People who have not heard of Christ
-
The real teachings .. hmm .. John 3:16 and John 14:6 should be the real teachings?Originally posted by stupidissmart:just a question... wat is inline with the bible ? I mean there r christian, protestants, catholics, charismatic, methodists, presbysterians, anglican, Jehova witness, cults etc... So which one is the real teachings ? Will catholic and prebysterian be treated the same if it turned out tat catholics r more "true" ?
They won't be treated the same. It is mentioned there are rewards in Heaven. Since presybterian stress less on charity, I think they get less rewards lor. So you see the priests and cardinals wearing designer clothes staying in bungalows .. the presbyterian people stay in shophouses wear singlet? But they won't cry, since God will wipe away their tears. -
You said "You have to believe in him in order to know his teachings and follow them."Originally posted by Honeybunz:What do you mean by that?
So isn't Christ a mean to an end? The end being his teachings. -
Ethnic cleansing is definitely not in line with the Bible
God certainly do ethnic clensing... he almost made the human population extinct during Noah's time. How about country of Sodom, Amalekites ( at war with them for generation onwards), Midianites (every men was killed), Hazor, Mador, Shimron, Acshaph and lot of other kingdoms (no survivors + whole kingdom burnt) They r all ruined because the Lord commanded and hardened the isrealis heart untill no survivors were left. They spared no one and burn out everything. Tat is worse than ethnic cleansing my friend... U can find out the keywords of the name of these kingdoms and find out yourself whether r there ethnic clensing or not. Read the bible to find out more. It is all very cruel.. read this passages yourself
Number 31
1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people."
3 So Moses said to the people, "Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites and to carry out the LORD's vengeance on them. 4 Send into battle a thousand men from each of the tribes of Israel." 5 So twelve thousand men armed for battle, a thousand from each tribe, were supplied from the clans of Israel. 6 Moses sent them into battle, a thousand from each tribe, along with Phinehas son of Eleazar, the priest, who took with him articles from the sanctuary and the trumpets for signaling.
7 They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba-the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho. [1]
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army-the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds-who returned from the battle.
15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.Why emphasize on Believing in Christ? You have to believe in him in order to know his teachings and follow them
Taoist and buddhist etc place emphasis on doing good deeds too. They do not have to know his teachings nor know christ in order to do acts of good. However even though they really do a lot of good deeds, according to the bible they will all burn in hell.To add on to what sillyme has said, if Hitler was a believer in God, why did he persecute Christians as well?
It is widely known he is a christ believer. Even the pope has sent letters to him and publicly announce his "faith" before hitler launch his attacks on other countries.I don't see how you show the ridiculousy of the argument in your previous message. In the first place, SingaporeMacross did not say that Catholics don't sin nor kill. But your argument brought up how some bad Catholics have killed good & holy Protestants.
No, singaporemacross just say tat people who believes in christ do not kill christians. Catholics believe in christ, and they do attack christians. So his earlier statement is wrong and not valid. It cannot refute the fact hitler is a christ believer -
If Hitler were a Christian, why did he remove the bible from all the churches and instead put his Mein Kampf on the altars?Originally posted by Icemoon:I was trying to show the sheer ridiculousy of your argument, when you asked the question "if Hitler was a believer in God, why did he persecute Christians as well"? Let's be honest about history. Did not the Crusades and Inquisition take place? Did Catholics not slaughter millions(?) of God's people? Did not the persecution of other christian groups take place?
I wouldn't defend Protestants like they're holy men without blemish either. Just read what the Puritans (whom we thought are good Protestants) did to the Native Americans ..
Other atrocities which the church never teach, I believe SIS can elaborate.
About the Crusades. The first Crusade started when Pope Urban II convoked the Council of Clermont, November 1095, which called the First Crusade. The Byzantine Emperor, Alexius Commenus, had sent a desperate appeal to Urban for armed knights to defend Christianity against the Muslim enemy. When the Pope laid the Emperor's pleas before the knights in Clermont, the main concern of the noblemen there was not so much the defense of Byzantium as the rescue of the Holy land from Muslim domination. Palestine had been under Muslim control since the days of the Caliph Omar, but at least the Arab Moslems had allowed Christian pilgrims to visit the places made sacred by the life of Christ. The SeIjuk Turks, now the dominant Muslim power, had, on the other hand, closed off the Holy Land.
It is important to understand that the Crusades were a just war. The Church is frequently attacked on the question of the Crusades, sometimes on the grounds that the Christian nations of Europe were the aggressors and encouraged to be so by the Popes, sometimes on the grounds that this kind of war was inappropriate for Christians to fight, and sometimes on the grounds that immoral things happened on the Crusades. Each of these objections can be countered, showing that the Crusades were a just war.
First, the Christian nations of Europe were definitely not the aggressors. As we have seen in earlier chapters, the Muslims had been aggressors against the Christians since the seventh century. Their attacks on Christian countries were still going on in the eleventh century. In 1071 the Turks had attacked and virtually annihilated the Byzantine army at Manzikert. It was this defeat that led the Byzantine Emperor to appeal to the Pope for aid against the Muslims. The Christian countries of Europe were clearly justified in defending themselves against Muslim attacks and also in going on the offensive in order to prevent future attacks. At no point did the Crusaders attack the Muslim homeland, Arabia, but only those originally Christian territories that the Muslims had conquered.
Second, it certainly was and is appropriate for Christians to defend themselves and the innocent and helpless against attacks, which is exactly what the Crusaders were doing. It is also appropriate for Christians to try to regain lands which their enemy had conquered, as was the case with the Holy Land. The religious significance of the Holy land makes it even better that Christians try to regain it rather than worse, since Christians had every right to govern the lands where Christ had walked and to protect them from desecration.
Finally, there were certainly abuses during the Crusades, most notably the Sack of Jerusalem and the Sack of Constantinople, both of which are discussed below. Now, I have never denied that the Catholics of history have persecuted others. They have committed many atrocities, that is undeniable. But an immoral action during a war does not detract from the justice of the cause of the war. The immoral action should be condemned, as Godfrey de Bouillon condemned the Sack of Jerusalem and Simon de Montfort condemned the Sack of Constantinople, but the war itself remains just.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0018.html -
Now what about the inquisition? This topic is a favorite for attacking the Church. Now see this: Number ONE, Actions are not the same as teachings. The fact that the Church had some abuses is clear. But as on slavery, the Church very early condemned it, repeated it twice more. Yet even churchmen had slaves. So did George Washington. This does not mean the teaching of the Church changed: only laxity on all sides. We think of the putting off of baptism in first centuries. St. Jerome was adult when baptized. St. Basil the Great, coming from a family with several saints in it, was not baptized until about age 26. John Kerry is Catholic, and he supports abortion. Does this mean the church supports abortion? No!
Number TWO, The abuses were much less than most people think. For a good account see Warren Carroll, The Glory of Christendom (part of a seven volume series — the data below is from his work) on the Inquisition, and on sad abuses by the Popes in the Middle Ages. Furthermore, all governments of Europe around this period severely punished heresy. In England, the offender, often a Catholic priest who had merely said Mass, was hanged, drawn and quartered while still alive.
In France and Spain especially, the Cathar heretics were a danger not just to the Church, but to the state, and to all. In 1229 a council at Toulouse required that everyone in Languedoc, where most of the Cathars were, to take an oath and renew it every other year, to remain a good Catholic, and to denounce heretics. But Cardinal Frangipani heard testimony from a former Cathar, William of Solier, who said that to make such names public would endanger the lives of the informants. Out of this grew the Inquisition, established by Pope Gregory IX in 1233 to be staffed by Dominicans. The Cathars then were as dangerous as terrorists today, and brought fear, cruelty, bloodshed and war wherever they had sufficient numbers. In southern France it took the full armed power of the King of France to overcome them.
But then they went underground. Persons accused by the Inquisition were not allowed to know the accusers, to protect the accusers — this sort of thing happens in protection of witnesses in U. S. courts today. But the person arrested was to make a list of his personal enemies and none of their testimony would be used against him. What modern court allows such a thing? Torture was used, but quite infrequent, and not lasting in its effects. In the 50 years of the operation there were no more than 5000 executions, which was small in comparison to the total executed for other crimes in the same period. Some Inquisitors did abuse their power, but they were promptly and strongly curbed by Pope Gregory IX. In 1242 the Cathars murdered ten of the Inquisitors.
As to the Spanish episode, the Turks in 1480 attacked the south Italian city of Otranto. 12, 000 people were killed, the rest made slaves. The sacred book of Islam does call for killing all “infidels” (The Koran says: When ye encounter unbelievers, strike off their heads until ye have made a great slaughter among them, and bind them in bonds. . . .” — cited from B. Palmer, Understanding the Islamic Explosion, Horizon Books, 1980, p. 36). The Turks killed every cleric in the city and sawed the archbishop in two. So Queen Isabel sent a fleet to Italy. In September of 1480, when it was clear the Turks might do the same to any coastal city, Isabel established the Inquisition. It dealt with the special problem of those who pretended to become Christian, but were not really converted, and might open the gates of the city to the Turks.
Torture was used only occasionally and it was the government that inflicted that and death, after the Inquisition turned them over. The Inquisition had no authority over practicing Jews and Muslims, only over professed Christians suspected of being fakes. After the appointment of Tomas de Torquemada as Inquisitor General in 1483 its tribunals were so fair that many preferred to have it hear their cases rather than the regular courts. Again, those questioned could not see their accusers, but could make a list of their enemies, and all testimony from them was discarded.
We must remember again that every government in Europe punished treason and heresy by painful death. Yes, the Inqusition is to be blamed for some things, but not as badly as the legend says.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0025.html -
I believe that by not telling them, you are being guilty of hiding of concealing the truth, we should reach out to those who need christ, besides God is merciful and justOriginally posted by stupidissmart:Question : Why want to spread your religion to other people then ? Isn't it better tat the word is kept secret so tat everyone can get to heaven instead of telling it to them, few % get to believe in it and the rest get to go to hell ? Aren't u indirectly sentencing them to hell when u tell them about christ ?
Thinking along tis line, isn't tat the case where 100% of the chinese, japanese and other nationalities in the past get to heaven automatically and this ratio drops significantly to less than 20% now due to the "spreading" of the word. Aren't christainity causing the rest of the population to go to hell ? -
Icemoon:
And you mentioned about Galileo. Here you must read this, http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0005.html
It may be super long, but I believe this will correct any myths you believe about Galileo. -
those angmo, n their ancestor hve not heard of buddha, toa and confucious. the only religion they were taught to pray to during those time were jesus, etc.Originally posted by Honeybunz:I have been pondering over this.
Our great grandparents and ancestors have not heard of Christianity, Jesus Christ and God. The only religious divines they were taught to pray to during those time were money god, kitchen god, sea god etc. They might have accept Christ if they were given a chance to. But not many missionaries visited China.
Now they have all died. Will they still go to heaven, cuz God is merciful and understands that it's not their fault not accepting Christ? Or will they go to hell since they have not accepted Christ and thus they were not saved.
they might have accept bud, tao if they were given a chance to.
now they hve all died. will they go to heaven? cus bud, tao is merciful and understand dat its not their fault not accepting them. or will they go to hell since they hve not accepted bud, tao n thus they were not saved.
well they will not blame them. god/bud/tao dun punish pples because of wat religion they belive in. they oni punish pples who do bad deeds. etc... -
In the brutal era of wars that tore Europe apart in the closing days of the first millennium AD, no period was more confusing, or more tragic, than the nearly two hundred years Europe spent locked in bitter fighting in the Middle East. This era, known as the Age of Crusades, would lead to some of the most atrocious acts and miserable failures ever made in the name of religion. But what was the point of these ceaseless wars, then, and how did they change the course of history?
The story of the Crusades actually begins centuries before the First Crusade was launched in AD 1096. When the centre of the Roman Empire shifted East, to Constantinople, it began to grow a new culture which would become known as Byzantium. However, the Church had begun to develop with Rome as its centre, and the churches of the East turned to Constantinople rather than the developing Papalcy in Rome. The first Popes were warlike and power-hungry, however, and they wanted all of the Christian world under their control. Then, during the latter half of the first millennium AD, the teachings of Islam began to spread throughout North Africa and Asia Minor at an alarming pace. The Popes of Rome, fearful that this new religion would displace them from their still-tenuous position, needed a way to suppress this new, peaceful religion coming out of the East.
Then, the final piece of the puzzle came into focus under the Western concept of primogeniture. The younger sons of European nobility, with no hope of ever ruling their family lands, became unruly as they sought to establish themselves, and began slaughtering each other. Rome, anxious to get these disruptive young nobles out of Europe, saw their chance to solve three problems at once. In AD 1096, Rome began preaching a Holy Crusade to free the Holy City of Jerusalem from the clutches of heretics and infidels. Rome preyed on the greed and pride of Europes young knights with promises of indulgences in exchange for service, the wealth of gold and lands available in the East, and honour and glory to all those who took up the holy cause.
The plot worked better than Rome could ever have anticipated. Even the common folk soon took up the call to arms. Starting in AD 1096, Peter the Hermit and Walter the Penniless led a group of poor, ill-armed peasants in an advance party which was destroyed either during the trip East or by Muslims in Anatolia.
The real army eventually set out from France, led by Baldwin of Flanders, Robert of Normandy, and several other nobles. This army had many successes, including the capture of Antioch on June 3, 1098 and then, at last, the capture of the Holy City of Jerusalem a year later, on July 15, 1099. Victorious, the Crusaders established the four Crusader States of Edessa, Tripoli, Jerusalem, and Antioch.
Uneasy peace reigned in the Holy Land until 1144, when Edessa fell to the Muslims because Jerusalem refused to send aid after the Franks of Edessa refused to accept a woman as their ruler, even as a mere regent for two years.
Two years later, in 1146, Bernard of Clairvaux, Louis VII of France, and Conrad III of Germany led armies to the Holy Land to recapture Edessa. This Crusade was a disaster for Europe, but the Crusaders did manage to retake Lisbon, Portugal from Muslim hands.
After the disaster of the Second Crusade, there might never have been another, had European greed not led to the breaking of a sacred peace pact. After the Second Crusade ended in 1148, King Baldwin of Jerusalem forged a truce with the Syrian Sultan, Salah-al-Din, whom the Europeans called Saladin. That truce, called the Truce of God, lasted until 1187, when Reynald of Chatillon broke it by attacking a caravan bound for Saladins own sister. Saladin responded to this insult at once, demanding Reynalds head, which the foppish King of Jerusalem, Guy, refused, and war soon broke out. In the end, Reynalds greed and Guys incompetence led to the Arab conquest of Outremer, and the launching of yet another Crusade from Europe.
The first European leader to set out for the East was the German Emperor, Barbarossa, in May 1189. The German army, while under this great Emperors command, had many Crusading victories along their road to Outremer, re-opening many Arab-held overland routes. Then, in early June of 1189, disaster struck when Barbarossa drowned while fording a river. The German army, more dedicated to their leader than to the Holy War, soon turned homeward again.
Kings Philip of France and Richard of England set out for Outremer in July 1190, taking a mostly over water route. In the end, Richard would be instrumental in the reclaiming of Cyprus, and much of Outremer, though he would fall short of his goal, and Jerusalem remained in Arab hands. The Third Crusade is often referred to as either Richards Crusade, since it was the English King who gained the most success, or The Gentlemens Crusade, since both Richard and Saladin claimed to uphold the virtue of chivalry, and spent as much time in a battle of manners as in actual battle itself.
A tournament, hosted by Theobald, Count of Champagne, was the unlikely breeding ground for the Fourth Crusade. While the Counts motives for Crusading were religious and chivalrous, since Outremer had no King and Theobald was the nearest blood relation to the female heir, others had no such chivalry in mind. They were merely escaping the inevitable battling between King John of England and Philip of France.
This ill-conceived Crusade ended up never even reaching Outremer. Instead of attacking Egypt, as planned by Theobald, the Crusaders ransacked Constantinople, capturing the already-Christian city in AD 1203. After the Crusaders had moved on, there was a city-wide revolt, causing the Crusaders to return and recapture the city again in 1204.
The next Crusade undertaken by the knights of Christendom was preceded by tragic events. In 1212, boy-preachers led an ill-fated Childrens Crusade that would never reach Jerusalem, or even as far as Outremer. Many of the children died of starvation or from hardships and drowning before the rag-tag army was forced to turn back. However, their Crusade did fuel the final decision to go to war again in an effort to re-open overland passage to Outremer. This was decided at the Council of Lateran in 1215.
Begun in 1217, the Fifth Crusade amounted to little more than a series of raids until late in 1218, when attacks on the Sultanate of Egypt began. In November 1219, after a siege of nearly sixteen months, Crusaders captured the city of Damietta. Had the Crusaders had a competent leader, they might even have captured Cairo. Instead, their venture ended in failure, and Egypt remained largely in Arab hands.
The last three Crusades were not high in either interest or popularity in Europe. Warfare in the East was losing its appeal to the nobility of Europe, and morale was at rock bottom in Outremer. These half-hearted Crusades would gain and lose unimportant ground repeatedly, resulting in complete failure. By 1291, the Kingdom of Outremer was completely obliterated.
http://vt.essortment.com/crusadesholywa_rhvy.htm
http://www.medievalcrusades.com/
In the end, they cause more problems than good. I don't know why u say forming an army tat attack on others is a good thing. Wat happened when they succeed in capturing a city ? They plunder, rob, torture and make lives more miserable than ever. Muslims and jews r killed without mercy. All were killed in jerusalem. In Atioch, every turk wre killed, and even include some christians. They even prosecuted jews during their times which made them nothing more like hitler. Historian have always say tat crusaders r a mistakes. it is surpising someone will defend it -
Just wondering .. SM always like to quote from obviously Catholic sites .. but can he tell good historicity from bad historicity? Is he assuming all Catholic authors give good historicity?
Does he examine the 'history' from another perspective? Like from the eyes of the Protestant and Jew.
He is like feeding propaganda to us.
-
Which SM?
-
SIS, the examples are not "ethnic cleansing". Numbers 31 is God passing judgment on the Midianites who have gone against Him (they had collborated with Moabs to curse the Israelites). And if God is to embark on such a thing, He definitely will appear and speak to whoever clearly, leaving no trace of doubt. That was the case, He spoke clearly to Moses.
Also, the Israelites are God's chosen people; a favoured nation. Surely He will not persecute them like Hitler did. -
Wah .. just like some Bush rhetoric leh .. just war heh.Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:Now, I have never denied that the Catholics of history have persecuted others. They have committed many atrocities, that is undeniable. But an immoral action during a war does not detract from the justice of the cause of the war. The immoral action should be condemned, as Godfrey de Bouillon condemned the Sack of Jerusalem and Simon de Montfort condemned the Sack of Constantinople, but the war itself remains just.
Let's put aside the 'just war theory' for the moment and focus on the atrocities and persecutions. Why are they so blood thirsty?
Ok, let's go straight to the point. From your knowledge, is there any persecution or atrocity that is sanctioned by the pontifex maximus himself? -
SgMacross .. his name too long so I lazy to type .. hahaOriginally posted by laurence82:Which SM? -
Maybe He is using Hitler as an instrument?Originally posted by sillyme:Also, the Israelites are God's chosen people; a favoured nation. Surely He will not persecute them like Hitler did.
I think SIS may link Hitler with the episode of Job. In SIS' view, God let Satan 'play' with Job. Similarly, many Jews were asking, even today, where was God during the holocaust?
But face it, without Hitler, the modern state of Israel would not even exist today. -
SIS, the examples are not "ethnic cleansing". Numbers 31 is God passing judgment on the Midianites who have gone against Him (they had collborated with Moabs to curse the Israelites). And if God is to embark on such a thing, He definitely will appear and speak to whoever clearly, leaving no trace of doubt. That was the case, He spoke clearly to Moses.
Why not ? Did they not destroyed midians ? Did they not killed all the men and children ? R midians not men ? They don't have mother and sons ? They feel no grief ? Pass judgement ? For wat ? Because they have a different religion ? Why kill them ? because god want them to be killed. God spoke clearly to killed all midians, which is ethnic cleansing. God want moses to perform ethnic cleansing. Wat hitler had done is in line with the bible.
Also, the Israelites are God's chosen people; a favoured nation. Surely He will not persecute them like Hitler did.
Isreal r god chosen people ? Isn't tat a racist remark ? So midian r not favoured so they deserved death ? u might as well say jesus is white so god favour white people. -
This is an article tat says of hitler
I have often reflected, wistfully, on how much happier modern history might have been had Hitler been brought up as an atheist, an agnostic, or, at least, a Unitarian. Born and bred a Catholic, he grew up in a religion and in a culture that was anti-semitic, and in persecuting Jews, he repeatedly proclaimed he was doing the "Lord's work."
You will find it in Mein Kampf.- "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work."
Hitler said it again at a Nazi Christmas celebration in 1926: "Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews . . . The work that Christ started but could not finish, I--Adolf Hitler--will conclude."
In a Reichstag speech in 1938, Hitler again echoed the religious origins of his crusade. "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord's work. "
Hitler regarded himself as a Catholic until he died. "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so," he told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals, in 1941.
There was really no reason for Hitler to doubt his good standing as a Catholic. The Catholic press In Germany was eager to curry his favor, and the princes of the Catholic Church never asked for his excommunication. Religions encourage their followers to hold authority in unquestioning respect; this is what makes devout religionists such wonderful dupes for dictators.
When Hitler narrowly escaped assassination in Munich in November, 1939, he gave the credit to providence. "Now I am completely content," he exclaimed. "The fact that I left the Burgerbraukeller earlier than usual is a corroboration of Providence's intention to let me reach my goal." Catholic newspapers throughout the Reich echoed this, declaring that it was a miraculous working of providence that had protected their Fuhrer. One cardinal, Michael Faulhaber, sent a telegram instructing that a Te Deum be sung in the cathedral of Munich, "to thank Divine Providence in the name of the archdiocese for the Fuhrer's fortunate escape. " The Pope also sent his special personal congratulations!
Later the Pope was to publicly describe Hitler's opposition to Russia as a "high-minded gallantry in defense of the foundation of Christian culture. "Several German bishops openly supported Hitler's invasion of Russia, calling it a "European crusade." One bishop exhorted all Catholics to fight for "a victory that will allow Europe to breathe freely again and will promise all nations a new future. " -
I believe that by not telling them, you are being guilty of hiding of concealing the truth, we should reach out to those who need christ, besides God is merciful and just
Guilty of hiding the truth ? tat is why i say spreading the word is god for the spreader but bad for the listener. U r indirectly sending them to hell to save your skin.
i ask before, wat happen to the people who had never heard of christ. From the bible, they say they all goes to hell. From some modern people, they believe that god is merciful and they be freed, which ran contrary to god's word. Wat is your answer to it then ? -
I was wondering. Christanity and Hinduism may have spoken something about reincarnation and rebirth. Have you tried reading the bible or the Vedas from front to back while keeping the idea of reincarnation in mind? There might be some hints.I dont know, I have yet to try it.Originally posted by laurence82:I dont agree for some points.
Christianity do not believe in reincarnation, as I have learned in some topics here. Neither do Hindus believe in being saved through Jesus Christ.
To the rest...
If we were to examine all religious scriptures and holy books closely, it will be wrong to say there are no similarity, and it will be wrong to say there are no differences.
The point is this, while its alright to point out similarities or differences among different beliefs, continually speaking out about how non Christians can be saved or not be saved can have serious consequences.
In this case, this topic include our ancestors, generally, for Chinese, its ancestor worship, Buddhism and Taoism, Indian will be Hinduism and Buddhism, and for the Malays, Islam. Not just free thinkers.
These beliefs are still being practised today and some are recognised as offical religions in Singapore and other countries. To many here, it may sounds like a spiritual or an intellectual discussions. But please be mindful and be sensitive when discussing such topics. Its tantamount to spitting on other beliefs because for many who do not believe in Christ. Not just because they feel offended, but they have their own strong reasons for not believing in Christ.
And if such topics heat up, what will be implications for the multireligious societies like Malaysia and Singapore? Worse ,if this debate is carried on offline and discussed with counterparts from other beliefs..? -
Now see this: Number ONE, Actions are not the same as teachings. The fact that the Church had some abuses is clear. But as on slavery, the Church very early condemned it, repeated it twice more. Yet even churchmen had slaves. So did George Washington. This does not mean the teaching of the Church changed: only laxity on all sides. We think of the putting off of baptism in first centuries. St. Jerome was adult when baptized. St. Basil the Great, coming from a family with several saints in it, was not baptized until about age 26. John Kerry is Catholic, and he supports abortion. Does this mean the church supports abortion? No!
But the bible support slavery ! From so many popes and books for so many hundreds of years, only a few account have been found tat the church dis-approved of slavey. In fact there have been more accounts showing tat the church do support slavery. Even the clergy have slaves. In the end how ?
The Spanish Inquisition was particularly terrifying because of its inherent characteristics. The accused never knew who their accusers were. Once arrested, the accused heretic's properties were seized. These properties were then administered at first by the Crown, and later by the General Inquisitor. This fostered the means for anyone to accuse for personal reasons, or to get gain. In many areas, ". . . men began to wonder whether a man's worldly wealth, as well as his descent, was now become [sic] an incriminating circumstance" (Roth, 1964, p. 60). The Inquisition certainly did not limit itself to purifying only those of the Jewish faith. This was especially true if the accused was found to have any Jewish blood in his ancestry. Even if the accused was now a devout Christian, he was tried as severely as possible because of his roots. The accused was also not allowed to have a lawyer or counsel for his defense, and the names of all witnesses were kept secret from him (Roth, 1964).
The punishments and tortures used to gain confessions are the most famous parts of the Inquisition. Because the trials were for spiritual matters, the Church handled them. However, the punishments were usually very much physical, so they were handled by the state. There were many means of this physical torture for confession. The two most famous or infamous were the strappado or pulley, and the aselli or water torment. The strappado was a device that used ropes to strap a person in by their arms and legs, and then weights were attached to the ends of these ropes. The person was raised to a certain level and then the ropes were released. This created a situation where the body would be stretched painfully, sometimes enough to produce death (see Figure 1). The aselli was accomplished as a person was brought to lay down on a trestle with sharp-edged rungs and secured with an iron band. Their feet would be elevated above their heads. The accused then had a small piece of linen forced into the gullet. Using a jar (jarra), water would be poured into the mouth and nose producing a state of semi-suffocation. The process would be done repeatedly. While doing that process, the cords binding the limbs would be tightened until it would seem the very veins would explode (Roth, 1964). The torture would not be stopped, but a break could be taken. The difference is that if the torture were stopped, it could not be started again according to church law. But, if the torture was only suspended, it could be resumed at a later time.
The tortures were used on old and young alike to get confessions and to learn of accomplices. In this way, the Spanish tried to ensure they would be pure. Once a confession was reached, if it was heinous enough, the perpetrator would be sentenced to death.
The sentence of death was carried out as the accused was thrown into a fire as an auto de fe (act of faith). The fire was reserved for those who would not admit their heresy, those who relapsed in their heresies, and to other dissenters. The guilty were burned because the church believed they (the church) should not be a direct party in the shedding of blood. To remain free of blood, the church "relaxed" or handed over the guilty to the secular arm. Once handed over, the church would recommend mercy with the qualifier that if the accused was guilty, they be punished by death. It was understood that the secular authorities would immediately condemn those with "relaxed" status to death (Roth, 1964). If the guilty were fortunate enough to die in the prisons instead, they and their families were still not safe. Their dead bodies, along with effigies of those that had escaped to other lands, would be taken along with the living and thrown into the fire. This allowed the lands of all of those people to be confiscated, if that had not already been done. There truly was no escape from the fanaticism of the Spanish Inquisition.
In summary, the Inquisition in Spain began in 1478 and officially ended in 1808. During that time, 323,362 people were burned and 17,659 were burned in effigy. It is one of the darkest periods in Spanish history. By far, the greatest number of cases tried were for Judaising (Roth, 1964). These were also the cases that were tried the most severely. There were other minorities, of course, that were persecuted, but the majority were Jews. The Inquisition definitely had racial overtones. Although, it can be said that Queen Isabella officially initiated the Spanish Inquisition for the purity of faith, nation, and people, this is probably not the case. The materialistic desires of the aristocracy certainly factor into the reasons for the perpetuation of the Inquisition
http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/64.htm
http://cyberessays.com/History/47.htm
http://www.historyofengland.net/inquisition/index.html
Please take note tat on most occasions, the jews were targeted. At tat time
The government officials of the time were also a bit low on
money. They were very greedy, and wanted to be rich as they once were.
They were able to use the Inquisition as a manner of attaining money
and riches. They would hire people or go themselves, and ransack the
houses of Jews. They would kill the inhabitants of the houses, and
take anything they could find, including money, furniture, and
jewelry.
The King and Queen had the same selfish desires as the
officials had. They wanted to get more money for themselves, and they
had to find a quick source it. They did the same thing as the
officials did. They hired people to pillage the houses of the Jews,
and to take their money and possessions.
Tat is why the accusers were not known, and all the properties went to the gov. They were tortured severely there and most yielded to it. This is again another incident tat has been condemn by historians. It is surprising someone will defend it. -
Maybe He was.Originally posted by Icemoon:Maybe He is using Hitler as an instrument?
I think SIS may link Hitler with the episode of Job. In SIS' view, God let Satan 'play' with Job. Similarly, many Jews were asking, even today, where was God during the holocaust?
But face it, without Hitler, the modern state of Israel would not even exist today.
God is able to make something out of nothing.
If you see the "by-products" of war, we won't be what we are now. -
What Hitler did, happened in the Bible but it does not mean he was acting under God's will. Was he acting under God's command? Many will doubt it.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Why not ? Did they not destroyed midians ? Did they not killed all the men and children ? R midians not men ? They don't have mother and sons ? They feel no grief ? Pass judgement ? For wat ? Because they have a different religion ? Why kill them ? because god want them to be killed. God spoke clearly to killed all midians, which is ethnic cleansing. God want moses to perform ethnic cleansing. Wat hitler had done is in line with the bible.
Isreal r god chosen people ? Isn't tat a racist remark ? So midian r not favoured so they deserved death ? u might as well say jesus is white so god favour white people.
Like is said, the Midianites turned their back against God. Their judgment was not because they were not favoured but for being unrepentant. I mentioned Israel being favoured in relation to Hitler, not the Midianites. You're in a habit of mixing statements, you make a good propagandist.
Anyway, with salvation completed on the Cross, ethnic cleansing is not justifiable anymore. (I'm not suggesting God encouraged ethnic cleansing before the Cross) -
What Hitler did, happened in the Bible but it does not mean he was acting under God's will. Was he acting under God's command? Many will doubt it.
So u admit ethnic cleansing do go inline with the bible. He may not be under god command, but he sure do it for god. In the end he felt no remorse about it. And in tat case he do have a chance to go to heaven. Was tat fair ?Like is said, the Midianites turned their back against God. Their judgment was not because they were not favoured but for being unrepentant. I mentioned Israel being favoured in relation to Hitler, not the Midianites. You're in a habit of mixing statements, you make a good propagandist.
U do state tat isrealis r favoured. They do turned their back against god by building a golden cow but they sure doesn't get punished by death. So midians get punish by death because god practise favourtism ? Tis fact is true during moses times too isn't it ? Why can't I use it on tis context since it remains relevant ?
BTW turning their back against him so they deserve to die horribly ? Wow... how merciful and fair is he... frankly it seems more like the acts of devilAnyway, with salvation completed on the Cross, ethnic cleansing is not justifiable anymore. (I'm not suggesting God encouraged ethnic cleansing before the Cross)
Oh really, why not ? I can't help asking... is it justifiable then ? U say it is not justifiable after the cross, surely it implied it is justifiable befere. Midians and the others don't believe in god so it is justified tat they get slaughtered ? -
Stupidismart...first of all i dun not know y u wan to come to eternal hope ..well this thread, like it or not it is for christians and someone who wants to know about CHRIST. If u are not..praise to u for dropping by and if u wan to post something...i think is best to adjust ur tone.
first of all....As mentioned b4...r we going into the house of feng sui and bang ppl there?? telling them what they believe is so not logical ? U have ur believe..we have our own. Billgates success lie in feng sui? Ang moh dunno feng sui, they position their wall, chair and doors all wrongly..that's y they are so poor today???? ppl who read fung sui in the streat..so good in telling ppl what to do..why dun they teach themselves first on how to generate wealth rather than walking down the streat begging for "business".
So ..no one call u to believe in Christ. Why so frust? U believe in karma right....so no one is stopping u. Ur aim of reading the bible is to find flaws and misinterpreting them to gang bang christians, not to understand it.
I also got some questions. U say achieve nirvana...ok..who set the standard?? who is the one that say ok ..u achieve nirvana? Nature?? buddha.?? then who granted buddha nirvana?? nature?? What is this whole thing of nature? How u define nature? So..nature can think? nature can decide? nature says that u next round will become pig...or young handsome prince?? ..since u dun believe in GOd right....the " thing" that is going to judge u..is nature?? so.,.if nature can think, decide and pass judgement and upgrade a soul to achieve nirvana...so what exactly is this nature...Mother Nature???
There are alot of things to argue about ..which we DONT WANT TO DO IT..becoz of one thing call RESPECT. If i would enter house of feng sui and tell ppl what u believe is crap..u think i can CHANGE the ENTIRE FORUMITES view...u know u cant...but u r doing something quite similar here...i believe u have "mens rea" b4 u procede right.
ya almost forgot..what about this Hitler thing...y make it sound so difficult. simple..i can say i kill u for Christ sake...i can say i am a christian..i can SAY WHATEVER i want...so??? what;s the big deal...when i die ...then got judgement day lah. No one here is God..only He knows what is right. Actus reas and mens rea my fren. Actus reas is a tick for him liao...mens rea..only God knows.
let me tell u one simple thing...which is..u can type a 10 thousand pages long of essay...BUT IT WILL NOT EVEN SHAKEN The FAITH OF ANY CHRISTIANS in this thread. Amen. and peace to u. -
That..is the power of internet....
Btw, TrU PeAce (^0*)v, i agree with u regarding respect and SIS replies to this forum...its pointless to argue endlessly about the Bible, or for that matter, about any holy book or scriptures...both sides have strong cases and reasons to believe or not to believe in Christ, besides this forum is set up mainly to cater for believers....
However, the issue (this topic) has touches abit on non believers too, and u can see there are discussion in this aspect.
Regarding your view on crashing into HOFS, just would like to point out, there has been cases people who belong to this forum gatecrashed into HOFS and Light of Atlantis (during its early days) and, preached Christianity and quoted sections from the Bibles. There were some discussions, but there were also blatant telling off people from these forums their practices are wrong, using the Bible as the authority.
Well, that was some time ago, so i would not point out the relevant topics.