the main point I'm making is that the muslims attacked first. There was reasons beyond religious ones to crusade. You also have a narrow view. Suppose that Martin Luther was burnt alive. Well that's horrible but then the 100 year war may have never happened. The crusaders did exactly what the muslims did when they invaded constantinople
Let's talk about this, Okinrus. Your point here is that Christians only retaliated, right? And, in the case where you were the aggressor (Crusades) you claim the church was just doing what the muslims had done beforehand. Finally, you say that the burning at the stake of Martin Luther was bad, but without it, the 100 years way would never had happened, which was good.
Well, Okinrus, doing what the muslims had done doesn't make it right. It makes you just as bad. And even if there were reasons beyond religion for the crusades, it was religion that was tool used to muster the support for the cause. Without religion, no way would those disgusting crimes against humanity have happened. And in the case of Martin Luther and the 100 years war, the ends do not justify the means. If the US were to drop a nuke on Iraq right now, and kill a million civilians along with Saddam, the fact that Saddam was killed does not make what was done right.
You do not have evidence of this. Even if it were true it does not make it right. People have predispositions to violence, to adultry, drunkness, and to steal.
Ok, first of all, you have no evidence of god, but does that stop you from believing? Anyway, the difference between homosexual tendancies and the tendencies to steal, drink, adulterize and commit violent acts, is that homosexual acts don't hurt anyone. The family of a homosexual may be depressed for a time, but no lasting scars are left on a group or family. It is victimless, and therefore, completely different than the tendancies you listed above.
I'm specifically talking about the homosexual act not the person commiting it.
Ohhh, so now the sinner isn't really a sinner? The sin just ups and jumps into a host and commits itself? Hmm, that's a new one.
You are asuming that I meant everyone who commits the homosexual act is guilty of a mortal sin.
Yeah, you're right. Silly me, why in the world would I assume that?
Yes the homosexual act is a mortal sin,
Ohhhh, that's why. Becuase you said so! Look, buddy, get your shit together before you come up and bring an argument to me, OK? I'm not stupid, and I know what I'm talking about. I won't let you accuse me of something when you yourself made the comment. The fact is, you said the act of homosexuality is a mortal sin. Those are
your words. Now, just out of convience, you backtrack, and come up with this complete nonsense about how the person committing the sin isn't bad; the sin is, and I'm not having it. Come correct with me, buddy.
Christ did. The old testament clearly shows the Holy Spirit, the ark of the convenant, killing the enemies of Israel.
But that wasn't my question. My question was "Who made the distinction between the wars being literal or figurative?" That comment does NOT answer my question. And just for your info, Christ wasn't around in the OT, moron.
And let's take that a step further: Earlier, you said that the wars were to teach man how to fight the forces of satan, yet, in this example, the holy spirit is killing the "Enemies of Israel." Excuse me, but since when does being an enemy of Israel make you a satanic force? I mean, Iraq was an enemy of Israel, but should we make the leap to calling them a force of satan? To me, it sounds like they attacked people who didn't believe in thier god, not satan's army.
JD