The Inquisition Redux

Christians made good use of the Inquisition to impose their faith on others. Why not create a modern Inquisition to accomplish the same task?
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
Christians made good use of the Inquisition to impose their faith on others. Why not create a modern Inquisition to accomplish the same task?

The law's of the land apply.

Some propagate hardline determinism.

However, Slavery has been outlawed.
 

Manfred

Well-known member
Christians made good use of the Inquisition to impose their faith on others. Why not create a modern Inquisition to accomplish the same task?
Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the Lord of hosts

"Christians" who made good use of a sword to spread Christianity, failed Christianity 101, and have no right to claim to be Christian.

The first sermon and every other sermon thereafter that converted people to Christianity, did not contain a call to arms, but a call to repentance.

Not by eloquence or clever speech, but by the POWER of the Spirit.

Christians made good use of the Inquisition.... Loaded.
 
Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the Lord of hosts
Are you saying that you believe that God never uses force or commands that force be used against people? Do you think the Inquisition never read that Bible passage?
"Christians" who made good use of a sword to spread Christianity, failed Christianity 101, and have no right to claim to be Christian.
So you judge people who have used violence as not true Christians. Is that correct?
The first sermon and every other sermon thereafter that converted people to Christianity, did not contain a call to arms, but a call to repentance.
Many Christians I have debated on this subject argue that Christ cannot be held responsible for the violence perpetrated in his name. You obviously agree with them. Are you saying that nothing Christ is reputed to have said can result in violence? Must he have explicitly commanded violent acts to be responsible for such acts, or could his fiery rhetoric have inspired people to be violent?

Anyway, my take on this issue is that it should be obvious to any impartial person that Jesus' talk of a violent God who metes out horrific punishment to those who have offended him can easily result in violence. Christ's followers have been taught that those who "reject" him are of the Devil and are deserving of eternal punishment. Anybody who preaches "another gospel" endangers souls to that punishment and therefore deserves the most severe punishment. That's exactly what the Inquisitors were thinking when they had people tortured and burned. In fact, their burning of a witch or heretic they called an "auto de fe" which translated means act of faith (in Christ).

I'd strongly recommend you research the matter.
 

Manfred

Well-known member
Are you saying that you believe that God never uses force or commands that force be used against people? Do you think the Inquisition never read that Bible passage?
Please site a passage where Jesus taught to spread the gospel with physical violence?
Forcing something down someones throat will make them an unbelieving puppet.

This is what Christians believe:
Eph 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.
So you judge people who have used violence as not true Christians. Is that correct?
Like Hitler you mean? Hitler was devious in every way but haters will all agree that on his claim of Christianity, he was beyond reproach.
Think about it for a minute. If Christ taught that you should love your neighbor as yourself, and you agree, and then go out and kill your neighbor because of his ethnicity, does that make you a Christian (Follower of Christ) or not?

Many Christians I have debated on this subject argue that Christ cannot be held responsible for the violence perpetrated in his name. You obviously agree with them. Are you saying that nothing Christ is reputed to have said can result in violence? Must he have explicitly commanded violent acts to be responsible for such acts, or could his fiery rhetoric have inspired people to be violent?
Fiery rhetoric... Like:
16 And behold, a man came up to him, saying, Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life? 17 And he said to him, Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments. 18 He said to him, Which ones? And Jesus said, You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 20 The young man said to him, All these I have kept. What do I still lack? 21 Jesus said to him, If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.
Anyway, my take on this issue is that it should be obvious to any impartial person that Jesus' talk of a violent God who metes out horrific punishment to those who have offended him can easily result in violence.
Why?
Christ's followers have been taught that those who "reject" him are of the Devil and are deserving of eternal punishment.
That does not mean they want to do physical harm to someone. You are stretching....
9 Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. 10 Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. 11 Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord. 12 Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. 13 Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality.
14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. 17 Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. (Rom 12 ESV)
Anybody who preaches "another gospel" endangers souls to that punishment and therefore deserves the most severe punishment. That's exactly what the Inquisitors were thinking when they had people tortured and burned. In fact, their burning of a witch or heretic they called an "auto de fe" which translated means act of faith (in Christ).

I'd strongly recommend you research the matter.
Well, it is clear to me that your biased mind cannot discern between spiritual warfare and physical warfare.
Nowhere in the NT will you find a call to physical warfare. That is made up and wishful thinking on your part.
 
Please site a passage where Jesus taught to spread the gospel with physical violence?
Forcing something down someones throat will make them an unbelieving puppet.
You didn't answer my questions. Those questions if answered sensibly and honestly will be very illuminating. Are you saying that you believe that God never uses force or commands that force be used against people? Do you think the Inquisition never read that Bible passage?
This passage tells Christians that they are in a violent conflict with evil spirits. It's not difficult to see that that kind of rhetoric can lead to paranoia and violence, the kind of paranoia and violence that fueled the Inquisition.
Like Hitler you mean? Hitler was devious in every way but haters will all agree that on his claim of Christianity, he was beyond reproach.
Think about it for a minute. If Christ taught that you should love your neighbor as yourself, and you agree, and then go out and kill your neighbor because of his ethnicity, does that make you a Christian (Follower of Christ) or not?
Again, you are dodging my questions! Do you judge people who have used violence as not true Christians? If so, what makes you the judge of who is really a Christian?
Fiery rhetoric... Like:
16 And behold, a man came up to him, saying, Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life? 17 And he said to him, Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments. 18 He said to him, Which ones? And Jesus said, You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 20 The young man said to him, All these I have kept. What do I still lack? 21 Jesus said to him, If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.
Christ is portrayed in the Gospels as having an obsession with burning people. See Matthew 3:10 for starters. The Inquisition surely was familiar with Christ's obsession and thought it was good to follow his example.
That does not mean they want to do physical harm to someone. You are stretching....
9 Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. 10 Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. 11 Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord. 12 Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. 13 Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality.
14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. 17 Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. (Rom 12 ESV)
Oh sure, you can find some seemingly nice passages in the Bible, but there are horrible passages too. We should not be surprised that many sick people are inspired to violence when they read those parts of the Bible that glorify violence.
Well, it is clear to me that your biased mind cannot discern between spiritual warfare and physical warfare.
Nowhere in the NT will you find a call to physical warfare. That is made up and wishful thinking on your part.
Your mistake here is to assume that if the New Testament does not explicitly command violence, then it has not inspired violence. One need not command violence to incite it.
 

Manfred

Well-known member
You didn't answer my questions. Those questions if answered sensibly and honestly will be very illuminating. Are you saying that you believe that God never uses force or commands that force be used against people? Do you think the Inquisition never read that Bible passage?
I gave you a very concise and sensible answer.
If I want to use the Bible to defend my "hatred" of a nation and I interpret it the way I want, then I can claim killing people who ascribe to another religion as justified.

So if you are able to point me to a teaching of Jesus Christ (I am Christian after all. A follower of Jesus Christ) where he teaches that you should use violence to force His message of love down people's throats or kill them, then please go ahead and do so.

You will not find one passage in the NT that would justify that.
This passage tells Christians that they are in a violent conflict with evil spirits. It's not difficult to see that that kind of rhetoric can lead to paranoia and violence, the kind of paranoia and violence that fueled the Inquisition.
Our fight is not against flesh and blood. Where is your perceived violence?
It explicitly states that you should not fight flesh and blood.
You are building an indefensible strawman.
Again, you are dodging my questions! Do you judge people who have used violence as not true Christians? If so, what makes you the judge of who is really a Christian?
I did not doge your question. You just don't like the answer and call it a dodge.

Lets use logic and common sense for a minute.
Jesus teaches that you should love your neighbor, and turn the other cheek.
What should someone who follows the teachings of Jesus do?
1. Love their neighbor and turn the other cheek.
2. Hate their neighbor and kill them

So if you do 1 above you follow what Christ teaches, and are called Christian
If you do 2 above, you do not follow what Christ teaches, and even if you want to call yourself a Christian, you are not.

This is really not a difficult concept to understand. The problem you have is to change your biased opinions that every so called war fought in the name of Christianity, did not glorify Jesus Christ.
Christ is portrayed in the Gospels as having an obsession with burning people. See Matthew 3:10 for starters. The Inquisition surely was familiar with Christ's obsession and thought it was good to follow his example.
Burning dead people?
You are stretching your imagination so far, it is now bordering on the insane.
Which follower of Christ will understand eternal separation with God as an impersonal non spiritual teaching?
As I said in my first post, forcing a religion on someone just makes that person an unbelieving puppet.
Oh sure, you can find some seemingly nice passages in the Bible, but there are horrible passages too. We should not be surprised that many sick people are inspired to violence when they read those parts of the Bible that glorify violence.
Can you please quote a horrible teaching of Jesus, where He teaches people to do horrible things to others?
I can show you a lot of scripture where people do horrible things to each other, and then don't like the consequences.

Why not post some passages where Jesus taught people to be violent toward each other?
Your mistake here is to assume that if the New Testament does not explicitly command violence, then it has not inspired violence. One need not command violence to incite it.
That is just nonsense.
Can you point to one passage in the NT that incites PHYSICAL violence....

Your idea of Christianity is built on a strawman.
 
I gave you a very concise and sensible answer.
The correct answers are that the Bible portrays a violent God who routinely uses force or commands that force be used against anybody who gets in his way. The Inquisition was led by clerics who surely were well aware of those Bible passages and acted according to them.
If I want to use the Bible to defend my "hatred" of a nation and I interpret it the way I want, then I can claim killing people who ascribe to another religion as justified.
You sure can!
So if you are able to point me to a teaching of Jesus Christ (I am Christian after all. A follower of Jesus Christ) where he teaches that you should use violence to force His message of love down people's throats or kill them, then please go ahead and do so.
One of the most troubling mandates that Christ reputedly issued was that of the "Great Commission" in which he commanded his disciples to make disciples of all nations. Note that Christ does not say that these conversions are to be voluntary. If you couple this mandate with Christ preaching an eternal hell that awaits unrepentant sinners, it's not hard to understand how his disciples felt a need to use whatever means they could muster to convert all to Christ. That motivation led to the persecution of native Americans on the part of Christian missionaries. Many people were killed in the ensuing violence.
Our fight is not against flesh and blood. Where is your perceived violence?
You just said it! According to your own words, you are in a fight, and that fight is rooted in your Christian beliefs.
It explicitly states that you should not fight flesh and blood.
You are building an indefensible strawman.
That's your own interpretation. Other Christians including Martin Luther called for violence against unbelievers in particular the Jews. Martin Luther was steeped in the Bible, and he evidently saw nothing in it to prevent his call to war.
Lets use logic and common sense for a minute.
Jesus teaches that you should love your neighbor, and turn the other cheek.
What should someone who follows the teachings of Jesus do?
1. Love their neighbor and turn the other cheek.
2. Hate their neighbor and kill them
Again, the Bible has some apparently nice passages in it, but it has horrible parts too. A few commands to love people won't keep people from violence. In fact, the kind of love Christ preached was akin to the love between a master and a slave. The slave will commit acts of violence if his master commands it, and the Christian will act violently if he believes it will please Christ.

So if you do 1 above you follow what Christ teaches, and are called Christian
If you do 2 above, you do not follow what Christ teaches, and even if you want to call yourself a Christian, you are not.
Actually, turning the other cheek literally invites violence. Even Christians know better than to act in such a way as to endanger themselves like that.
This is really not a difficult concept to understand. The problem you have is to change your biased opinions that every so called war fought in the name of Christianity, did not glorify Jesus Christ.
The Christians who waged those wars saw nothing in the Gospel to stop them. What makes you so smart that you can understand what they supposedly could not understand?
Burning dead people?
You are stretching your imagination so far, it is now bordering on the insane.
Scrutinizing the Bible does get crazy, does it not? And is your insulting me that way an example of Christ's love? Whatever happened to loving your enemy and turning the other cheek?
Which follower of Christ will understand eternal separation with God as an impersonal non spiritual teaching?
As I said in my first post, forcing a religion on someone just makes that person an unbelieving puppet.
Tell all those violent Christian missionaries not to force religion on people.
Why not post some passages where Jesus taught people to be violent toward each other?
In Luke 22:36-38 Christ commands his disciples to bring swords along with them. I don't think Christ was concerned about slicing pork with those swords!
That is just nonsense.
Can you point to one passage in the NT that incites PHYSICAL violence....

Your idea of Christianity is built on a strawman.
My revelation about the violent side of Christianity is only a "strawman" until you investigate it and see that it is right.
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
The correct answers are that the Bible portrays a violent God who routinely uses force or commands that force be used against anybody who gets in his way. The Inquisition was led by clerics who surely were well aware of those Bible passages and acted according to them.

You sure can!

One of the most troubling mandates that Christ reputedly issued was that of the "Great Commission" in which he commanded his disciples to make disciples of all nations. Note that Christ does not say that these conversions are to be voluntary. If you couple this mandate with Christ preaching an eternal hell that awaits unrepentant sinners, it's not hard to understand how his disciples felt a need to use whatever means they could muster to convert all to Christ. That motivation led to the persecution of native Americans on the part of Christian missionaries. Many people were killed in the ensuing violence.

You just said it! According to your own words, you are in a fight, and that fight is rooted in your Christian beliefs.

That's your own interpretation. Other Christians including Martin Luther called for violence against unbelievers in particular the Jews. Martin Luther was steeped in the Bible, and he evidently saw nothing in it to prevent his call to war.

Again, the Bible has some apparently nice passages in it, but it has horrible parts too. A few commands to love people won't keep people from violence. In fact, the kind of love Christ preached was akin to the love between a master and a slave. The slave will commit acts of violence if his master commands it, and the Christian will act violently if he believes it will please Christ.


Actually, turning the other cheek literally invites violence. Even Christians know better than to act in such a way as to endanger themselves like that.

The Christians who waged those wars saw nothing in the Gospel to stop them. What makes you so smart that you can understand what they supposedly could not understand?

Scrutinizing the Bible does get crazy, does it not? And is your insulting me that way an example of Christ's love? Whatever happened to loving your enemy and turning the other cheek?

Tell all those violent Christian missionaries not to force religion on people.

In Luke 22:36-38 Christ commands his disciples to bring swords along with them. I don't think Christ was concerned about slicing pork with those swords!

My revelation about the violent side of Christianity is only a "strawman" until you investigate it and see that it is right.
Valance is mans ways to take it by force. Gods way is repentance from that volant self and inherit His mind of Love. My God is Love He is a SPirit and that SPirit is Love and I am the recipient of my inheritance from God. .
 
Valance is mans ways to take it by force.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Valance is drapery. Did you use the wrong word?
Gods way is repentance from that volant self and inherit His mind of Love. My God is Love He is a SPirit and that SPirit is Love and I am the recipient of my inheritance from God. .
Can you define the word "love" as it is used in the context of the Gospel? I understand love for a person as a positive feeling toward that person. That feeling of love can and normally does result in good treatment of the loved person or at least good intentions regarding the loved person. Love involves respect, compassion, and valuing. If a person is loved, then that person should never feel insulted, harmed or threatened in any way by the person who loves them.

If you've followed the discourse on this thread, you should have noticed the way Manfred spoke to me. After his preaching the supposed love of Christ, he proceeded to insult me because I found fault with his beliefs. Manfred's "love" does not fit my idea of what love is. Many other Christians I have debated are very much like that: They preach love but have contempt for anybody who dares to criticize their beliefs. I get a similar feeling when reading the Bible. I feel insulted and threatened by it. I sure don't feel loved by it!

If that's love, then I don't want love.
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
I'm not sure what you mean here. Valance is drapery. Did you use the wrong word?
Sorry typo, violence.
Can you define the word "love" as it is used in the context of the Gospel?
Love cant be described only lived. No words can describe God who is Love. His Spirit is Love and man is the temple of Him.
I understand love for a person as a positive feeling toward that person. That feeling of love can and normally does result in good treatment of the loved person or at least good intentions regarding the loved person. Love involves respect, compassion, and valuing. If a person is loved, then that person should never feel insulted, harmed or threatened in any way by the person who loves them.
But Love is not a feeling or emotion, it sponds feelings and emotion.
If you've followed the discourse on this thread, you should have noticed the way Manfred spoke to me. After his preaching the supposed love of Christ, he proceeded to insult me because I found fault with his beliefs. Manfred's "love" does not fit my idea of what love is. Many other Christians I have debated are very much like that: They preach love but have contempt for anybody who dares to criticize their beliefs. I get a similar feeling when reading the Bible. I feel insulted and threatened by it. I sure don't feel loved by it!

If that's love, then I don't want love.
If love can be described -- the closes thing I have found to describe it is unmerited favor. No matter how one may treat you as in the case of Jesus in his trials and tribulation, the end result was, Father forgive them they know not what they do.

His forgiveness for their ignorance was what was in the man, the disposition of the ma, not trying to love and forgive them but actually having forgiveness as His own disposition. This is the closes example for how a mind of Love works. Grace, forgiveness. He Loved those who used him no matter who they were or how they treated him

Jesus taught the law in the temple starting at a young age of 12, but at the age of about 30 God came to that man and opened up to him who God really is Matt 3:16, and Jesus became like Him instead of like the laws of that temple.
Ironic is the very ones he once taught their laws in the temple are the very ones who had him crucified for blaspheme. He understood them by identification with them, but they did not understand him from lack in having the same from God where we exchange the grace of God for grace for others ourselves.

Love? Love is a matter of of who we are, not an emotion, not a feeling, but giving of self to the one in need, sacrificing your own desires to go to the one who needs help.

As stated, Love cannot be described only lived. And in that the mind is at total peace with no regrets at all.
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
Sorry typo, violence.

Love cant be described only lived. No words can describe God who is Love. His Spirit is Love and man is the temple of Him.

But Love is not a feeling or emotion, it sponds feelings and emotion.

If love can be described -- the closes thing I have found to describe it is unmerited favor. No matter how one may treat you as in the case of Jesus in his trials and tribulation, the end result was, Father forgive them they know not what they do.

His forgiveness for their ignorance was what was in the man, the disposition of the ma, not trying to love and forgive them but actually having forgiveness as His own disposition. This is the closes example for how a mind of Love works. Grace, forgiveness. He Loved those who used him no matter who they were or how they treated him

Jesus taught the law in the temple starting at a young age of 12, but at the age of about 30 God came to that man and opened up to him who God really is Matt 3:16, and Jesus became like Him instead of like the laws of that temple.
Ironic is the very ones he once taught their laws in the temple are the very ones who had him crucified for blaspheme. He understood them by identification with them, but they did not understand him from lack in having the same from God where we exchange the grace of God for grace for others ourselves.

Love? Love is a matter of of who we are, not an emotion, not a feeling, but giving of self to the one in need, sacrificing your own desires to go to the one who needs help.

As stated, Love cannot be described only lived. And in that the mind is at total peace with no regrets at all.

That is a bible narrative.

At issue with that is a love, that is better?

When love tells another they do not matter because of their love.

What is that?
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
That is a bible narrative.

At issue with that is a love, that is better?
There is only one disposition of Love, anything else is just emotion. And most react on impulse spawned through emotion. B
When love tells another they do not matter because of their love.

What is that?
Im not a follower of Paul but he did get a few things right as in 1 Cor 13 and pretty much sums up Love.

3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not Love, it profiteth me nothing.

4 Love suffereth long, and is kind; Love envieth not; Love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,

5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

8 Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

And that is exactly why Jesus commanded that ye be ye therefore perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect. For the Father in heaven is Love, God is Love, God is a Spirit and that Spirit is love.

Man in his ignorance for who God is has made Him what they would have Him be instead and most worship a man as a god instead of the One who was in that man.
 
Sorry typo, violence.
If the Holy Spirit can grant communion with God, then it's odd that he cannot help anybody to use polished writing.
Love cant be described only lived. No words can describe God who is Love. His Spirit is Love and man is the temple of Him.
If that's the case, then I wonder what the point is in using words that cannot be defined. Personally, I tend to shy away from using words that have no meanings.
But Love is not a feeling or emotion, it sponds feelings and emotion.
You said that love cannot be described only to proceed to describe it.
If love can be described -- the closes thing I have found to describe it is unmerited favor. No matter how one may treat you as in the case of Jesus in his trials and tribulation, the end result was, Father forgive them they know not what they do.
I think that favoring people can be love for them if they deserve it or not.

And you skipped my comments about the love of Christians like Manfred. How could Christ have fostered love when his followers are so very often hateful? Their talk of love is just that--a lot of talk meant to impress the unwary who may be lonely and seeking love. Love can be a great motivator and a handy way to manipulate and deceive people. People like Charles Manson and Jim Jones evidently understood the power of love and used it to recruit followers. Why must Christ be any different from these modern-day religious leaders?
His forgiveness for their ignorance was what was in the man, the disposition of the ma, not trying to love and forgive them but actually having forgiveness as His own disposition. This is the closes example for how a mind of Love works. Grace, forgiveness. He Loved those who used him no matter who they were or how they treated him
Actually, Jesus very often displayed open contempt for his enemies especially the Pharisees. He preached that others should love their enemies while he hated his enemies. I think the example he set doing so had a bigger impact on his followers than his words did.
Love? Love is a matter of of who we are, not an emotion, not a feeling, but giving of self to the one in need, sacrificing your own desires to go to the one who needs help.
You've done nothing about Manfred's attack on me. Where's your sacrificing your own desires to help me? Or is what you're saying just a lot of hot air?
As stated, Love cannot be described only lived. And in that the mind is at total peace with no regrets at all.
Where's the love that Christians live?
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
If the Holy Spirit can grant communion with God, then it's odd that he cannot help anybody to use polished writing.
Polished writing is not of Gods SPirit, that is a learned skill and has noting at all to do with having the Love of God as your own mind. You are looing at the world for perfection instead of looking at His SPirit who perfect the mind to think in His terms of Love. Obviously you can not distinguish between the two and actually mock Him because He cant perform to your standards.
If that's the case, then I wonder what the point is in using words that cannot be defined. Personally, I tend to shy away from using words that have no meanings.
Me to. That is why God cannot be described in words -- only live the life of.
You said that love cannot be described only to proceed to describe it.
No only examples of result in it.
I think that favoring people can be love for them if they deserve it or not.
Agreed.
And you skipped my comments about the love of Christians like Manfred.
Dont know who Manfred is, dont really care.
How could Christ have fostered love when his followers are so very often hateful?
Simple, they are not of Him, they only say they are of him. If they are not like Him they are not Him at all. .
Their talk of love is just that--a lot of talk meant to impress the unwary who may be lonely and seeking love. Love can be a great motivator and a handy way to manipulate and deceive people.
Oh no' love never is deceiving, only mans self desires are deceiving to others.
People like Charles Manson and Jim Jones evidently understood the power of love and used it to recruit followers.
Contrary, thy didnt have a clue what love is or they would not have done what they did. You sure have a morbid outlook for Love. They used manipulation and control, trickery to get people to follow. And shame on the ones who did for not knowing the truth in Love for themselves. Our pews are full of these, just different doctrines to get people to follow them.
Why must Christ be any different from these modern-day religious leaders?
Christ is not a person, Christ is the disposition of the person who is anointed of God. Having His same mind of Love walk as He walks in Love.
Actually, Jesus very often displayed open contempt for his enemies especially the Pharisees. He preached that others should love their enemies while he hated his enemies.
His only enemy was those who didnt have the love of God as their own disposition. His enemy was spirit, not man. The war is not carnal as to hate man, the war is spiritual who is in man. That is what he hated. He didnt hate the ,man only the spirit that drove the man to sin.
I think the example he set doing so had a bigger impact on his followers than his words did.
Absolutely agree. One can talk a big talk but follow them and watch who they are reveals the truth in them. When jesus said go and make disciples, that word GO means to live it be that example, live in that glasshouse that people may see what really is in you.
You've done nothing about Manfred's attack on me. Where's your sacrificing your own desires to help me? Or is what you're saying just a lot of hot air?
Im not here to help you, Im here as a witness for what it is to be in Christ and live the life of, and you can take it or leave it. If to live the life in Christ is a lot of hot air then I understand why.
Where's the love that Christians live?
Within. Either one is like Him or one is not.

BTW Who is Manfred? Is it a poster here in this forum?
 
Top