1) No. What happens on the earth stayed on the earth until a way was made for most everyone to enter Heaven.
.................................
Second death is the lake of fire which is eternal damnation. There is no escape from eternal damnation.
Ok that seems more like what I remember. Some of it was refresher course, but still what I was taught to believe.
Question is, what god did he do it in the name of? Plus, in the Bible God never had the people he told to kill others for their evil to take their stuff (spoils of war).
That really is the million dollar question many times isn't it? What were his motives? Was he really attempting to do the Christian god's works, was he still following his sun god or was he just some jerk that liked killing people? From my viewpoint he was the latter but used religion or the belief in a higher power to not only achieve it but justify it. Now there have been many times in history when leaders could get their people to conquer (and plunder) just for the glory of it. However in the scope of the crusades it is most definitely religious driven. What would happen if Xianity never existed, would the Crusades have happened? Perhaps his paganistic beliefs may not have been enough to rally the people to go on a slaughter or maybe it was enough. Maybe it could have been worse and all of Islam could have been wiped out (or vice versa)? Either way it's still brought on my religion, whether Christian or Pagan. The using of a higher powers name to not only rally the cause but justify it as well. Now the ultimate question is what would happen if Constantine had an atheistic point of view? Would they have just bettered science and improved humankind as a whole with their power? More than likely not, the world back then was a pretty brutal place. The underlying causes that would make them do evil deeds in the name of religion would also be there even if they didn't have religion to justify it with.
It would appear that I am stating that he would have murdered the crap out of a bunch of people with or without religion. The thing is that we don't really know what a world would be like without religion of some kind. Would it be better or worse? Consider this trend in religion. Humans have gone from polytheism to monotheism over several thousand years in the past. That would seem like humans are discovering that we need the supernatural less and less as times goes by. We no longer need a god of thunder to explain the rain and the thunder and lightning. The same as we really don't need religion to do evil things (we do that fine all by ourselves) and we don't need a religion to tell us that we should do good things. consider this, when in history has there been the opposite of the inquisition or the Crusades(something immensely positive or beneficial to everyone, not just the religion)? I am willing to bet almost never or what has happened doesn't match the scale of the opposite. Because it's easier to use religion (and speak for an unseen god) to do horrible things, than it is to do good things.
As far as God never telling his people to never take the spoils of war I disagree with you. I do agree that there is no provision for taking a prostitute's money GTA style after stoning her to death (or any other sinner's belongings). If there is, I am not aware of them. Spoils of war though are a different story.
Genesis 34:13-29 The Israelites kill Hamor, his son, and all the men of their village, taking as plunder their wealth, cattle, wives and children.
Deuteronomy 20:13-14
13And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
14But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
Deuteronomy 21:10-13
10When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
11And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
12Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
13And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
So it appears that there are several instances where god told them to take some spoils of war. Not that any conqueror will quote the bible to justify their actions. They could just as easily say "God told me that we should plunder their wealth, livestock, wives and children! Because this is Sparta!" Ok that's a little over the top but you get the point. Just because something is or isn't in the bible doesn't mean that humans will follow by it.
Now does that sound like Constantine was following God when God does not allow certain things? Nope. Many people will say often they believe in God, and are Christian. But when you really pin them down on the issues, the truth comes out.
Oprah on many occassion has said or implied she is a Christian and believes in God. But when pinned down on the issue in this video, the truth comes out. Many people front themselves as Christians because they want to fit in with everyone in that group. Or do not want to be bothered with questions as to why they are not one. Or they will use the term to dupe others. True Christians walk the walk, and talk the talk. And they never deceive someone on purpose.
Ok one of my pet peeves is when someone distorts what someone else says simply to stir up discontent. It also leads to some bias as to what is actually said by the individual when a distorting headline is used. Harpo does not deny Christ in what she said. If you watch that thinking she is going to deny Christ then sure you could distort it to fit that picture. All Harpo said was that there is more than one way to get to heaven. She also had a legitimate question to ask. If Jesus is the only way to heaven, what about those poor people who never have heard about Jesus? Too bad so bad, god is going to punish some Christians for it? Even the ladies rebuttal of that Jesus won't come back till the gospel is everywhere doesn't help. What about all the poor slobs that died before it got there? Not that I am any fan of Harpo (as you can tell I make fun of her name), but she does make a big target. She's a smart, lucky and clever woman who has done well with her life. Do I consider her a strong Christian? Not by any stretch of the imagination, but if she claims to be a Christian what right does anyone have to say that she is not? She has done a lot of good with her money. Is it everything she could be doing as an Christian? Nope, but I think that comes back to the mote and beam thing.
As to Constantine, it's not an issue if he really was an Christian or not. The issue is with him using Xianity for what did use it for. If he were the only one that did so and other things were different I could see your point. It would be as if I went to a church but since one person wasn't really an Christian there I stopped going. When that is not the case at all.
Every group is going to have it's funactics. If you decide to judge a whole group on one person's action then that is your bussiness. It would be the same as me saying that because Hitler used evolution to justify his actions, all evolutionists are Nazis. Don't make any sense now does it? Hitler even claimed to be Christian, but here again he never lived like one. And choosing to kill God's choosen people certainly was not an example of being one.
That's interesting how you spelled fanatics, made me think they were having fun while being crazy.
That's not really I was saying at all. I was simply stating that the pro-life movement would look bad if they did claim him. It would be contradictory to say pro-life but advocate pro-death to stop something. Also if he were the only one that did this sort of thing I would understand your point. However, Tiller was shot before, clinics have been bombed, acid thrown, etc etc. Do I consider the pro-life movement an evil or terrorist organization? Nope, but I do think they could better spend their time and resources towards other avenues than attempting to shame or shock people out of getting abortions. Do I blame the pro-life movement for Tiller's death? I do not, I blame Roedor for it. However, I think that Roedor's hatred was based on the anti-abortion stance.
Interesting you bring up Hitler because I have heard so many times how Hitler had evolution to justify his actions. First, Hitler and the Nazi Party did not justify their actions at all. They simply did what they did. Secondly, it would be ignoring history entirely to say that Hitlers actions were based on evolutionary thinking. Hitler himself did not decide the final solution nor did he come up with the Eugenics programs (among every other atrocity). This is not to say Hitler is innocent, but the real culprits were Hitlers lackeys. The German Eugenics program was copied directly from the American Eugenics program (that was short lived). The final solution was the culmination of centuries of an anti-Semitic continent. The Nazi's simply had the means and the technology to implement it. The Europeans were hating Jews just about as soon as Jewish communities started springing up. The Holocaust was not the real first time Jews were slaughtered for being Jews. Nor will it be the last. One of the justifications for killing Jews that was given was that Jews killed Jesus, so killing Jews was doing God's work. Was it a valid one? It's not for me to decide, but what is considered one person's good Christian is another one's false Christian.
Putting people on display to prove evolution makes the movement and all that follow look just as bad. I can show several things people have done in the name of evolution, just as you can show things as well. Shall we go down this road or not? I have a whole archive of stuff.
I think we shall, because again what you have shown me is really ignoring the history surrounding the thinking of the day. It's also very easy to put a caption on a picture and then add in some information that makes it seem credible. Then bank that no one will buy the book just to prove you wrong. The caption could be verbatim except for someone added evolution to it. The point is that you don't really know until you check & I did some digging.
1. W. J. McGee worked for the Bureau of Ethnology from 1893-1903, and he was the chief of the department of anthropology for the 1904 World's Fair.
2. Was he an evolutionist: Inconclusive, however, considering how he wrote a book about the Pleistocene History I am willing to gamble he was one.
3. Was the exhibit considered to be about evolution? Inconclusive. However considering that the exhibit was considered a human zoo which have been around prior to anyone even suggesting evolution it would be a stretch to think that.
Even if it did have evolution stamped all over it with big red letters, it wouldn't really show much. Considering at that time in the US blacks still weren't considered equal to whites. Also this was directly after the US had defeated Spain and acquired territories with what were considered savage races. This seems more like more racist banter at the time, where only Englishman were civilized and all whites were supieror. The US had just become a world power so to speak, it could also be a "look at how superior Americans (the non-black kind) are" ploy.
. Maybe to backup the few atheists that come here. I also found the title of this site to be interesting. Many times I see Christians get their panties in a knot when someone tells them the bible is a myth or just a fairy tale. It's refreshing to see the creationists POV that isn't a tantrum as well. At least for the most part.
LOL j/k
