The acid test of Christianity

Originally posted by RJHinds
I think they like it because it simplfies Jesus and makes Him easier to
understand and they don't have to give Him the same respect that
they give God the Father. It also gets rid of the Trinity idea by making
the Holy Spirit refer to God the Father and not a separate person, but
only the force coming from God. So Jesus to them was the first spirit
an ...[text shortened]... born
son and let Him have the thrill of creating the heavens and the earth.
Etc., etc., etc.

you dont know anything about it, but hey, why let that stop you!

Originally posted by menace71
Yeah the better option would have been to let Hitler take over the world. Sounds good yeah I think that's what the world should have done. 😉 We the allies had to break Germany's back otherwise you and I both might be speaking German now.





Manny

i wondered when someone would try to justify mass killing and the indiscriminate
bombing of civilians, that is defenceless women and children, right on time! Hope you
are happy with your justification, it wouldn't be me, that's for sure. You'd be speaking
German, id be in a Gulag or concentration camp somewhere, despite my blonde hair
and blue eyes.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i wondered when someone would try to justify mass killing and the indiscriminate
bombing of civilians, that is defenceless women and children, right on time! Hope you
are happy with your justification, it wouldn't be me, that's for sure. You'd be speaking
German, id be in a Gulag or concentration camp somewhere, despite my blonde hair
and blue eyes.

Ok.....It was war however what would have been a better solution? I want to know.
I agree indiscriminate bombing was not the best. The allies tried also to hit factories and production to stop the German war machine. I watched a whole episode on the military channel and the allies tried all sorts of schemes to try and limit civilian deaths and make bombing more precise. However Hitler had no qualms about killing people there in London and where ever in England. My question then is what would have been the better solution?







Manny

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no, what i have done is expose your own prejudices and why you harbour those prejudices. You singled out the New world translation, why?, because it conflicts with your dogma, that is why. This has nothing to do with accurate translation, it has to do with your religious convictions which may be right or wrong.

I cited an independent reference ...[text shortened]... to expect ? Please turn up the tone, you do yourself an injustice by continuing the charade.

I read it the link you provided and I agree in as much as it it a decent translation except when it comes to JW doctrine then the NWT has a twist toward JW doctrine. The guy I believe states this if I remember correctly. This would be for you the equivalent of admitting that the Catholic bible is a good translation also but with a Catholic doctrinal bent.



Manny

Originally posted by menace71
Ok.....It was war however what would have been a better solution? I want to know.
I agree indiscriminate bombing was not the best. The allies tried also to hit factories and production to stop the German war machine. I watched a whole episode on the military channel and the allies tried all sorts of schemes to try and limit civilian deaths and make bombin ...[text shortened]... in England. My question then is what would have been the better solution?







Manny

Slight rose-tint to the programmes you've been watching I think. Bomber Command pretty much invented the concept of carpet-bombing during WWII. The allies also dropped a lot of incendiary bombs indiscriminately on German cities.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Slight rose-tint to the programmes you've been watching I think. Bomber Command pretty much invented the concept of carpet-bombing during WWII. The allies also dropped a lot of incendiary bombs indiscriminately on German cities.

Agreed I don't think it was a nice neat affair however What would have been a better solution? That is the question I posed to R.C. as I know he is a total pacifist but at what cost?



Manny

Originally posted by menace71
Agreed I don't think it was a nice neat affair however What would have been a better solution? That is the question I posed to R.C. as I know he is a total pacifist but at what cost?



Manny

The better solution would have been a stiff dose of pacifism to a lot of people back in 1914.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
The better solution would have been a stiff dose of pacifism to a lot of people back in 1914.

LOL well agreed if the allies of WWI would have treated Germany better than possibly there could of been a different future with No German dictator but once again history is what it is. So once again the question remains. How about hypothetical then. Country X wants to take over Country Y by forceful means is it un-Christian for country Y to defend its self with force? Or should it just allow country X to take over?

Manny

Originally posted by menace71
Ok.....It was war however what would have been a better solution? I want to know.
I agree indiscriminate bombing was not the best. The allies tried also to hit factories and production to stop the German war machine. I watched a whole episode on the military channel and the allies tried all sorts of schemes to try and limit civilian deaths and make bombin ...[text shortened]... in England. My question then is what would have been the better solution?







Manny

As a Christian i cannot condone the use of drugs, however in the case of imminent war
with all diplomatic avenues having been exhausted, dropping LSD bombs would have
had the desired effect. Issue everyone with love guns, loaded up with flowers and let
the war begin. 🙂

Originally posted by menace71
LOL well agreed if the allies of WWI would have treated Germany better than possibly there could of been a different future with No German dictator but once again history is what it is. So once again the question remains. How about hypothetical then. Country X wants to take over Country Y by forceful means is it un-Christian for country Y to defend its self with force? Or should it just allow country X to take over?

Manny

My reading of the teachings of Christ as represented by the King James bible would be that it would be better to allow country X to take over rather than take up arms against the invaders.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
As a Christian i cannot condone the use of drugs, however in the case of imminent war
with all diplomatic avenues having been exhausted, dropping LSD bombs would have
had the desired effect. Issue everyone with love guns, loaded up with flowers and let
the war begin. 🙂

Is there a scriptural basis for an anti-drugs stance in christianity?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
My reading of the teachings of Christ as represented by the King James bible would be that it would be better to allow country X to take over rather than take up arms against the invaders.

hi Cat, this is quite an amazing for me, for I have never heard of anyone come to this conclusion through personal study and research as you have done. Yes some have objected on the basis solely of conscience or some other type of agency or teaching, but as you are no doubt aware yourself, many of the professed Christians, including Jaywill, Suzzianne, Manny, Whodey and RJH all have sanctioned war in one form or another. I initially wondered if it was a cultural phenomena, for America appears to me to be a very militaristic society with attitudes towards the military which differ in some respects to those of Europeans. Anyhow, how did you draw these conclusions for what makes your testimony so powerful is that you are an independent and not affiliated with any kind of religious denomination, making the accusation of bias, quite worthless.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Is there a scriptural basis for an anti-drugs stance in christianity?

yes, indeed, although it depends upon whom one asks. The Rastafarians insist that the tree mentioned in the book of revelation, 'for the healing of the nations', refers to marijuana. I heard an interview once by Bob Marley in which he actually quoted the verse directly. Other objections arise from the translation of the term spiritism, literally from the Greek pharmikia, which translates as druggery and is strongly condemned in scripture, Galatians and revelation. It seems that in times past, shamans would enter a drug induced trance, as no doubt you have heard those who enter the desert and seek enlightenment through Peyote cactus, thus this practice of drug inducement refers to spiritism and is condemned, taking so called 'recreational', drugs by extension or on principle. Other principles also apply, being sound in mind and free from defilement of the body.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
hi Cat, this is quite an amazing for me, for I have never heard of anyone come to this conclusion through personal study and research as you have done. Yes some have objected on the basis solely of conscience or some other type of agency or teaching, but as you are no doubt aware yourself, many of the professed Christians, including Jaywill, Suzzian ...[text shortened]... iliated with any kind of religious denomination, making the accusation of bias, quite worthless.

I'm surprised that any christian can read the gospels and not come to the same conclusion. I have heard the odd verse quoted here and there which seems to advocate violent resistance towards oppression, but I've never found myself in agreement with such interpretations. I've not studied the bible extensively, but I've never found anything in Jesus' teachings to gainsay the clear message in Matthew 5:43-48.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes, indeed, although it depends upon whom one asks. The Rastafarians insist that the tree mentioned in the book of revelation, 'for the healing of the nations', refers to marijuana. I heard an interview once by Bob Marley in which he actually quoted the verse directly. Other objections arise from the translation of the term spiritism, literally f ...[text shortened]... ple. Other principles also apply, being sound in mind and free from defilement of the body.

I can't agree with your interpretations there. Jesus clearly endorses the use of alcohol as a recreational drug. It sounds to me that 'spiritism' is more likely to do with attempting to speak with the dead, which certainly is proscribed by scripture.