It's time for a Crusade (Jesus, mystic, salvation, beliefs)

[LCMS Sprecher]

Christianity does not have a problem with the Enlightenment. The enlightenment methods of logic allow us to better understand the world that God has created. The enlightenment has a problem with Christianity because it does not view a possiblity that there is a God, and cannot recognize that there are things that humans will never be able to explain (primarily the spiritual).

[Fra.Morelia]

After your admission that man cannot undertand the spiritual I would like know nowy our exact logic for fghing the heathens again, please? Grab the bags, kids... we're going on a power trip!
My demonic images filtering thru your screen, eh? try changing the channel, pal.
the eastern peaceful religions a little to threatening? oh come on, your just making up enemies to glorify your persecution now.
peace, yea.. that's awful menacing. your right. we are muuuuuch better off killing each other in droves.
I would like to suggest that there may be a demon involved, tho. the one in the back of your mind that makes you warp the words of a loving man with hatred and venom.
EDIT for spelling, keyboard acting up.

[Fra.Morelia]

And a justice comparison using hitler?? you're right tho. those death camps the wiccans are running are out of control.Oh wait,they believe in peace love and equality.
I don't but they do.
You could probably kill Wiccans and new agers, as they are peaceful souls It would be a lot like murdering children. Which it would require, since many of them have families. What ABOUT those children? are we going into making an omelett territory nw?

[KBC1963]

Luke,

I hear your religious zeal and it is commendable in its intent, but for a few moments I ask that you consider if this is truley in line with GODS will.
Imagine if you will if GOD had this same attitude then he would just destroy anything and anyone that was not as he wants them to be, there is a reason why we have the time that we have, he has many creations and he wants to show them the folly of not obeying him, he doesnt want to be obeyed simply by force of arms, he is love and he only wants those that will truley love him for for his ways and unless he gives everyone an opportunity to learn of him and eventually change then much of creation will obey more out of fear than love, so in falling inline with his intent we are asked to be lamps unto the world and to show all those that don't believe how good living can be when GOD is made first in all things.

[painted wolf]

erm, sorry friendly mod, seemed the best way I could sum up how I felt about this subject without stepping on toes. ops:

"he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword" could in this case be restated. "the religion spread by the sword will die by the sword"

The basic point of religion, (to love/know god) can not be given to people at the end of a gun. You can not force faith on others, the bible is filled with examples of this. Yet not once have I found an instance where a charactor in the bible came to his faith by having it forced on him by another person.

In todays world, should the christians start a new physical crusade against other religions it would be a disaster on a global scale. We do not fight such wars with swords and spears anymore, we have guns and bombs and Nukes.

As much as christians want to have god on thier side, I think he would wash his hands of any group that employed wepons of mass distruction such as bombs. From a christian perspective, god did not help us defeat Hiroshima and Nagasaki Satan did.

wa:do

[anders]

"no true Christian would ever say 'convert or die'". No, that would in the olden days have been what Muslims said. In the crusades, Christians just said "Die!"

The Bible is extremely violent. What about Ps. 137:9 "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." If all the world had been ruled by, for example, Buddhism, Taoism or Sikhism, it would have been a perfectly peaceful and tolerant world.

[quick]

Originally Posted by anders

"no true Christian would ever say 'convert or die'". No, that would in the olden days have been what Muslims said. In the crusades, Christians just said "Die!"

The Bible is extremely violent. What about Ps. 137:9 "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." If all the world had been ruled by, for example, Buddhism, Taoism or Sikhism, it would have been a perfectly peaceful and tolerant world.

I know this is not the debate section, but enough is enough.

The Crusades, right or wrong, would have never been fought but for Muslim agression. It's just that simple. There is more than enough blame to go around. Heck, the Ottomons were still trying to invade Europe as recently as the late 1700s, when their armies were on the outskirts of Vienna.

The Bible is about sinners--from Genesis 3 through Revelation. Of course it is violent, and lustful, and oppressive, etc. Perhaps the greatest figure in Hebrew history, David, made some awful sins and was very violent. Why? The Old Testament reveals to man GOd's Law and in so doing shows how woefully poor man's behavior is in comparison to the Law. This shows man his great need for forgiveness through faith in Christ, as we surely could not earn salvation--we are so weak and sinful. The New Testament is the realization of that freely given gift of forgiveness in Christ, as he died to pay the debt for our violation of God's Law.

There is not one word in the New Testament in which we as Christians are ordered to kill our bretheren or non-believers--no Jihad. While people who are, or who just call themselves, Christians continue to make mistakes and to sin, nothing in the doctrine encourages killing one's fellow man--only showing love to them (admittedly sometimes tough love, as we are not called to tolerate sin, but to seek justice) and witnessing to them about the Gospel.

Psalm 137 is about the invasion of Israel and the killing and torment of Israel, all of which came about because they ignored God. The Edomites were the instrument of destruction, and the writer is in exile from Israel. The Edomites killed the Hebrew children by dashing their heads against the rocks, and the writer is hoping one day the Edomites will be repaid for that horror. Is it violent? Sure. Does it point to the need for salvation through grace for man's inhumanity to man? Absolutely. Does it encourage such behavior? Hardly.l

Psalm 137
1 By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept
when we remembered Zion.
2 There on the poplars
we hung our harps,
3 for there our captors asked us for songs,
our tormentors demanded songs of joy;
they said, "Sing us one of the songs of Zion!"

4 How can we sing the songs of the LORD
while in a foreign land?
5 If I forget you, O Jerusalem,
may my right hand forget its skill .
6 May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth
if I do not remember you,
if I do not consider Jerusalem
my highest joy.

7 Remember, O LORD , what the Edomites did
on the day Jerusalem fell.
"Tear it down," they cried,
"tear it down to its foundations!"

8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is he who repays you
for what you have done to us-
9 he who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.

Even when God commanded Israel to kill tribes or nations, of course, they deserved to die (as do we all), as we are all sinners. We deserve no mercy. God shows mercy to those he chooses--a gift. We all deserved exactly what the babies got, as we all have violated God's law, and the wages of sin are death. There is no endorsement in the Bible of such violence, only acknowlegment that sinful man is prone to such behavior and it is how sinful man "solves" his problems absent regeneration in the Holy Spirit.

[Mr Spinkles]

I agree with quick. The Christians weren't the only ones who went out in search of conquest.

[painted wolf]

Mr Spinkles-

true but you can't say that the muslims were the sole instigaters of the Crusades either. The whole thing a big historical FUBAR.

Ahh, quick, if everyone went by the NT alone then perhaps it would be a bit better.

Dt.13:6 "If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die."

2 Chr.15:13 "Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman."

and anders just to be fair, Bhuddists, Taoists and Siks(?)have been known to get involved in wars... no faith is purely byond reproach.

Perhaps the more pertent question would by why would modern day Christians want to start another physical crusade? Shurely a religion with a history of persicution and a doctrine of peace and love would reject such a notion as pure apostasy.

wa:do

[anders]

PW,

I don't think that Buddhism ever has been involved in wars. For example, when China invaded Tibet, there was practically no physical resistance from the Buddhists. Neither was there any violence from Buddhists when they were driven out of India. Taoists may have been involved in warfare, but never ever as a religion or philosophy, but possibly individual Taoists. Practically all cases where Sikhs have been involved in violence have been when they have been attacked. The two Anglo-Sikh wars, in 1845 and 1848, were caused by British efforts to invade the Punjab. Of course there have been isolated cases, like retaliations when Sikhs have been murdered, but as a general principle, it is a peaceful religion. It is rather amazing that there, for example, wasn't more violence following the massacre of hundreds of Sikhs at the Jallianwala Bagh in 1919 and at and in the Golden Temple in 1984.