Dutch bishop: Call God ?Allah? to ease relations

[sup-rbeast]

It's good that you have the faith you do, but it is not so good that you can't tolerate or see the importance of the faith of others to themselves.

[imported_GC1]

Neither could Jesus as he himself said that you are either with him or against him. There is no middle ground, nor is there any excuse for rejection of the true God. His Word plainly teaches in Romans 1 that all are without excuse because He has plainly let it be known to all men that He exists and He gives evidence of the Godhead through the grand creation. And while, for the most part, I am very open minded, this is one area I will not budge an inch to give a false religion any ground. Tolerate yes, compromise no.

[sup-rbeast]

You don't have to preach to me...I'm not a Christian. Attitudes like yours and most others on this board is the same one that has caused numerous wars and the death of millions during those wars and christian "conquests" over the past 2000 years.

[imported_GC1]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sup-rbeast</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You don't have to preach to me...I'm not a Christian. Attitudes like yours and most others on this board is the same one that has caused numerous wars and the death of millions during those wars and christian "conquests" over the past 2000 years. </div></div>

No, an attitude like mine is the same as the Lords and His Apostles in wanting to keep the purity and truth of the Gospel free from compromise and being watered down so much you can't tell the difference from preaching and other pagan religions.

I don't advocate war fought by a manmade sword, but waged with the Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God. The call of the Church is to disciple the nations through the preached Word by the power of the Spirit and to bring every thought captive for the glory of Jesus. And in time every nation will bow to the Lord.

There is IMO justified war, such as outside attack, ie 9/11 or to aid besieged Christians in other lands from wicked oppresion such as the Nuba Christians in Southern Sudan who are facing annihalation from the muslim north. I feel a Christian nation has an obligation to wage war in these cases.

[Gotch]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sup-rbeast</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You don't have to preach to me...I'm not a Christian. Attitudes like yours and most others on this board is the same one that has caused numerous wars and the death of millions during those wars and christian "conquests" over the past 2000 years. </div></div>

What wars and conquests are you talking about?

Nearly all wars have been due to imperialism, this includes the so call crusades which were actually a defensive action against a major Islamic land grab that was encroaching well into Europe.

The Christian religion has historically been far less likely than most religions and philosophies to attempt to spread by force. Less by far than Islam or even atheism.

Now there has been many an opportunistic missionary push taking full advantage of political situations and the aftermath of wars. But not conversion by force.

[sup-rbeast]

I and historians would have to disagree with you concerning forced conversions and forced spreading. For an eye witness account of a catholic priest, maybe you should read Bartolomé de las Casas's "Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies". (here is the link to the entire ebook: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/20321 ) I've read it on more than one occasion. It details many events that happened in the New World in the cause of converting the native population....and let's not forget the Inquisition imposed on most all of Europe. As far as the Crusades being in response to a land grab...do you not think the Roman Empire grabbed much of europe the middle east to begin with ? It was time to give it back...so to me that isn't a land grab. Just because generations stay in an one occupied land doesn't meant the right to that land rests with the people who were native there to begin with.

[Gotch]

Not sure what historians would disagree with me either.....

The conquest of the new world was not in any way about the spread of Christianity but about .....drum roll please.....imperialism.

The mistreatment of the native peoples was conducted by Spanish seaman in most cases. This is an example of human cruelty but not an indictment of Christianity as much as an indictment of the people directly involved and of the political power that was a driving force behind them. Yes, this would include the RCC which was at the time more a political entity than a religious one.

No better example of this can be given than the inquisition. You do understand that these action were not taken against these people because they were not Christians but because they either were not or were perceived not to obey the RCC. Not a lack of belief in Christians tenets but a lack of blind obedience to a political force.

[Gotch]

+

The goal was political gain and power not religious conversion.

[sup-rbeast]

Regardless of your spin on the subject, the Christian church both supported and propagated both scanarios. Furthermore, regardless of how you want to present the RCC, without it, there is a good chance Christianity either doesn't survive or is relegated to "cult" status...and as far as the Christian actions in the new world...read the book and its background. Then you might see that it wasn't just the work of seamen etc. etc.

[Gotch]

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The RCC had near absolute power at times. No matter how you want to spin it the RCC was a political organization first and foremost for many years.