlikely. The most likely thing that may make it come to pass is the violence of many Muslims. If we give into the easy and false thought that Islam itself is the problem then we Jews might slip into the same moral bankruptcy that has led to other genocides.

Historically though, my religion grew out of it, and rather quickly. Whereas Christianity grew into it, twisting messages of peace and tolerance into hate and war. And Christianity stayed in that mindset for darn close to 2,000 years. And sadly a large part of the mindset still exists.


Your other post was more interesting to me, content wise.


A. Good...prevalence of helping, encouraging life, encouraging honest business, encouraging honest lives, livelihoods, actions, outcomes.

B. Bad...prevelance of denigrating, discouraging self-sufficiency, encouraging envy, encouraging taking without earning, encouraging lies without end...

Which of the two are more beneficial to society...over all?

It's A or B...those are the only two options in this poll...

Choose!

What is it you see as "A" or "B"? Christianity compared to Islam? Conservatism compared to liberalism?

Have you accurately portrayed either?

Shall we deconstruct?


A. Good...prevalence of helping, encouraging life, encouraging honest business, encouraging honest lives, livelihoods, actions, outcomes.

Where does either liberalism or Islam fail at these? Liberalism considers helping others to be a great good, as does Islam, neither teaches dishonesty, both believe in something akin to "karma". Do good and you will be rewarded, or at least have the satisfaction of doing good.


B. Bad...prevelance of denigrating, discouraging self-sufficiency, encouraging envy, encouraging taking without earning, encouraging lies without end...

"prevalence of denigrating"....coming from a guy who calls other people "it"? Refers to some youths as "Obama's kids", tells us strangers who come to our country are disease ridden filth?

Liberalism tends to see all people as valuable, conservatism tends to bitch about undesirables, portraying them as less than human. Islam isn't great with the "stranger"..I'll grant that. But they do at least offer some protection for other faiths. Even if it requires payment. The prevalent theme in Christianity is that poor heathen souls need to be brought into the fold, sometimes by force. And at times has decided when they wouldn't accept the "gift" of Christianity the best option was t kill them...perhaps after some torture.

Even if Christians have mostly stopped that, they still tend to look at non-Christians as either poor souls who need salvation, which they can only find through Jesus..or they are unrepentant heathens who will surely burn in hell.

"discouraging self-sufficiency". Seems to me most of the teachers are liberals...how can you "teach a man to fish" if you won't be a teacher? Seems to me more Conservatives tend to be dismissive of education. Yes most liberals believe in a "safety net", and you can call that "discouraging self sufficiency" if you wish. Personally I think that's a dim view of a sadly necessary system. But lets be honest...telling someone they should be more self sufficient, isn't the same as "encouraging" it. Mostly it's just being a judgmental dick and writing it off as "not my problem".

That one might be ok if you are putting it on conservatives, but not so much for Christians...at least what I think of as "real Christians" following the words of Jesus. Who by the way was fine with handing out free loaves and fish.

Those one's help open up soup kitchens, stock and run them. They help charities and seem fine with the idea of handing out free stuff.

Frankly, I think you might be confusing good with bad, or bad with good, as it were.

But you surely aren't about practicing what you preach.

[Oswald Bastable]

Perhaps it's as "good" as we can do for now, with our current state of limited resources. But no need to sugar-coat it.

I mean, Ayn Rand may have been a selfish, cold-hearted atheist bitch, but at least she didn't try to beat around the bush about what capitalism was all about.

Capitalists believe first and foremost that "Greed is good." -- OWN it, and don't try to claim it's a Biblical concept either.



If there's a demand for a given good or service, there will always be a supply. Doesn't matter who does the "job creating."

And now you have a basic grasp upon human nature...which drives all impulses...politically and socially...

Imagine that...people, personally invested in what's in it for them....

And you somehow believe you can alter that...based on laws, rules, fines, etc...

The stupid lives hard in your heart, does it not?

[Oswald Bastable]

You must have missed this bit



I'm not trying to deny the history of my people, and I know there are those who still do things that I consider evil in my religion's name.

Thankfully, it hardly compares to what has been done in Christianity's name...or in Islam's.

It doesn't give mine "a pass", it could happen again...although it's unlikely. The most likely thing that may make it come to pass is the violence of many Muslims. If we give into the easy and false thought that Islam itself is the problem then we Jews might slip into the same moral bankruptcy that has led to other genocides.

Historically though, my religion grew out of it, and rather quickly. Whereas Christianity grew into it, twisting messages of peace and tolerance into hate and war. And Christianity stayed in that mindset for darn close to 2,000 years. And sadly a large part of the mindset still exists.


Your other post was more interesting to me, content wise.


What is it you see as "A" or "B"? Christianity compared to Islam? Conservatism compared to liberalism?

Have you accurately portrayed either?

Shall we deconstruct?



Where does either liberalism or Islam fail at these? Liberalism considers helping others to be a great good, as does Islam, neither teaches dishonesty, both believe in something akin to "karma". Do good and you will be rewarded, or at least have the satisfaction of doing good.



"prevalence of denigrating"....coming from a guy who calls other people "it"? Refers to some youths as "Obama's kids", tells us strangers who come to our country are disease ridden filth?

Liberalism tends to see all people as valuable, conservatism tends to bitch about undesirables, portraying them as less than human. Islam isn't great with the "stranger"..I'll grant that. But they do at least offer some protection for other faiths. Even if it requires payment. The prevalent theme in Christianity is that poor heathen souls need to be brought into the fold, sometimes by force. And at times has decided when they wouldn't accept the "gift" of Christianity the best option was t kill them...perhaps after some torture.

Even if Christians have mostly stopped that, they still tend to look at non-Christians as either poor souls who need salvation, which they can only find through Jesus..or they are unrepentant heathens who will surely burn in hell.

"discouraging self-sufficiency". Seems to me most of the teachers are liberals...how can you "teach a man to fish" if you won't be a teacher? Seems to me more Conservatives tend to be dismissive of education. Yes most liberals believe in a "safety net", and you can call that "discouraging self sufficiency" if you wish. Personally I think that's a dim view of a sadly necessary system. But lets be honest...telling someone they should be more self sufficient, isn't the same as "encouraging" it. Mostly it's just being a judgmental dick and writing it off as "not my problem".

That one might be ok if you are putting it on conservatives, but not so much for Christians...at least what I think of as "real Christians" following the words of Jesus. Who by the way was fine with handing out free loaves and fish.

Those one's help open up soup kitchens, stock and run them. They help charities and seem fine with the idea of handing out free stuff.

Frankly, I think you might be confusing good with bad, or bad with good, as it were.

But you surely aren't about practicing what you preach.

Blah, Blah, Blah....

Piss off Jew...your time is ending.

That is the current political reality...get over it...your people are dead to the world.

[LAGC]

You seem a bit flustered and cranky this early in the morning, Oswald.

Is there something you want to share with us? Don't hold back, now...

:coffee:

[Oswald Bastable]

You seem a bit flustered and cranky this early in the morning, Oswald.

Is there something you want to share with us? Don't hold back, now...

You seem to be a bit dense, as to basic human nature...something examined and dissected in writings, philosophy, and history for, oh, say, 10,000 years...

Is there something you'd like to share with us...you know, that whole maxist bent that goes against 10,000 years of history...

[Kadmos]

Blah, Blah, Blah....

Piss off Jew...your time is ending.

That is the current political reality...get over it...your people are dead to the world.

We outlasted the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, Nazi's, and a dozens other empires.

When the sun grows cold we will likely still be here. We still have many of the best minds and artists.

Not only do we endure, we thrive.

We can outlast anyone. Of this I have no doubt.

I do sympathize with your jealousy though. Perhaps if you got your people to try a bit harder you might catch up ;)

[Oswald Bastable]

We outlasted the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Greeks, Romans, Nazi's, and a dozens other empires.

When the sun grows cold we will likely still be here. We still have many of the best minds and artists.

Not only do we endure, we thrive.

We can outlast anyone. Of this I have no doubt.

I do sympathize with your jealousy though. Perhaps if you got your people to try a bit harder you might catch up ;)

Well of course you do!

That was the covenant, wasn't it?

Jealousy...funny...

And people wonder why Jews are surprised when others find them officious...

[Oswald Bastable]

To all other GNS members....

Note how this thread has trended...how certain members have directed this thread...how they've attempted to dominate it...

Interesting, no?

[LAGC]

Oh, you schooled us bro, clearly.

Where would GunsNet be without such bold stewards as yourself "vanquishing libtards" and bringing threads back on topic all the time? :p

[Oswald Bastable]

Oh, you schooled us bro, clearly.

Where would GunsNet be without such bold stewards as yourself "vanquishing libtards" and bringing threads back on topic all the time? :p

Is that analysis because you've endeavored so strongly to keep this thread on track, or just because you desire so strongly to take it off track?

[LAGC]

Is that analysis because you've endeavored so strongly to keep this thread on track, or just because you desire so strongly to take it off track?

I was being more than a little facetious, my friend.

Unless you think Kadmos and I were the ones who introduced such weighty topics as "good and evil", "businesses as charity projects", and politics in general into this thread.

[ltorlo64]

He compares Christian action in the middle ages to Islamic action in the present time. Just more of the moral equivalence demonstrated by libs.

By saying this you fall right into the trap. He compares the actions of the Catholic church to Christianity. The Catholic church was actively preventing people from having access to the Bible and killing/persecuting anyone who had one or who pointed out that the Catholic church's actions and beliefs were not in line with the Biblical teachings. Catholicism and the Catholic church has been attempting to take over Christianity since about 200 AD (or CE). Catholicism is the belief behind the actions of the Crusades and the Inquisition, not Christianity.

Just to be clear, I am not talking about Catholics, who are people doing the best they can with the knowledge they have, as we all are. I am talking about the institution, the power seeking entity that seeks to progress self-interested beliefs above what is taught in the Bible.

[alismith]

By saying this you fall right into the trap. He compares the actions of the Catholic church to Christianity. The Catholic church was actively preventing people from having access to the Bible and killing/persecuting anyone who had one or who pointed out that the Catholic church's actions and beliefs were not in line with the Biblical teachings. Catholicism and the Catholic church has been attempting to take over Christianity since about 200 AD (or CE). Catholicism is the belief behind the actions of the Crusades and the Inquisition, not Christianity.

Just to be clear, I am not talking about Catholics, who are people doing the best they can with the knowledge they have, as we all are. I am talking about the institution, the power seeking entity that seeks to progress self-interested beliefs above what is taught in the Bible.

Good point.

[LAGC]

By saying this you fall right into the trap. He compares the actions of the Catholic church to Christianity. The Catholic church was actively preventing people from having access to the Bible and killing/persecuting anyone who had one or who pointed out that the Catholic church's actions and beliefs were not in line with the Biblical teachings. Catholicism and the Catholic church has been attempting to take over Christianity since about 200 AD (or CE). Catholicism is the belief behind the actions of the Crusades and the Inquisition, not Christianity.

Just to be clear, I am not talking about Catholics, who are people doing the best they can with the knowledge they have, as we all are. I am talking about the institution, the power seeking entity that seeks to progress self-interested beliefs above what is taught in the Bible.

I love how modern-day Christians keep trying to divorce themselves from the original Church that can trace its roots clear back to the original disciples.

None of the modern-day denominations were around back in the beginning -- ALL of them splintered off of the "Roman" Church, most of them during the Protestant Reformation and all its off-shoots.

It amazes me how little so many Christians know about their own history.

If not for the (Roman Catholic) Church, chances are you'd be a Muslim right now. And just as sure Islam was the one true faith, simply because you were taught it as a child.

[ltorlo64]

I love how modern-day Christians keep trying to divorce themselves from the original Church that can trace its roots clear back to the original disciples.

None of the modern-day denominations were around back in the beginning -- ALL of them splintered off of the "Roman" Church, most of them during the Protestant Reformation and all its off-shoots.

It amazes me how little so many Christians know about their own history.

If not for the (Roman Catholic) Church, chances are you'd be a Muslim right now. And just as sure Islam was the one true faith, simply because you were taught it as a child.

Actually, all modern day "Christian" denominations came from Jesus' teachings. The Roman Catholic church did not emerge for about 200-300 years after Jesus' death and not everyone followed their teachings. In fact, some spoke very forcefully that the teachings that the Catholic church was advancing was not in accordance with the Bible. By saying that all "Christian" denominations came from Catholic teachings is to show a marked lack of understanding of history and a severe indoctrination in the Catholic version of "Christian" heritage.

[LAGC]

Actually, all modern day "Christian" denominations came from Jesus' teachings. The Roman Catholic church did not emerge for about 200-300 years after Jesus' death and not everyone followed their teachings.

In the early years, there many heretical "Christian" belief systems, none of them remotely resembling any denomination around today. That's why the Romans held the Council of Nicea to unify Christian ideology, which is where they decided on which specific books to include in the Bible.

That Bible, by the way, that the Church had sole custody of and maintained throughout the centuries, including the entire Dark Ages, which is the only reason any modern-day denominations are even able to have access to those writings today, even if they have been modified somewhat from the original Catholic version.


In fact, some spoke very forcefully that the teachings that the Catholic church was advancing was not in accordance with the Bible. By saying that all "Christian" denominations came from Catholic teachings is to show a marked lack of understanding of history and a severe indoctrination in the Catholic version of "Christian" heritage.

What does your church teach you about its history? I'm genuinely curious, if you don't mind sharing.

[L1A1Rocker]

The Crusades were a response to the slaughter of Christians at the hands of muslims. The slaughter of Christians at the hands of muslims has begun again. . .

[Kadmos]

Well of course you do!

That was the covenant, wasn't it?

Yes it was. However, putting that aside, we've shown we are capable of enduring.


Jealousy...funny...

And people wonder why Jews are surprised when others find them officious...

Yes jealousy. Sorry, but it's demonstrably true that we are in fact better than most other types of people, possibly all. We are markedly more intelligent, we tend towards success, both in terms of professional excellence and financial gain. We contribute to society to a degree far exceeding our small numbers.

Yet we don't go all "master race" about it. All things considered I think we're rather humble concerning our obvious superiority ;)

Sadly though, our mere existence tends to stand as a constant reminder to many other people of their obvious shortcomings and failures.

Personally, I thing our success should inspire you to really grab those bootstraps and pull yourself up to the next level of human achievement, or at least basic competency.

The way you look down on lets say, black people, really is the way Jews should look down on you. Statically the gaps are relatively the same.

Yet that's not us. We tend towards liberalism, thinking everyone has value, and should have basic human rights and be treated with human dignity.

Maybe on occasion this attitude peeks through from a Jews, but the bulk of it is far more likely to be you projecting that on us simply because of how aware you must obviously be of your own failure to measure up. But in our defense, it can be exasperating dealing with people who are simply incapable of understanding.

So please forgive us if we occasionally seem snide, and do remember overall that we do go to great lengths to stand up for your rights, aren't generally dismissive of others, and haven't tried to become your outright masters out of our normal human instincts to protect the weak minded for their own good and safety.


In case any of you aren't getting it, this post is more than a bit "tongue in cheek" poking fun at some of the biases throughout history. Sad that I need to point that out, but so few on this board are Jewish, so I suppose it's probably necessary ;)

[5.56NATO]

The crusades were pretty much the same thing going on now, muslims were attacking christians who were going on a pilgrimage to Israel back then.... now they attack christians anywhere for any reason. And shortly after the US was founded, muslims attacked our shipping, wich provoked Thomas Jefferson to buy a koran to understand what drove the criminals while our navy defeated the muslims.

And then we have this treatise of jew and proto-islamic Persian upon christian violence;
"According to Antiochus Strategos, a 7th century monk who witnessed the Persian conquest of Jerusalem, an "unprecedented looting and sacrilege" occurred shortly after the Persian army entered Jerusalem. "Church after church was burned down alongside the innumerable Christian artifacts, which were stolen or damaged by the ensuing arson". However, a careful survey of the available archaeological finds from Jerusalem reveals no clear evidence of destruction or damage in churches and monasteries that can be associated with the Persian conquest. Instead, all excavated sites in Jerusalem show a clear pattern of continuity, with no evidence for destruction by the Persian conquest of 614. No other source supports the claim that the Jews were responsible for the massacre of the Christian population.

Antiochus Strategos also claimed that many Christians were captured and held for ransom. Jews offered to help them escape if they "become Jews and deny Christ". The Christian captives refused this offer. The Jews then purchased the Christians from the Persians and massacred them. He claimed that the total Christian death toll was 66,509.

The immediate results of the conquest of Jerusalem by a Persian-Jewish force filled the Jews with joy and pride. Many Christians became Jews through fear. The Jews were free from the Christian yoke for about fourteen years. They hoped that King Khosrau would permit them to establish a Jewish commonwealth. Some suggest that such an autonomous Jewish province was indeed established. If so, it barely got off the ground before the tide turned."
http://www.jewishmag.com/161mag/persian_conquest_jerusalem/persian_conquest_jerusalem.htm

So yeah lots of blood shed by religious criminals.

[ltorlo64]

If not for the (Roman Catholic) Church, chances are you'd be a Muslim right now. And just as sure Islam was the one true faith, simply because you were taught it as a child.

Is this why you are an atheist, because your parents taught you there was no god as a child?


In the early years, there many heretical "Christian" belief systems, none of them remotely resembling any denomination around today. That's why the Romans held the Council of Nicea to unify Christian ideology, which is where they decided on which specific books to include in the Bible.

This is a very Catholic leaning view of these events. There were some heretical belief systems, some are even talked about in the New Testament, the books that were added to what was already considered the Scriptures. The Council of Nicea did not necessarily stop heresy but pushed all groups to accept the same heresies and then provide the power necessary to crush any who did not accept the heresies the Council decided on.


That Bible, by the way, that the Church had sole custody of and maintained throughout the centuries, including the entire Dark Ages, which is the only reason any modern-day denominations are even able to have access to those writings today, even if they have been modified somewhat from the original Catholic version.

You need to do some study on how the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments, came to be and how they progressed through history. Don't forget to see how writings that have been found that are older than the Catholic church support the writings we have now. I find the subject of the history of the Bible and the Church (not the Catholic church but the Church is described in various places by Paul, the body of believers) a very interesting source of study.


What does your church teach you about its history? I'm genuinely curious, if you don't mind sharing.

I recommend you read a book called "The Great Controversy." It follows the body of believers from the destruction of Jerusalem, where they still worshipped at the Temple, through time as they were persecuted and hunted by the Catholic church in its attempt to control all religious thought, up till Napoleon takes the Pope prisoner and effectively breaks Rome's stranglehold on religious practices and beliefs. It is interesting stuff, especially in light of what is going on around us now.

[LAGC]

Is this why you are an atheist, because your parents taught you there was no god as a child?

No, I was born and raised Eastern (Greek) Orthodox and remained devout for the first 15 years of my life. But even my childhood church didn't deny that it broke off from the Catholics in the 11th century over the policies of the pope of the day. That's why I find it so incredulous that so many Protestant Christians today try to deny that their ideology broke off from the Catholics, just a few hundred years later.

The fact remains that most people remain in the same church they are raised in from birth, or convert to whatever religion happens to be "in vogue" in mainstream society of any given country at any given time. It takes a rare breed to buck "pop culture" and choose a path different from everyone else.


I recommend you read a book called "The Great Controversy." It follows the body of believers from the destruction of Jerusalem, where they still worshipped at the Temple, through time as they were persecuted and hunted by the Catholic church in its attempt to control all religious thought, up till Napoleon takes the Pope prisoner and effectively breaks Rome's stranglehold on religious practices and beliefs. It is interesting stuff, especially in light of what is going on around us now.

That sounds like a distinctly Protestant revisionist history to me, my friend. Authored by no less than one Ellen G. White I see. ;)

Sounds kind of similar to the Jehovah's Witness version of events, how their church was "underground" the whole-time, persecuted by the (Roman) Church and just happened to pop back up "above-ground" within the last 100 years, conveniently enough for modern times.

But I might just check it out. I must confess, the SDA is one denomination I know quite little about, unlike the Jehovahs and Mormons who are all over the place around here and keep coming to my door handing out "spiritual" propaganda and trying to convert me to their false prophets. ;)

[ltorlo64]

No, I was born and raised Eastern (Greek) Orthodox and remained devout for the first 15 years of my life. But even my childhood church didn't deny that it broke off from the Catholics in the 11th century over the policies of the pope of the day. That's why I find it so incredulous that so many Protestant Christians today try to deny that their ideology broke off from the Catholics, just a few hundred years later.

The fact remains that most people remain in the same church they are raised in from birth, or convert to whatever religion happens to be "in vogue" in mainstream society of any given country at any given time. It takes a rare breed to buck "pop culture" and choose a path different from everyone else.

The fact is, as you and I are both examples of, we make our own decisions and no one else can be blamed for them. Where most people go wrong is by trying to group huge sections of people together as one. For instance, getting back to the original post, calling all those Europeans who took part in the Crusades "Christian." Most people think there were two groups of people in the Crusades (three if you count the Jewish people, but they were generally lumped with Christians as they were not Muslim), Muslims, or Arabs, and Christians, or non-Arabs. This is a very lazy understanding of the people that were there. What makes us Christian, Muslim, or Atheist (or any other religious belief) is not where e live or where we go to worship (or not worship) it is what we do on a daily basis, how we live our lives. When that is taken into account it really changes the complexion of what happened during the Crusades, and especially during the Inquisition.


That sounds like a distinctly Protestant revisionist history to me, my friend. Authored by no less than one Ellen G. White I see. ;)

Complete with footnotes and historical references. Not revisionist, in fact you may be very surprised at how balanced it is. But instead of jumping over the 300 years from the death of Christ to when political Roman society led a coup and took over Christianity, the book looks at that and at the people who would not bow to secular control of worship throughout history. Quite eye opening and historically accurate.


But I might just check it out.

I can only hope.

[308]

Re: The Great Controversy
Complete with footnotes and historical references. Not revisionist, in fact you may be very surprised at how balanced it is. But instead of jumping over the 300 years from the death of Christ to when political Roman society led a coup and took over Christianity, the book looks at that and at the people who would not bow to secular control of worship throughout history. Quite eye opening and historically accurate.


I have not read this book. It seems the reviews on amazon are mixed.
Not really a fan of the Adventist zealots (or those who don't go to church due to no church being within driving distance for Saturday worship) claiming those who worship on Sunday are bearing the mark of the beast and doomed to hell.

[ltorlo64]

I have not read this book. It seems the reviews on amazon are mixed.
Not really a fan of the Adventist zealots (or those who don't go to church due to no church being within driving distance for Saturday worship) claiming those who worship on Sunday are bearing the mark of the beast and doomed to hell.

I understand your feeling and those who push this view of the Sabbath, while ignoring the other commandments, miss the teaching on the mark of the beast. The Great Controversy was the first book of Mrs. White's that I read and it was not what I expected from what I had heard from the zealots. It was very informative, not really about the formation of the Adventist church but about the history of the Church (the body of believers) and how those who have been faithful to God have been mistreated, and who have been doing the mistreating, over history.

A lot of the reviews I read have to do with a prejudice towards Mrs. White while not actually reading the book. Once I read it I was very sorry that I had taken so long to do so.

[5.56NATO]

I have not read this book. It seems the reviews on amazon are mixed.
Not really a fan of the Adventist zealots (or those who don't go to church due to no church being within driving distance for Saturday worship) claiming those who worship on Sunday are bearing the mark of the beast and doomed to hell.

When I first learned that Jesus isn't his name and that christ and god are just titles and not the names and Sunday isn't the sabbath, I went to a adventist church to see what they had to say as they held the sabbath. I never heard them say that catholics are doomed to hell or the rest of the sunday worshippers, but they make a point of the catholic church being the whore church of revelation. A great effort is made by adventists to differntiate themselves from the sunday worshippers yet they still pray to Jesus and Jehova just as the sunday worshippers. I stopped going when I heard about the Waco/adventist issue and since they don't care at all about the true names of the almighty and messiah I figured why bother at all if you're not going to go all the way. Just because you don't go to church doesn't mean you don't believe.

[308]

I understand your feeling and those who push this view of the Sabbath, while ignoring the other commandments, miss the teaching on the mark of the beast. The Great Controversy was the first book of Mrs. White's that I read and it was not what I expected from what I had heard from the zealots. It was very informative, not really about the formation of the Adventist church but about the history of the Church (the body of believers) and how those who have been faithful to God have been mistreated, and who have been doing the mistreating, over history.

A lot of the reviews I read have to do with a prejudice towards Mrs. White while not actually reading the book. Once I read it I was very sorry that I had taken so long to do so.

I downloaded it from amazon/kindle for free this morning and started to read it after I posted above. So far so good.
I do hope God/Jehovah doesn't damn me to hell because I am going to spend time at Church tomorrow instead of today.

[ltorlo64]

I downloaded it from amazon/kindle for free this morning and started to read it after I posted above. So far so good.
I do hope God/Jehovah doesn't damn me to hell because I am going to spend time at Church tomorrow instead of today.

So do I!

[308]

So do I!

Curious if this would apply to Jesus saying that men would worship in spirit and in truth. (John 4:20-23

"The Sabbath was made to meet the needs of people, and not people to meet the requirements of the Sabbath"
--Mark 2:27

[1 Patriot-of-many]

Learn something other than the propaganda you digest at your elementary school. The Crusades were a defensive action. https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=495429370597759

[ltorlo64]

Curious if this would apply to Jesus saying that men would worship in spirit and in truth. (John 4:20-23

"The Sabbath was made to meet the needs of people, and not people to meet the requirements of the Sabbath"
--Mark 2:27

The short answer is, yes it does apply. But in saying this Jesus does not tell us that we have permission to ignore the Sabbath, which is one of the 10 Commandments. Remember, Jesus was saying this after the Pharisees condemned Him for healing on the Sabbath which they were equating to work. In doing this they totally ignored the needs of humans missing the purpose of the 10 Commandments. God gave the 10 Commandments to Israel to protect them not to enslave them which is what the Pharisees were using them for.

[5.56NATO]

Curious if this would apply to Jesus saying that men would worship in spirit and in truth. (John 4:20-23

"The Sabbath was made to meet the needs of people, and not people to meet the requirements of the Sabbath"
--Mark 2:27


John 14:15 "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

[308]

John 14:15 "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

Is this what unbelieving folks call Bible thumping?

A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.
--John 13:34

For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
--Paul's letter to the Galatians 5:14


The Pharisees were good at condemning people for breaking laws they themselves failed to keep within their own heart. Outwardly, sure...so Pius, so religious...their prayers were out in the open for everyone to enjoy, however, Jesus was quick to point out they were nothing more than whitewashed tombs full of dead men's bones...

In all my reading of Christ, his words, and His deeds, I never see him condemning people...he sat with sinners and unworthy people and avoided those righteous in their own minds. He was quite unlike many of his modern followers. He even went so far as scolding those who strictly followed the 10 commandments as not understanding the intend behind the law.

[5.56NATO]

One of the last things the actual messiah said before he ascended back to heaven was that those who love him will keep his commandments. If you have a problem with that you have a problem with that.

[308]

One of the last things the actual messiah said before he ascended back to heaven was that those who love him will keep his commandments. If you have a problem with that you have a problem with that.

You really don't know what I may or may not have a problem with, and it appears you assume I have something against God's law.

I will clarify what I do have a problem with, and that is people who, for one reason or another are so stuck in their dogma that there is no room for compassion or understanding the heart of person who loves God, has accepted the gift provided though the final sacrifice of His Son...people who clearly understand that if is the all sufficient sacrifice of Christ by which a man is saved and not by works.

You do remind me of someone who is stuck at the letter of the law and has demonstrated little understanding of the spirit which is behind the law.

I will leave you to your legalism. It is a perspective that has been debated from the beginning and one which Paul attempted to address to those with ears to hear.

[ltorlo64]

Is this what unbelieving folks call Bible thumping?

Not yet, at least I don't think we are. We are having a discussion, well a writussion (I just made this up) as we are writing and not talking.


A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.
--John 13:34

For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
--Paul's letter to the Galatians 5:14

Don't forget Matthew 22:36-40 which includes, (the greatest commandment is) "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind. The second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." As much as we, as humans, would like to see the 10 Commandments as being restrictive and arbitrary Jesus by His life of love showed that keeping the Commandments was how we can best show love to God and love to our fellow man. What is more, by keeping the 10 Commandments we become free, exactly the opposite of what we are taught and what we are inclined to believe. So when Jesus and Paul tell us to love one another, they are in fact telling us to keep the 10 Commandments. (Look at Paul's discussion of sin and the law at the beginning of Romans. At least twice Paul emphasizes the importance of keeping the Law, "Shall we go on sinning that grace may abound!?! God forbid! How are we, which are dead to sin, to abide any longer there in!?!" Romans 6:1 and 6:15)

They are not telling us to keep the Commandments as the Pharisees did, by adding restrictions above and beyond the Commands to ensure we don't break the Commands. And then, when they find they had put themselves in a box they made exceptions to the law to allow them to break the Commands without consequence (they thought). When Jesus discusses, and condemns, the Pharisees practice of "Corban" (Matthew 15:1-8) this is what He was talking about.



The Pharisees were good at condemning people for breaking laws they themselves failed to keep within their own heart. Outwardly, sure...so Pius, so religious...their prayers were out in the open for everyone to enjoy, however, Jesus was quick to point out they were nothing more than whitewashed tombs full of dead men's bones...

In all my reading of Christ, his words, and His deeds, I never see him condemning people...he sat with sinners and unworthy people and avoided those righteous in their own minds. He was quite unlike many of his modern followers. He even went so far as scolding those who strictly followed the 10 commandments as not understanding the intend behind the law.

Jesus did not condemn when he was here, it was not time. In John 3:17 He tells his disciples that "God did not send His son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." This does not mean that a time will not come for Jesus to judge and condemn (this will come after Jesus takes those who follow Him to be with Him, Matthew 25:31-46 and Revelation 20:11-14), but it was not while He was here on earth. And it is not our time to condemn either, though after the Second Coming those who are taken to be with Jesus will be given authority to judge. But even then we are not given authority to condemn, that is left to Jesus and God.

While Jesus did not come to condemn, He did come to call sinners to repentance (Mark 1:14 and Luke 5:32). There are a few examples of this. The woman taken in adultery (John 8:1-11) ends, not with Jesus telling her that He does not condemn her (where we normally stop telling the story), but with Jesus telling her to go and leave her life of sin.

Another great example of Jesus calling people to repentance is found in Matthew (9:13 and 12:7 are the pivotal verses). In these Jesus points out exactly what you are, that the Pharisees (and those who leave no room for mercy and grace) did not know the meaning of the scriptures. In this case Jesus tells them to "Go and learn what this means, I would have mercy and not sacrifice." The Pharisees were all about the sacrifices and had forgotten about the mercy that is inherent in the Law, especially in the sacrifices. What we need to remember about this is that Jesus did not tell the Pharisees that they should give up on the sacrifices (on the Law), but that they should practice mercy which will then allow them to fulfill the sacrifices (Law) as God desires.

It is fun to read the stories of Jesus' interaction with the Pharisees and other religious rulers. They were bent all out of shape because Jesus did not keep their traditions, which they had elevated in status to be equal with the 10 Commandments, but He kept the 10 Commandments so well (as one would expect from the person who wrote them) that they could not find a reason to charge Him and had to make one up. He knew the Laws so well that they, who had studied the laws their whole lives, could not trap him.

[5.56NATO]

Right, I understand you feel it's ok to ignore the messiah because of how you feel and messiahs word is legalism.

Matthew 5:17
17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.…


I'm not convicting you, you're convicting yourself.

[308]

Right, I understand you feel it's ok to ignore the messiah because of how you feel and messiahs word is legalism.

Matthew 5:17
17"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.…


I'm not convicting you, you're convicting yourself.

Conviction...
Do you follow the 10-Commandments to the letter? Have you broken any of them today?


Just curious.

[5.56NATO]

I find it easy to honor my parents, keep the sacred name and the sabbath, not covet or steal, do you find it hard to keep from stealing or lying?

Also you mentioned one of the disciples said the sabbath was created for the man and not the man for the sabbath. This is true, the sabbath is an eternal memorial to YHWH as he rested on the last day from all his creation. The sabbath is an ordinance from Adam on down to us today for man to enjoy.... not despise. Also please note that every disciple kept the sabbath all the days of their lives, from Friday sundown to Satruday sundown. Just like messiah did.

[308]

Answer my two questions as posed to you.

[5.56NATO]

Answer my two questions as posed to you.

I think I already answered them. As if that changes anything - what I do or don't do or you do or don't do or think, the fact remains messiah said those who love him keep his commandments.

[308]

I think I already answered them. As if that changes anything - what I do or don't do or you do or don't do or think, the fact remains messiah said those who love him keep his commandments.

The reason you did not answer the questions are as follows:


If you say you follow the 10-Commandments (God's Law) completely then you contradict the Apostle Paul in Romans 3:10-12 where he said "As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one." Additionally, you would be the second person in recorded history of performing such a deed. The first was nailed to a cross.


If you say you follow the 10-Commandments (God's Law) as best you can, then you put yourself at the same level as those whom you are (for some reason) openly judging and making assumptions about. I could ask anyone on this forum if they tend to follow most of the Laws spelled out in the 10-Commandments and I would be willing to best even the most die-hard atheist would say sure, to some extent, because they are good. They may diagree with the God part, but certain would not have issue with the murder part and hopefully the adultery part.


If you admit to #1 and claim to follow God's Law completely, then you are liar, which I doubt you are.

If you admit to #2 and claim to follow God's Law "as best as you can", then you contradict everything you've been pushing, and make yourself out to be a hypocrite when you insult me and others with your assumptions insinuating that I or others don't love or respect God because we don't keep His commandments as you do. (See Romans 2:1)

However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and consider #1, this is the interwebZ and not everything we type is done with clarity, and #2, it could be a simple misunderstanding on your part and my part as to what each are attempting to communicate.


Now my position is this and is according to scripture; We are saved by God's grace (unmerited favor) through faith (the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not yet seen and "not by works lest any man boast") and to the best of our ability with humility and understanding of the horrible sacrifice made on our behalf, we should at each moment and with each decision do our best to follow the Law of God out of love and respect for our Creator.


Paul said in Romans Chapter 3:

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

But now apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.

There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement through the shedding of his blood to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished. He did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

[blacksheep]

Could one of you leftist bed wetters tell me what the crusades are in response too ?

[5.56NATO]

The reason you did not answer the questions are as follows:


If you say you follow the 10-Commandments (God's Law) completely then you contradict the Apostle Paul in Romans 3:10-12 where he said "As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one." Additionally, you would be the second person in recorded history of performing such a deed. The first was nailed to a cross.


If you say you follow the 10-Commandments (God's Law) as best you can, then you put yourself at the same level as those whom you are (for some reason) openly judging and making assumptions about. I could ask anyone on this forum if they tend to follow most of the Laws spelled out in the 10-Commandments and I would be willing to best even the most die-hard atheist would say sure, to some extent, because they are good. They may diagree with the God part, but certain would not have issue with the murder part and hopefully the adultery part.


If you admit to #1 and claim to follow God's Law completely, then you are liar, which I doubt you are.

If you admit to #2 and claim to follow God's Law "as best as you can", then you contradict everything you've been pushing, and make yourself out to be a hypocrite when you insult me and others with your assumptions insinuating that I or others don't love or respect God because we don't keep His commandments as you do. (See Romans 2:1)

However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and consider #1, this is the interwebZ and not everything we type is done with clarity, and #2, it could be a simple misunderstanding on your part and my part as to what each are attempting to communicate.


Now my position is this and is according to scripture; We are saved by God's grace (unmerited favor) through faith (the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not yet seen and "not by works lest any man boast") and to the best of our ability with humility and understanding of the horrible sacrifice made on our behalf, we should at each moment and with each decision do our best to follow the Law of God out of love and respect for our Creator.


Paul said in Romans Chapter 3:

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.

But now apart from the law, the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.

There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement through the shedding of his blood to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished. He did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.




"Those that love me, keep my commandments"

[308]

"Those that love me, keep my commandments"

Okay, perhaps you should just stick to your normal cut&paste news spam because you clearly have no ability to respond with your own thoughts in a lucid manner.