Yeah Europe was so Christlike.
No Iâm not. And no I canât.
1 Like
At least the story of Christ was saved and not burned by the muslisms Yeah Christians did atrocities too but Muhammad instructs to
I know what Islam teaches. Whatâs that got to do with the Christlike response?
I also know that Islam arose in the power vacuum created in the centuries of war between âChristianâ Rome, based in Turkey, and Persia.
What i meant was that even though Europe wasnt much Christianlike (with the full meaning of the word) that doesnt mean that the muslims would be allowed to persecute and even destroy all the christian faith. Plus some people actually were.
Im pacifist dont get me wrong but Christians at that time were not. And how would you react in a certain time? Was a Christian response to fight back Hitler? Were you following the (give your life for your friends) or (He who lives by the sword dies by the sword) . Now thats a dilemma
I donât know were you going with this and dont know anything about a war. What i do know is islams theology consists of writings of the bible both the old and the new testament. They have Jesus as their greatest âprophetâ right behind Mohamed (of course)
Maybe you should stick to your theologies? Because history is not one of your strong points.
The âreconquestâ of Spain started even before the Crusades started, let alone what you refer to as âthe ethnic cleansing of Spainâ:
From the Wiki article on Asturias we read:
"The Kingdom of Asturias (Latin: Regnum Asturorum ) was a kingdom in the Iberian Peninsula founded in 718 by the Visigothic nobleman Pelagius. It was the first Christian political entity established after the Umayyad conquest of Visigothic Hispania in 718 or 722.[2] That year, Pelagius defeated an Umayyad army at the Battle of Covadonga, in what is usually regarded as the beginning of the Reconquista.
The first crusade to the EAST was 1095. And the European presence in âthe Holy Landâ ended a short time after the fall of Acre in 1291.
By this time, all of Portugal had been liberated (as of 1249), and the only territory left to Islam was a generous slice called Granada.
And it would take another 2 centuries for the successors of the Templars to finally clear out GranadaâŚ
I have stood in the last Arab village in Andalusia where the ethnic cleansing finished. In the C16th. The Crusades were nothing to do with the Reconquista.
That is the point that I was I have been trying to make. How can any religion claim to be Christ-like that perpetuated genocide of the Arians, the crusades, the inquisition, etc? Why take anything that this religion created as Godâs truth? Remember, the conquerers write the history and Jesus was defeated. How can you expect Jesusâ truth to be carried on by those who conquered Him?
So saith the Magistrate of human history, you?
The conquest of Portugal was to a large part furthered by the successor monks of the Templars - - the knights of Christ ⌠having (for the most part) the same:
- officers;
- sergeants;
- forts;
- fleets
that were commanded by the Templars in Hispania prior to the disbanding of the Templars by the Pope.
You could even say that one of the reasons the Crusades came to a rather lackluster end is because there was a much closer and more convenient part of the Crusades, that siphoned off enthusiasm and manpower: the Cathar Crusade!
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Oh, by the way, did you ever go to Morocco to the square where in 1792, 50 Jews were burned alive because they would not convert to Islam?
âIn 1792 in Ifrane, Morocco, 50 Jews preferred to be burned alive, rather than convert to Islam.â
Guys christians and muslims both did atrocities . But they are not similar. Christ does not tell ever to slay every unbeliever who doesnt convert where Muhammad does. Thats the difference. In every war there are atrocities committed by both sides. And if theâvictors right historyâ thing is true
I guess the Holocaust never happened huh? Becuase you know since we won we told a bunch of lies of what did the Germans did. The idea that history is written by the victors is a fraud.
Is this a serious question that y6ou want to be addressed, or simply a rhetorical question?
It was an original response to Klax that eternal life has to be lived now as he stated. Then i asked him if he meant that the paradise of the afterlife is here. Turns out he didnt mean that. So a rhetorical i guess
It looks to me that Klax did say that eternal life was to be lived now. What is the Church?
He then said this
As an answer to
So Klax said he was not rejecting the afterlife, but how does that indicate he and Jesus did not say that Eternal Life begins on earth.
If Jesus could in effect live with God the Father in heave4n while He was on earth, why canât we in effect live in heaven with Jesus while we are still living on earth?
We can but not in a literal way. That was the meaning of my question in the first place. It was like one of those sayings " ohhh theres is no heaven and hell you live a heaven and hell here" kind of thing. Thats why i asked
What do you mean by literal?
Eternal Life is Spiritual reality that Jesus givers all that are saved here and now because it is a direct relationship with God through the Holy Spirit.
Is the Spiritual somehow less than the physical because it is beyond the physical?.
The problem @Klax has is that everything is One so nothing is real.
And you were doing so well!