(September 28, 2015 at 12:52 pm)Drich Wrote:

(September 28, 2015 at 10:41 am)Chad32 Wrote: You can't really deny that jewish persecution happened. Whether these were "true christians" or not doesn't really matter.

It kinda does... Their is a whole rule book to being 'Christian' if one does not follow the rule book, then how can one say he is Christian?

Can I be Atheist and believe in God? No?!?! why not? Oh, your right! their are rules to being an Atheist the primary being one can not believe in God, if he is to claim the title Atheist.

Like wise if their is no command to kill Jews, infact their is a probation on killing in general, then to kill would put one outside the 'rules' of being a bible based Christian. And isn't that what we are talking about in this thread? The followers of the God of Abraham?

Abraham was scum and one of the worse people in the Bible.  He had zero redeeming qualities.

(September 28, 2015 at 4:36 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote:

(September 28, 2015 at 1:29 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I wonder where you got that from.





Oh.

Wonder where Hitler got that from.

From his own deluded mind, he saw the Germans as a superior race, he was an evolutionist and wanted to push evolution along by getting rid of the Jews and any other race he saw as inferior.

GC

(September 29, 2015 at 1:56 am)Godschild Wrote:

(September 28, 2015 at 4:36 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: Wonder where Hitler got that from.

From his own deluded mind, he saw the Germans as a superior race, he was an evolutionist and wanted to push evolution along by getting rid of the Jews and any other race he saw as inferior.

GC

I don't currently have the energy to correct the many, many things that are wrong with that statement, but I do have to ask, who is this Lord is he referring to if not God? Lord Ashcroft? Lord British? Lord of the Rings? Or is it a spelling error and he was actually talking to the band Lordi?

(September 28, 2015 at 12:46 pm)Drich Wrote:

(September 28, 2015 at 10:27 am)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: I have the history of the Catholic Church.

..and that would found in what book? starting with which chapter? beginning and ending with which verse exactly?

Like it or not... History only points to when and where the catholic church 'schism-ed' from the bible. Once they/we separate ourselves from the bible with mandates and laws not found in the bible, we cease to worship the God Of The Bible.

There's small print in the Bible that reads: *This book is a compiled work of fiction from several authors; in other words, bullshit. People that accept this content as truth need to have their heads examined and should be monitored closely as they are also likely a menace to society. This started out as a joke for my personal amusement, as I tend to get a little lonely, but spiraled out of control. Best wishes and good luck dragging the morons into modernity. - Love, God.

If you have not seen this you should seek harder. I recommend also trying to A/S/K. If you do A/S/K and are still not shown where this is in the Bible, you must not be sincere or have a hardened heart.

(September 29, 2015 at 1:56 am)Godschild Wrote:

(September 28, 2015 at 4:36 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: Wonder where Hitler got that from.

From his own deluded mind, he saw the Germans as a superior race, he was an evolutionist and wanted to push evolution along by getting rid of the Jews and any other race he saw as inferior.

GC

I like that you call him an "evolutionist" as (in your mind) a counter argument to his motivations as a Christian. In your mind, he did it not based on his warped view of Christianity (despite clearly saying he was doing it for that reason), but because believed in evolution (a warped view of it). How can you think his view of Christianity is warped, then turn around and call him an "evolutionist"?

Do you seriously not understand how dishonest what you just said is? Are you honestly so blinded by your beliefs, or did you just not think it through? Hitler was a bigot and a psychopath, and he reached for popular justification wherever he could find it, in a mad grab for power. One of his justifications was Christianity, because he led a force of Christians-- that's why they had "God With Us" on their freakin' belt buckles and shouted the slogan as well.

The same is true for Stalin and Tariq ibn Ziyad (and atheist and a Muslim, respectively), or the Popes commanding Crusaders to go take the central trade routes in the "Holy Land"... as well as the Muslim leaders saying to take them back.

(September 28, 2015 at 12:54 pm)Chad32 Wrote:

(September 28, 2015 at 12:46 pm)Drich Wrote: ..and that would found in what book? starting with which chapter? beginning and ending with which verse exactly?

Like it or not... History only points to when and where the catholic church 'schism-ed' from the bible. Once they/we separate ourselves from the bible with mandates and laws not found in the bible, we cease to worship the God Of The Bible.

Whichever book, chapter, and verse the church used to justify what they did, because Jesus wasn't around to set them straight when they screwed up. All across the bible, it sets up an us vs them mentality. You're either with Jesus, or you're not. And don't ask me to quote which book, chapter, and verse that's in, because it's one of the major themes of the whole thing. The jews aren't with Jesus, because he didn't fulfill their guidelines for the messiah, so they became the enemies of christians.

That's the thing, they didn't. They used the authority of Jesus supposedly passed on to peter and every other 'pope' from Him to the one who decided to wage war against the muslims or jews or whom ever. The problem with that? The word in which Jesus used to identify 'peter' is not one of authority. Jesus was actually being a little insulting to peter/petros (translated: loose gravel/unsure footing/small stone) when He told Him of the 'rock'/petra in which He would build His church.

Besides all of that, Peter did not start the R/C Church, Peter did not have a big gentile ministry, and nothing ever written places him in Rome. it was Paul who started the church at rome, and nothing else ever written by Peter or Paul hinted at Apostolic powers/Authority being passed down.
So again the authority given to persecute jews or anyone else was not biblical in orgin, it was a mandate from a religious leader. Such mandates do not bind God into accepting or identifying such men or their followers as 'Christians' just because they claim to be. Again that would be no different than me calling myself an Atheist and then proclaiming that God is alive and well.

Just because I give myself a title does not mean I belong to that group. Again with Christianity their are established guidelines, and when you break those guide line you are no longer worshiping the god of the bible. That however does not mean you are not a devoutly religious person. It just means your religion does not follow the God of the bible.

(September 29, 2015 at 9:03 am)Drich Wrote: That's the thing, they didn't. They used the authority of Jesus supposedly passed on to peter and every other 'pope' from Him to the one who decided to wage war against the muslims or jews or whom ever. The problem with that? The word in which Jesus used to identify 'peter' is not one of authority. Jesus was actually being a little insulting to peter/petros (translated: loose gravel/unsure footing/small stone) when He told Him of the 'rock'/petra in which He would build His church.

Besides all of that, Peter did not start the R/C Church, Peter did not have a big gentile ministry, and nothing ever written places him in Rome. it was Paul who started the church at rome, and nothing else ever written by Peter or Paul hinted at Apostolic powers/Authority being passed down.
So again the authority given to persecute jews or anyone else was not biblical in orgin, it was a mandate from a religious leader. Such mandates do not bind God into accepting or identifying such men or their followers as 'Christians' just because they claim to be. Again that would be no different than me calling myself an Atheist and then proclaiming that God is alive and well.

Just because I give myself a title does not mean I belong to that group. Again with Christianity their are established guidelines, and when you break those guide line you are no longer worshiping the god of the bible. That however does not mean you are not a devoutly religious person. It just means your religion does not follow the God of the bible.

The problem with your argument is that there were no other kinds of Christians between the ascension of Catholicism and the Protestant Reformation. Yet (see chart I posted) we see persecution of the Jews going back to practically the beginning of Christianity.

You can't ignore ~1500 years of Christian history and say that the Christians acting throughout that time were not following the God of the Bible, that they weren't TrueChristians™. There is a clear pattern of systematic abuse of Jews until fairly recently in time, based on people's perception of what the Bible demanded of them (through their leaders, as happens today with the anti-gay rhetoric, despite being only a few obscure verses, some of which are of questionable value and none of which have anything to do with the teachings of Jesus, who mentions divorce but not gays). You're willing to swallow a weird prejudice based on a few verses and a lot of church culture, but then want to turn around and say "but those verses they used to justify hatred of the Jews for the past 1900 years aren't really proper doctrine, it was just a twisting of false leadership". It's more than a bit strange to me to read such an argument, given that factor.

(As an aside, I'm curious: if Peter was not really the first Pope, then how did the second one become Pope? I happen to agree with you--though I have no evidence and freely admit that it's just conjecture on my part--that, at some point, somebody in power in the early orthodox church made it up and assigned Peter the role after-the-fact, so they'd have an authoritative lineage traceable to Jesus, but I'm curious to hear your explanation.)

(September 29, 2015 at 1:56 am)Godschild Wrote: From his own deluded mind, he saw the Germans as a superior race, he was an evolutionist and wanted to push evolution along by getting rid of the Jews and any other race he saw as inferior.

GC

So if I'm the hundred-millionth internet user to point out that there is a difference between accepting the findings of modern biology (a.k.a. being an 'evolutionist' for those fluent in goofy creationist Christ-speak) and being a Social Darwinist, much less a crackpot who interprets nearly everything through a racist lens, what do I win?

And it better not be free tickets to Ken Ham's theme park.

(September 29, 2015 at 10:33 am)Crossless1 Wrote:

(September 29, 2015 at 1:56 am)Godschild Wrote: From his own deluded mind, he saw the Germans as a superior race, he was an evolutionist and wanted to push evolution along by getting rid of the Jews and any other race he saw as inferior.

GC

So if I'm the hundred-millionth internet user to point out that there is a difference between accepting the findings of modern biology (a.k.a. being an 'evolutionist' for those fluent in goofy creationist Christ-speak) and being a Social Darwinist, much less a crackpot who interprets nearly everything through a racist lens, what do I win?

And it better not be free tickets to Ken Ham's theme park.

(September 29, 2015 at 9:03 am)Drich Wrote:

(September 28, 2015 at 12:54 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Whichever book, chapter, and verse the church used to justify what they did, because Jesus wasn't around to set them straight when they screwed up. All across the bible, it sets up an us vs them mentality. You're either with Jesus, or you're not. And don't ask me to quote which book, chapter, and verse that's in, because it's one of the major themes of the whole thing. The jews aren't with Jesus, because he didn't fulfill their guidelines for the messiah, so they became the enemies of christians.

That's the thing, they didn't. They used the authority of Jesus supposedly passed on to peter and every other 'pope' from Him to the one who decided to wage war against the muslims or jews or whom ever. The problem with that? The word in which Jesus used to identify 'peter' is not one of authority. Jesus was actually being a little insulting to peter/petros (translated: loose gravel/unsure footing/small stone) when He told Him of the 'rock'/petra in which He would build His church.

Besides all of that, Peter did not start the R/C Church, Peter did not have a big gentile ministry, and nothing ever written places him in Rome. it was Paul who started the church at rome, and nothing else ever written by Peter or Paul hinted at Apostolic powers/Authority being passed down.
So again the authority given to persecute jews or anyone else was not biblical in orgin, it was a mandate from a religious leader. Such mandates do not bind God into accepting or identifying such men or their followers as 'Christians' just because they claim to be. Again that would be no different than me calling myself an Atheist and then proclaiming that God is alive and well.

Just because I give myself a title does not mean I belong to that group. Again with Christianity their are established guidelines, and when you break those guide line you are no longer worshiping the god of the bible. That however does not mean you are not a devoutly religious person. It just means your religion does not follow the God of the bible.

Originally catholicism WAS christianity, so if they got it so wrong so early in their ministry, what hope do we have of figuring out the right way to do it? The best we have is the bible, which was in the hands of people that got it wrong from pretty much day one. Whatever christianity is now, it isn't what any historical Jesus wanted. Might as well throw the whole thing out.