Have Christians ever sought to conquer the World for Christianity ?

Originally posted by Cosmic911
I think "enough" people have died in the name of Christianity.

Every other religion too...such hipocrasy...

Not exactly. It's an ideal that is not lived up to, at times, by those who claim the ideal. If you find evil done to another, this act has no connection to serving others or righteous acts of kindness. God is righteous, so his judgments are equal to Him. We may find them unmatched to our narrow perspective, but this in no way judges God as evil. When man makes himself the judge, then true religion and faith has nothing to do with this choice unless God's laws are observed to preserve the safety of the innocent.

You are correct in one thing: Man can act as a god in error and proclaim himself as an agent of the true God. No doubt about it.

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
No quite. The capital punishment would have been reflected in the law as the worst punishment possible. No jails and no police meant that the judges would decide. The law only reflected what could happen in the worst case. The Sabbath, as Jesus points out, was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. This was a national law. The only to enforce a law is to require it by judgment. Same as today. No difference. Well...We don't enforce our laws so I guess there is some difference.

There you go trying to put words in Gods mouth. The passage is very clear.

(Exodus 35:2) Six days work shall be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it shall be put to death.

That in absolutely no way says that death is the max. sentence, it is very clear that anyone who works on the Sabbath day shall be put to death. Not could be put to death, not might be put to death, not in extreme cases may be put to death, but SHALL be put to death. There is only one way that can be interpreted no matter what new definition you would like to give the word

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
This one is my favorite to answer because it takes such little logic to see. There was no refrigeration in these days. Shell fish kills people, even this day and age, because of bacteria. In that day, there was no way to preserve this food in harsh conditions. Shell fish would have been a risky food to consume. The law was there as a warning for health.

It is not my place to try and decipher God's reasons for his laws, and not yours either. I have heard that argument before, and the one that says God put shellfish on Earth to clean the waters, and we shouldn't eat animals that are meant for cleaning. The point is is that it's one of Gods laws, and even if what you say is true are you saying that man's technological advances (eg: refrigerators) should cancel out Gods laws? After all we are not discussing the laws of man here, but laws put in place by God himself.

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
This was for the priest. Pride was the issue. The priest was to be the most pious of the community. No reason not to have a rule such as this in a theocracy governed by God. I see the need. This was not a rule for just anyone.

No, you are wrong, this was not just for the priest. At the beginning of Leviticus 19 it is clearly stated that God spoke to Moses and told to speak to the entire assembly of Israel. He was not just giving out laws for the priests to live by here, but for the whole group.

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
These are not laws we are obligated to in this day. Galatians 3 reveals this.

Well it seems that you put more weight in the words of Paul than in your supposed savior. That is quite funny since it was the teachings of Paul that inspired the Catholic church, the denomination of Christianity that you claim are not Christians at all. Regardless of what Paul had to say, what I point out is what Jesus supposedly said which is that the law was to be upheld as stated in Matthew.

Originally posted by SuperiorEd

Originally posted by Cosmic911
I think "enough" people have died in the name of Christianity.

Every other religion too...such hipocrasy...

Not exactly. It's an ideal that is not lived up to, at times, by those who claim the ideal. If you find evil done to another, this act has no connection to serving others or righteous acts of kindness. God is righteous, so his judgments are equal to Him. We may find them unmatched to our narrow perspective, but this in no way judges God as evil. When man makes himself the judge, then true religion and faith has nothing to do with this choice unless God's laws are observed to preserve the safety of the innocent.

You are correct in one thing: Man can act as a god in error and proclaim himself as an agent of the true God. No doubt about it.

edit on 10-12-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)

So is that why god demanded genocide and killed babies?

So is that why god demanded genocide and killed babies?

Nope, He had another reason. My suggestion is that you ask Him. Since your question assumes God exists, I'll let you in on a pro-tip. The normal way of asking Him anything is through prayer. Give it a try.

reply to post by charles1952
So what was it then? I don't believe in prayer and I wouldn't want to talk to him if he did exist.

reply to post by Majiq

Well it seems that you put more weight in the words of Paul than in your supposed savior. That is quite funny since it was the teachings of Paul that inspired the Catholic church, the denomination of Christianity that you claim are not Christians at all. Regardless of what Paul had to say, what I point out is what Jesus supposedly said which is that the law was to be upheld as stated in Matthew.

Matthew 5

The Fulfillment of the Law - Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished”

The law was the plan that allows mankind to go free from the rule of Satan. It is a destiny to be fulfilled through Israel to save the entire world. We are redeemed by a kinsman according to Jubilee laws. Jesus had to come as a man to redeem us. This is the fulfillment of the law. God is satisfied when he looks at Christ. Christ redeems us, moving us form the master of sin and death to the love of God. God sees Christ and not our sin. It is forgiven and paid.

Paul

Romans 13:8
[ Love Fulfills the Law ] Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law.

Jesus - Love God and love others--even enemies as an answer to the expert in the law. Jesus answered the expert on this matter of the fulfillment of the law for eternal life.

Luke 10

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

Paul and Christ agree.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Majiq

 

Dear Majiq,

Thank you for your kind response. You've given me another thought which I'd appreciate your comment on.

In a world where the developed nations are becoming less and less religious, (church attendance figures are what I'm thinking of) do we have less of a risk of serious war? Will most of the wars for conquest be in the non-developed areas such as Africa and parts of Asia? And has Christianity become so weak in people's eyes that it couldn't muster a conquering force?

With respect,
charles1952

I don't know that we have less of a risk of serious war. There are a lot of reasons that cause a nation to desire conquest over others. If I have come off as sounding like I think that religion is the sole reason for wars, and more specifically wars for total conquest over the rest of the world that isn't what I meant. History has proven that while religion is probably the biggest culprit in schemes of world domination it is certainly not the only one.

I think that in this day and age yes, most wars for conquest will be fought in under developed areas. While many of these wars are fought over religious beliefs, the way I see it, and it is just my opinion, a huge factor today is conquest for resources, at least from a western point of view. Now I am speaking of war in the traditional sense here. I think that wars between developed nations these days will be fought more on an economic scale.

As far as Christianity mustering a conquering force, that is a very good question. I don't think that Christianity could openly wage war effectively because the numbers of people in the western nations who would oppose it, and the laws of those nations would squash it before this force had a chance to gain steam.

That being said, there are ways to wage war without openly doing it in the name of God. World leaders who get support from religious organization I believe often work for the churches goals and just put other faces on it (War against terror comes to mind) That is why I don't think that religious organizations or any org. that recieves money from the church should be allowed to fund politicians.

But as far as building armies and fighting wars for the sole purpose of pleasing their God as is seen in the Middle East, no, I don't think Christianity could pull that off in the West.

reply to post by mikejohnson2006


Due to what Christians refer to as the Great Commission the answer is yes. They are to go out into the world and preach the Gospel to all and win souls to Jesus. You gotta realize that their religion is monotheistic and calls the God of any other religion a false God. Followers believe the only true God is their God and come hell or high water they refuse to allow you to believe otherwise. Whether that be by preaching or death they are bound to convert anyone who isn't Christian.

In other words its an all out war against other faiths. This was unheard of till the monotheistic religions came along. Prior to that religions could live side by side and for the most part co-exist. The Judaic-Christian God is not called a jealous God for no reason. He has a warring spirit.

Originally posted by Chad_Thomas89

Originally posted by SuperiorEd

Originally posted by Cosmic911
I think "enough" people have died in the name of Christianity.

Every other religion too...such hipocrasy...

Not exactly. It's an ideal that is not lived up to, at times, by those who claim the ideal. If you find evil done to another, this act has no connection to serving others or righteous acts of kindness. God is righteous, so his judgments are equal to Him. We may find them unmatched to our narrow perspective, but this in no way judges God as evil. When man makes himself the judge, then true religion and faith has nothing to do with this choice unless God's laws are observed to preserve the safety of the innocent.

You are correct in one thing: Man can act as a god in error and proclaim himself as an agent of the true God. No doubt about it.

edit on 10-12-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)

So is that why god demanded genocide and killed babies?

No, this is why we shouldn't do this. God is a righteous judge who created the souls that he has the ownership of. I would not do this simply because I reason apart from the ability to create and incarnate a soul in a body. God has this power and Jesus said, "You must be born again." Even Satan said "Skin for Skin" after killing Job's children. A snake sheds a skin for another. Job also points this out here:

Job 14:13

13 “If only you would hide me in the grave
and conceal me till your anger has passed!
If only you would set me a time
and then remember me!
14 If someone dies, will they live again?
All the days of my hard service
I will wait for my renewal to come.
15 You will call and I will answer you;
you will long for the creature your hands have made.
16 Surely then you will count my steps
but not keep track of my sin.
17 My offenses will be sealed up in a bag;
you will cover over my sin.


And here:


Job 19

23 “Oh, that my words were recorded,
that they were written on a scroll,
24 that they were inscribed with an iron tool on lead,
or engraved in rock forever!
25 I know that my redeemer lives,
and that in the end he will stand on the earth.
26 And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet in my flesh I will see God;
27 I myself will see him
with my own eyes—I, and not another.
How my heart yearns within me!

28 “If you say, ‘How we will hound him,
since the root of the trouble lies in him,’
29 you should fear the sword yourselves;
for wrath will bring punishment by the sword,
and then you will know that there is judgment.”

What God intended for a soul after its destiny is assigned is still a righteous destiny. I know my redeemer lives. Job knew as well. We should all honor the redeemer if we wish to be redeemed. He wants us to love others. I find it easy to love others enough to shake them and say, "Have you heard what God has done for you!!!!!!"

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
reply to post by Majiq
I never addressed the topic.

I may have misunderstood then. You responded to another poster who made the comment that "Unless you are gay or in any other way subvert what "god" wants people to do/behave, right?" Your response was that "The foundation of the Bible is law. Not merely the law we may ascribe so easily to men, but the laws that reflect in nature."

I took that to mean that homosexuality was not a part of the natural law, but I may have been mistaken.

reply to post by Chad_Thomas89

Dear Chad_Thomas89,

Thanks for your question, but you've left me completely confused. Let me tell you where I'm baffled.

If you start from the assumption that there is no God, it really doesn't make any sense to ask why He ordered the killing of babies and genocide. He didn't order those things because He doesn't exist to order them.

As a side issue, if God does exist, you really wouldn't want to talk with Him? I would. I'd have questions that would take the rest of my life to ask. I'd tell Him how misrable things are. I'd ask "why?" Then I would shut my mouth and listen. This is God we're talking about, what else could you do?

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by Majiq

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
reply to post by Majiq
I never addressed the topic.

I may have misunderstood then. You responded to another poster who made the comment that "Unless you are gay or in any other way subvert what "god" wants people to do/behave, right?" Your response was that "The foundation of the Bible is law. Not merely the law we may ascribe so easily to men, but the laws that reflect in nature."

I took that to mean that homosexuality was not a part of the natural law, but I may have been mistaken.

You tell me. Does the law reflect in nature? Nature can be perverted (Having been corrupted or distorted from its original course, meaning, or state.). I totally agree. We inherited a garden and we will leave it a mess of hybrid weeds. Man changes the states of matter so that God needs to wipe them clean and renew the earth. No doubt there. Nature is not what was given to us, nor what we see by example from the overall picture. As for the homosexual, I do not judge. God is the judge and I assume this sin is no different than any other sin. It goes against the law God set for nature by example. Let me explain:

But, on a level we can see. The sun and the moon come together to create and allow all life on earth. This is a union of opposites, provided by God's love to us. Male and female come together to produce offspring. Again, a union from love. Sperm and egg come together. This is a union of opposites. The earth acts as yet another womb, allowing the final union if we are ready. The final union is the soul and the spirit. Our unrefined soul is overcome by the Spirit of God from love or the soul overcomes the spirit in pride. Where do I get this you ask?

John 3 says this: 5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

Hebrews 9:27 tells us the person is judged after death. I assume the question asked is, "Did you love others to honor and love God?" In other words, did you find union with the spirit of God within you? If no, what happens?

10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11 Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. 14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”

We are baptized into the water instead of the spirit. Jesus said it in the first set of verses. Water and spirit, not just water. Baptism is the symbol for our immersion into the water of the material reality. We are all waiting on Christ. Remember the verse above from Hebrews 9:27? Here is the full two verses, including 28.

Hebrews 9:28

27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

The soul cannot die. People do. What happens in-between is up to God. If I am correct on being born again, then God is long-suffering with us. If I am incorrect, then many people fail to gain union. According to Job, we have an advocate that binds the union where we fail. Our redeemer lives and so will we. God shows the way from the only law we need. Love God and love others with your actions. God will judge the outcome.

Job 28

20 Where then does wisdom come from?
Where does understanding dwell?
21 It is hidden from the eyes of every living thing,
concealed even from the birds in the sky.
22 Destruction and Death say,
“Only a rumor of it has reached our ears.”
23 God understands the way to it
and he alone knows where it dwells,
24 for he views the ends of the earth
and sees everything under the heavens.
25 When he established the force of the wind
and measured out the waters,
26 when he made a decree for the rain
and a path for the thunderstorm,
27 then he looked at wisdom and appraised it;
he confirmed it and tested it.
28 And he said to the human race,
“The fear of the Lord—that is wisdom,
and to shun evil is understanding.”

Job 33

19 “Or someone may be chastened on a bed of pain
with constant distress in their bones,
20 so that their body finds food repulsive
and their soul loathes the choicest meal.
21 Their flesh wastes away to nothing,
and their bones, once hidden, now stick out.
22 They draw near to the pit,
and their life to the messengers of death.[c]
23 Yet if there is an angel at their side,
a messenger, one out of a thousand,
sent to tell them how to be upright,
24 and he is gracious to that person and says to God,
‘Spare them from going down to the pit;
I have found a ransom for them—
25 let their flesh be renewed like a child’s;
let them be restored as in the days of their youth’—
26 then that person can pray to God and find favor with him,
they will see God’s face and shout for joy;
he will restore them to full well-being.
27 And they will go to others and say,
‘I have sinned, I have perverted what is right,
but I did not get what I deserved.
28 God has delivered me from going down to the pit,
and I shall live to enjoy the light of life.’
29 “God does all these things to a person—
twice, even three times—
30 to turn them back from the pit,
that the light of life may shine on them.
31 “Pay attention, Job, and listen to me;
be silent, and I will speak.
32 If you have anything to say, answer me;
speak up, for I want to vindicate you.
33 But if not, then listen to me;
be silent, and I will teach you wisdom.”

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
reply to post by Majiq

Again, people were willingly seeking to labor for a living. A slave in this case is not a Western style plantation slave. These slaves were no different than you and me working for the boss. The laws were there to regulate fair treatment of workers. Since the land was the primary means of labor, a person worked their way up to being a landowner if possible. Bond servant is a better way to view this. In some cases, slaves were working off a debt to society.

A slave in that case was JUST like a slave. Slaves were in bondage to their owners. They were not paid, they were fed and housed, that's it. Sounds very similar to a plantation slave to me.

The Israelite people had previously been in bondage to Egypt. They were mistreated by their masters. In this time period of history, as in ours, people served others higher in society. They went to work for those they earned a living from. This was what you are terming slavery. In reality, the work was a willing vocation for most. If you were not a land owner, you served a land owner. All jobs were produced from the land. In some cases, the servants were serving labor time to pay back a debt to society for a crime. In other cases, men would allow the transfer of family members.

In this and all cases, the laws were necessary to govern the treatment of of the process to ensure that the mistreatment of the previous exodus was not repeated. This form of government was a mutually agreed Theocracy. Anyone could leave for other nations at any time unless they were bonded to serve for a crime.

There you go making up history as you go along again. These people did not earn a living unless you mean they were given some food and a place to sleep. Yes, some slaves were conquered people, or criminals, and others were bought and sold, but in none of those cases was it a willing vocation.

I'm curious. Why not mention a verse that doesn't fit your skewed perspective?

Exodus 21:1-4 "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."

What is meant by this is not a separation. The man was allowed to seek other employment, while still living with his family. The bonded nature of the work was like a contract. We are contracted in our world the same way. No difference.

My skewed perspective? I like that you brought this up because it goes to show the sexist nature of the religion. Men were in fact freed after 6 years of slavery however girls sold into slavery did not go free after 6 years. And what is meant IS separation. If a man did not want to leave his wife and family the owner could take him before the judges and have him declared a slave for life. Nice way to quote 1-4 and leave out 5 & 6 because it goes against your argument.

reply to post by Majiq

My skewed perspective? I like that you brought this up because it goes to show the sexist nature of the religion. Men were in fact freed after 6 years of slavery however girls sold into slavery did not go free after 6 years. And what is meant IS separation. If a man did not want to leave his wife and family the owner could take him before the judges and have him declared a slave for life. Nice way to quote 1-4 and leave out 5 & 6 because it goes against your argument.

Sure, 5 adn 6 simply state the obvious. The land owner developed the workers and provided. If they had families, there was an obligation to the owner as much as to the family. The man could, as a kinsman, redeem his family if he could earn enough to redeem them. The rule allowed the man to stay on with the family as equity for the owner or leave to compensate the owner for the equity.

These are similar to rules of creative ownership we have today with companies. With God, when much is given, much is required. Remember, the wife was given to the man by the land owner. Again, this was Hebrew society and not our society. This was a harsh day and age as man gained his own freedom from the law.

You ask, why bother being so complicated? Certainly, you wouldn't do it this way. Right?

Galatians 3

19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.

21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22 But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

The law was a guardian because we cannot work for our freedom from God apart from faith and trust in Him and his perfect law of love. God is our master. We need none other. A friend in all trials, possessing all wisdom and discernment. When we lack, God is abundant. Trust and hope bring us to peace and joy in living.

Galatians 3

23 Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.

26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

reply to post by charles1952
Let me clarify. I was being sardonic towards someone and their attempt at defending the Christian god and the bible. I wouldn't say that I believe in the Christian god and if he was real, no I wouldn't want to talk to him if he was ruling over this realm. I am, however, finding myself being pulled towards polytheism. I'm trying to research and study the similarities between all the religions that practiced polytheism and draw my own conclusion as to what or who I think are gods and the meaning of what a god is or should be is probably different between us. I'm still finding my way there and stay clear from other mainstream religions.

reply to post by Chad_Thomas89

Dear Chad_Thomas89,

Thanks for the clarification. Your note brought up a couple of thoughts I'd like to bounce off you.

I wouldn't want to talk to him if he was ruling over this realm.

One of my favorite authors is John. (you know, Gospel of John?) He is nearly mystical, he's not a matter of fact reporter as much as the other Gospel writers. It's easier for me to get lost in his imagery (if that's what I'm trying to do).

Three times in his Gospel he talks about "The Prince of This World." (They're in John 12, 14, and 16, if you care to look them up.) That image is rich for me. It's a description of Satan. Maybe God isn't "ruling over this realm." Or if He is, whatever power Satan has as Prince, God doesn't have. Perhaps Satan is ruling over some part of humanity and the world, and we are in a guerilla war against him. Might that be the explanation for evil?

And what about "The Prince of This World." Are there other worlds with Princes over them? Might they be good angels as Satan is an evil one? What would such a world be like? Do you see how I can be filled up by John?

I'm really pleased to hear you're doing research and study. Good for you. Too many, Christians and non-Christians, don't use their minds as well as their faith.

It may not be helpful to you, but I believe in the midgets standing on the shoulders of giants theory. Man has been working over this problem for millenia, and many thinkers have put incredible minds to the problem, working on and developing answers. I take their answers then subject them to the most careful scrutiny I can. But you? Do it however seems best.

Any time you'd like to chat, let me know. I'm interested in how your research works out.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

KJV1611,
You have said that the true Christians were those declared to be heretics by the Catholic church. I'm sure you know that the Church has declared over 60 movements to be heretical. Do you maintain that all of those groups were Christian? Even the one that disagreed with each other?
Do you accept the Audianists who believed God has a human body?

Yes, that body is Jesus Christ. 1 Tim 3:16

Or the Marcionists who believed that the God of the Old Testament was a different and lower God than that of the New Testament?
Perhaps you like the Johannites who believed that John the Baptist was the true Savior, not Jesus?
I could go on, but why? I assume you will agree that some of the heresies condemned by the Church actually are heresies.

Yes, some of them taught heresies, I guess that means they deserved to die right? Kill anyone that teaches something differently? One man's heresy is another man's interpretation you know.

Please explain why the Church expelled heresies if it was a heresy herself?

You have to remember, if slaves held inside the Catholic church's works/salvation slave system ever had their eyes opened by the Light of the Bible, they would turn from the wickedness of the catholic church, and turn to God. So the catholics just outlawed any view of the Bible (and outlawed the Bible itself as well) that didn't match their view before people could read, simply by making them heretics. Simple business bud. Don't believe me? Ask Martin Luther, and all the other Great awakening preachers.

What tools do you have to identify the Church as a heresy? (Besides your personal interpretation of a few verses.)

Look up these verses in a KJV and read them. Don't post again unless you read them. Draw your own interpretation without bias.
Matt 23:9
Eph 2:8-9
John chapter 6.
1 Tim 4:3
1 Tim 2:5
Hundreds more. Maybe thousands.

You agree with the Church that some movements declared heretical actually are heretical. What should we call someone who agrees with heretics on a matter of faith? Do YOU stand condemned as a heretic for agreeing with the Church?

John Wesley taught men could lose their salvation, which is a heresy. But he led more men to Christ than the catholic church has in 1500 years. Billy Graham teaches some heresies regarding Hell, yet he led twice as many people to the Lord than all the popes combined. So, whats your point? You telling me if someone doesn't agree EXACTLY with how I believe that I should kill them? Well, it sounds funny, but that is exactly what the catholics did. Deal with it.

Please, see reason. Think about what you are saying. Be kind. Bring glory to God. Help your brother. But I forget, you have cast me out as a heretic.

I do use reason, more than most. Maybe I should be more catholic and collect me a few young "altar boys" in order to "bring glory to god" as you asked. Or maybe I should "help my brother" as you said and go out and burn him at the stake for not believing the Bible as I do.

Wake up, religion serves one "eternal" purpose. To send people to Hell. And God willfully allows this by using Satan to carry it out. Read your KJV Bible. You wouldn't believe what was in there.....no one can even grasp 10% of that Book. It's alive.

KJV1611,

I am surprised that you replied to me. You have called me a heretic, and now you demand that I start basic Bible training, by reading certain verses, before I am allowed to post again. Why would you want to hear me on any subject, especially a religious one? Can you understand that I am beginning to doubt the sincerity of your posts?

But assuming that you're sincere, let's try again to find common ground. Although it just hit me, have we drifted too far away from the main topic to be considered still on-topic? Perhaps someone should alert a mod if they think we've drifted to far.

I think we're agreed then, that the Church has declared movements to be heresies, they were right to do it, and had the authority to do it. But when you claim that means I, or the Catholic Church, believe they deserve to die, you are mistaken. The witch burnings in New England were, if I recall correctly, a Protestant production. What the Church does is tell a heretic that they can no longer be considered a member of the Catholic Church. That's it. But I would prefer to stay within the last few centuries. A thousand years ago can only be fully understood by a scholar, which I am not.

One man's heresy is another man's interpretation you know.

What did you mean by this? It sounds like you're saying that all of the beliefs out there are just people's interpretations. If that's true, why bother defending yours? It's just an interpretation.

You know, I've just been hit with another thought. At the end of your post you mention people who preach heresies (in your view) but that's ok because they brought people to Christ. May I ask, what is your "double-check." If you're not sure about something, and you've gone through the Bible without a clear answer, what is your authority to provide an answer? And how large of a heresy will you accept if it still "brings people to Christ?" If someone "brings people to Christ" does anything else matter to you?

We can look at the rest of your post later, if we both feel like it.

Charles1952

All roads lead to Rome....
Ask the Jesuits about it.

reply to post by charles1952

I think we're agreed then, that the Church has declared movements to be heresies, they were right to do it, and had the authority to do it.

In other words, they GAVE themselves the right to do it, and had the AUTHORITY to do it because they owned whole ARMIES of men to back up their claims. Now you really want to get deep? Look up the main reason why CHRISTIANS were burned at the stake. I know what it was....do you? It was over Baptism, The Holy Bible itself, and Mass. 66 million over the above topics. Dead.

But when you claim that means I, or the Catholic Church, believe they deserve to die, you are mistaken. The witch burnings in New England were, if I recall correctly, a Protestant production.

You dare compare 30 or so Puritian Quakers being burned because of a black witch spreading lies to 66 million dead for their belief in Christ??? Is there even a comparrisin at all? I thought at least you would have mentioned John Calvin at Geneva, but never Salem.

What the Church does is tell a heretic that they can no longer be considered a member of the Catholic Church. That's it.

And what good does that do??? Since when did going to church, ANY church ever mean you get to go to Heaven when you die? Does sitting on a Pew make my sins white as snow? Does putting money in a offering plate cleanse my soul? Does eating a cookie at mass mean I receive the God of the Universe into my heart? Going to church does nothing for your soul. Accepting Jesus Christ's good works in place of my own wicked works cleanses the soul. Accepting the sinless blood of Christ washes my sins away. Church does none of these things.

But I would prefer to stay within the last few centuries. A thousand years ago can only be fully understood by a scholar, which I am not.

I understand history quite well, and NO, one does not need to be a scholar to understand a thousand years back. That's a cop out. You just don't want to go that far back since that period of time is known as the DARK AGES when life was horrible....and the Catholic Church was at its height! Coincidence..? I think not.

One man's heresy is another man's interpretation you know.

What did you mean by this? It sounds like you're saying that all of the beliefs out there are just people's interpretations. If that's true, why bother defending yours? It's just an interpretation.

Its hard to to misinterpret the 6th grade reading level of the King James Bible, so I don't defend my religion. My God and Bible can defend themselves. I just accept it, happily.

You know, I've just been hit with another thought. At the end of your post you mention people who preach heresies (in your view) but that's ok because they brought people to Christ. May I ask, what is your "double-check." If you're not sure about something, and you've gone through the Bible without a clear answer, what is your authority to provide an answer? And how large of a heresy will you accept if it still "brings people to Christ?" If someone "brings people to Christ" does anything else matter to you?

That's not what I said. I was giving examples of people who did great in life, yet still had a few things wrong. As for my double check for If I'm not sure about something, and I have gone through the Bible without a clear answer,my authority to provide an answer doesn't exist. So I don't answer. "No comment". Easy as that. Plus I am honest about it, I will happily say, "I don't know". It happens rarely though since I have yet to see a question regarding the Bible that couldn't easily be answered, Matter of fact, I have a thread on here with over 800 posts on it asking just Bible questions ( Bible Answer Thread. ) They were all answered, perfectly. But there are a few things that I don't know regarding the Bible that none have yet to ask.....I will keep them to myself.

We can look at the rest of your post later, if we both feel like it.

Charles1952

Please do comment on the verses I posted in regards to the heresies of the Catholic church...I have 60 more verses. Jer 44....