Wow...all I saw was a film about a mom and her son. I didn’t go into it with any preconceived notions..but it was totally obvious that it was about Mary following after her boy..that’s why I call it catholic propaganda. But, Mel is a well known catholic.
I didn’t get that so much, but then again, I’m not a Mum!!!
Watch it again and watch how its all about her running around after Him, worrying about Him and crying after Him. Its the mom and her boy show for sure!
How could they travel thousands of miles and "civilize" another land, when they didnt even civilize their own land in Europe?As the English Christians were civilising North America, so were the Spanish Christians civilising South America for a glorious double whammy..
"In the name of their Imperial Highnesses King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, we have come to civilise your asses!"
None of that says anything in regards to what I said. Their introduction to the "Savior" who his supposed to "save the world from their sins" resulted in them losing their land, kingdoms, and being put in perpetual servitude. Again, that was their introduction to him (i.e. first time hearing about him).I am not without understanding - it’s the ultimate in Hegelian dialectic and the reason why hypocrisy in Christians is so offensive to God. When something evil is done in the name of God, it doesn’t automatically say anything true about Him. Picture the soldier who brings dishonour to the British Army by torturing and killing prisoners of war. It says much about the man who does it, but does not automatically represent their regiment.
The Salvation of Emeth | Blog & Mablog
Sharing Options Contents Introduction: The Case of Emeth: So What Is Paganism? Reformed Caution: Introduction: One episode in the Narnia stories has caused no little consternation for evangelical parents as they have read to their children, and that element of the story concerns the salvation of...dougwils.com
As I understand it, a mixture of people with good and evil motivations were involved with what we look back on as “colonialism” and “imperialism”. How the world would have looked if people went out and preached the Gospel with no strings attached is an interesting question...
Respectfully, you're just talking at me at this point and not really addressing the contentions that many people have accepting the religion. I mean, what "good" motivations should they even notice if they lost control of their lands and control over governing themselves? Why did God allow THAT to be their introduction to "His son" who is the "savior of the world"?
Taking the case of the First Nation people, if Christians had been intent on sharing the Gospel while respecting their right to distinctive culture and land I.e. without trying to culturally and economically wipe them out, would that have still been in keeping with the “Great Commission” as understood from Jesus’s words?
Everlasting covenant to Israel/jews by way of Isaac to whom God made the covenant with... not to the gentiles (i.e Christians, muslims etc.).
I think all those tinned potatoes or whatever you were talking about eating might be destroying your brain. You're not well.We Christians went over and stopped the heathens eating each other, job well done..
Same with America, if it wasn't for us they''d still be living in wigwams and scalping each other.
Tell us what country you live in or are you too ashamed to admit you're squatting on native land?..
So you're saying that wiping them out culturally and economically is in line with the "Great commission"? I could be wrong but this is how I took your question...
Yea keep waving them pom poms. The bible says that in the last days the curses would be taken off the Israelites (your empire is a curse btw) and put on those who oppressed them (your empire btw)...We Christians went over and stopped the heathens eating each other, job well done..
Same with America, if it wasn't for us they''d still be living in wigwams and scalping each other.
Tell us what country you live in or are you too ashamed to admit you're squatting on native land?..
Let’s take this one point. What I was saying was that sharing the gospel does not have to go hand in hand with trying to destroy a culture and take their land.
Yes you're right about the general form of lord (Strong's H113 - 'adown) used in Psalm 110 verse 1. I thought it was the emphatic form of The Lord (Strong's H136 - 'Adonay) but i was wrong and for that i must die L0L.
You're choosing what points to take though. You're not addressing my actual contentions with what happened. Besides, the bible says this:
Ephesians 6:5
Okay. So we have the psalm being "of David", we have a part where the servant or whoever wrote the psalm about David, shows the humanity of David because of the "my master" part, and you still cling onto some trinity fan fiction interpretation of the verse? How can the Most High claim to be One, then say He's at His own right hand? In fact, in all the visions of the Most High in the OT, when did you read about someone seeing someone next to Him?
