The Crusades - Christianity is to Blame

The great helm says it all.
The great helm says it all.

Christianity can and should indeed be criticized because of the crusades.

(Luke 19:27) "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them - bring them here and kill them in front of me"

Now that has a clear message. It condones violence. That is in the book of what is supposed to be God's influence. When a brutal event is then said to be as a result of the guidance of such a message, that message must be criticized. Not necessarily as the cause of the event, but as a valid excuse for that event.

If you said that I was the holder of all power and knowledge, and referenced that information to something considered valid by others (like the bible) and said "I did that because Philanthropy2012 told me to do it" and whatever action it was, it was clearly immoral, then I should be criticized for telling you to do so, even if your actual reasoning to do it was different from what you blamed it on.

Another example is that of a parent who tells their child that it is okay, and that in fact she should steal dad's sweets. The child then goes ahead and steals dad cheats and is caught by dad in doing so. When asked, the child says that she only did it because her mother told her to do it. The father then would tell the mother off for condoning such behaviour, fully in the knowledge that the child only did it to attain sweets.

The same it is then for christianity and the crusades. It was done in the name of God, who condoned the behaviour, perhaps albeit for greed or personal beliefs, but both parties involved need to be criticized for their actions.

9/11 - A modern example.
9/11 - A modern example.

Argument from Interpretation

Please don't argue about how the quotes clearly endorsing violence should and could be interpreted as something else and give an extremely elaborate explanation as to why it's not actually doing so.

The bible was not written by idiots. If you believe that it was, then why are you following it's guidance? If they had wanted to convey a message, they would have. They didn't need to write the book of God in code for people to decipher.


Argument From Contradiction

The fact that Jesus seems to teach the opposite in other parts of the bible has no relevance either. What you then have is a completely contradictory book.

A book written with the distinct purpose of allowing any event to occur under it's name at any time. Once again, such a book should be criticized for ambiguity. Any religion founded upon such ambiguity is liable to such criticism too. The fact that it was there as a very valid excuse for committing crime is a fault in itself.

The words clearly state "kill them in front of me."


Not for biblical translations.
Not for biblical translations.

Argument From Translation

Now, you might argue that the quotes condoning violence are mistranslations, but from what?

And if such fundamental mistakes in translation were made, that would convey the exact opposite meaning, then how can you trust anything else written in the bible? If the meaning can be so easily skewed, any belief that is based on the bible can be questioned and changed based on the assumption that it was translated incorrectly?

How could such a drastic mistranslation be made? And what was Jesus' actual statement?

"Dance with them in front of me" ? Please.

Moreover, there have been many translations of the bible into english, and each convey the same horrific meaning of Luke 19:27

The different translations are listed in the link below.

http://bible.cc/luke/19-27.htm

More by this Author


Comments 39 comments

sarmack profile image

sarmack 4 years ago from Washington

So... I have reread this hub and I am still not sure what your purpose is... The Scripture you have cited actually originates in the Old Testament. I will leave the discovery of that to you... In recent years, I have been doing alot of research on geneology and historical facts. Part of this includes the Crusades because I have royalty in my ancestry. The Crusades occurred because Jerusalem had been overtaken by heathens. i.e., those who would not protect the Spiritual history of the that city. Being human, people did horrendous things during that time. But in all my research, I see that the Christians involved were attempting to protect their Christian foundation. Craziness prevailed... From it's concept, Christianity has had a difficult time differentiating between what is Christian and what is demonic. Compassion is the call of the day for the Crusades. The Holy Bible is not a contradictory book. It is very specific on what is expected of you and what will be done for you if you Believe and Follow. As a non-follower, you cannot judge. In the End, God is the only one who is able to Judge.


Borsia profile image

Borsia 4 years ago from Currently, Philippines

PT; There is a huge amount of the type of things you mention in both the old and new testaments.

IE; the followers were commanded to go to a number of cities and kill all of the men and enslave the women and children, indirectly condoning both murder and rape as well as pillage.

As to the "teachings / preachings of Jesus there is really no way of knowing what he might or might not have said, given that the first writings of what he supposedly said came 40 years after his death. The chances of anyone actually remembering are somewhere between slim & none.

But then the story of Jesus was a very old one long before his birth told many times with different names but an identical storyline.

I wish I could find the article I read some years ago about the translation of the KJB. The article mentions a note written on the border that said "I dare not write that which lies before me for it would surly displease my king."


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London Author

Sarmack,

I don't believe that you know your bible all too well.

The book of Luke gives us the most complete look at the life of Jesus. The Old Testament does not feature Jesus. The scripture I cited is Luke 19:17.

People just have a habit of saying "oh this is clearly wrong, therefore it was the Old Testament"

"Christianity has had a difficult time differentiating between what is Christian and what is demonic" which is precisely because of concise quotes condoning heinous acts.

And excuse me? As a non follower I cannot judge? Actually, I can. You cannot take away my rights, and thinking is one of them. Especially when my judgements are founded on clear evidence which I have cited with reference.

"It is very specific on what is expected of you and what will be done for you if you Believe and Follow." Oh right, so that's why there are more than 40,000 sects of Christianity alone, each with their different interpretations of the bible?


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London Author

@Borsia,

Thank you for your other examples, I did know that there were more, but I wanted to show that by even having one so concise as Luke 19:27, the crusades can very well be blamed on the bible.

You are right about Jesus and his quotes, how can people remember word for word what he said 40 years ago, surely human bias and what they wanted to hear would have come into it. And what about the parts that they didn't want to hear and didn't want to remember, those probably died with the recipients.

And this is given that the whole concept of Jesus wasn't completely made up, that he in fact ever existed or ever did the miraculous things that he was claimed to.

Thanks for stopping by and giving us a slice of knowledge as always Borsia, very helpful and interesting :)


WD Curry 111 profile image

WD Curry 111 4 years ago from Space Coast

Sorry, bro. I couldn't read past your gross distortion of the last verse of a parable that does not condone violence. If you want to reach your full potential as a writer you will need to develop integrity.

You could have easily studied the real verses that the Pontiff and nobles used to work themselves into a lather, and then it would be worth a read.

The Crusades were initiated by desire to free Jerusalem from Islamic rule and fueled by greed. The first Crusaders learned chivalry from their Muslim counterparts.

If you want to discredit "Christianity" just go to the Spanish inquisition. You could also point out the Papal war on the peaceful Maldivians, but that will cause your campaign problems. The hierarchy in Rome warred against a peaceful faction who were practicing an unauthorized (according to Rome) version of the faith and did not defend themselves. Study it out. The Moravians were living the faith in spirit and deed. Nobles who killed them or ran them off were awarded their land by Papal decree.

Since I didn't read bast your first horse dropping, I can't comment further.

Get real!


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London Author

WD Curry 111, I have indeed researched justifications for such a verse and they are all elaborate interpretations and ideas that somewhat justify the quote of Jesus.

If you had read the second paragraph, you would see I was making the point that any event done in the name of Christianity that can be easily justified by excerpting the bible can be blamed at least in part on Christianity.

The hub which you neglected to read does not focus on The Crusades, only that the crusades are to blame.

Please keep a cool head Mr. Curry, this hub deals with ambiguity and responsibility of moral authorities, not just an attack on them.

I never stated that the Crusades were even because of Christianity (and not greed, land, power etc.), but that Christianity does indeed deserve to be blamed for it.


WD Curry 111 profile image

WD Curry 111 4 years ago from Space Coast

I went back and read the whole piece out of respect for you. Duh on my part. It wasn't about the Crusades. However, please excuse my redneck ways . . . you are pissing up a rope. It is ridiculous to isolate that verse the way you did. This is the kind of thing that manipulators have been doing since day one.

Look, you know I am a fan. I will root for you all the way to the top. It just ain't cool. If you can't find some applicable text on your own, I will help you. It will all be from the old testament


emmaspeaks profile image

emmaspeaks 4 years ago from Kansas City

Great article Philanthropy! I see you are getting hit up by all the sheeple, too. Just a sign that you've touched a nerve, and contrary to what WD Curry says, Who cares if it's cool! It IS the truth, so shout it out loud! I am so sick of having to keep quiet about all the death, genocide, incest, rape, misogyny, slavery, and other basic lack of human rights condoned in the bible just so I don't offend a brainwashed sheeple. Good work! Keep on writing. Voted up!


Millercl profile image

Millercl 4 years ago

Curry has a great point. That verse is not an excuse for violence and you misrepresent it with your claim.

You make a great point bringing forth a contradiction and that evidence for one side or another doesn't refute the supposed contradiction. But I think there is a way to understand the parable in Luke 19 so it doesn't contradict other teachings.


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London Author

Millerci,

The fact that "there is a way" to understand the parable in Luke 19, does not change the fact that it can easily be used to condone violence by preachers of the bible.

It was just an example of how things in the bible are written in such a way that they can easily be manipulated to make people do things.

That is a criticism that must be understood!

I would have no problem with a bible that was re-written to clarify things and take out the atrocities within it.


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London Author

"It is ridiculous to isolate that verse the way you did. This is the kind of thing that manipulators have been doing since day one"

Once again WD, this is my point. The bible is so easily manipulated. Given that it is looked upon as a source of morality, it deserves criticism for it's ambiguous nature. Anything that can be so easily manipulated that is blamed for events such as the crusades must take part of the blame for being able to be interpreted so easily in that way.

Ambiguous being the word. One bible. 40,000 different sects of christianity. Great.


WD Curry 111 profile image

WD Curry 111 4 years ago from Space Coast

I see what you are saying. Maybe, if you could use a specific example of someone using this verse to condone violence it would carry more weight.

For instance,"In 2011, WD Curry111 used tis verse out of context to arouse the towns people and attack Philanthropy2012's castle. They dragged Philanthropy2012 out and burned him at the stake. Then WD moved into the castle and celebrated with Philanthropy2012's wine."

It isn't hard to find similar examples. Tinsdale, the guy who translated the bible from Greek and Hebrew was burned at the stake by the Church of England. He was a "heretic" for printing a version that wasn't word for word King James. There are no shortage of abuses. As far as I know, this verse has never been used that way outside of a poor example. There are too many good, solid examples to illustrate your case to settle on this one. I am talking writing, here, not religion.


Millercl profile image

Millercl 4 years ago

"The fact that "there is a way" to understand the parable in Luke 19, does not change the fact that it can easily be used to condone violence by preachers of the bible."

So perhaps it isn't the bible that needs to be criticized but perhaps the way people interpret it? Though the crusades were a dark time in history, there has been a lot of history where the understanding of this parable did not condone violence. The difference is not the verse, but the interpretive method.

Does that make sense?


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London Author

No WD Curry 111, I can't stress this enough, I'm not saying that I have any proof that this quote was ever used to justify any of the Christian atrocities. I am using it's presence in the bible to criticise the bible.

It's irresponsible to have such an easily manipulated statement.

Just to add though, throughout history, christians have been taught using verses from the bible, that there is such a thing as "just war". This quote being part of the body of quotes that push for such a thing. The crusades were one of these so called 'just wars."

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/just_war.html


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London Author

("So perhaps it isn't the bible that needs to be criticized but perhaps the way people interpret it? Though the crusades were a dark time in history, there has been a lot of history where the understanding of this parable did not condone violence. The difference is the verse, but the interpretive method.

Does that make sense?)"

It does indeed make sense, but I don't agree. It's the fact that this statement is so easily misunderstood, considering the fact that Jesus literally says "and kill them in front of me" that is so terrible.

People shouldn't be criticised for taking the denotations of words. Otherwise everyone would need to be criticised for reading.

No, if I said to someone "I enjoy killing birds", people would not naturally assume I meant to say "I enjoy playing angry birds".

The bible is supposed to be a clear source of "absolute morals" dictated by God.

But all that is present is page after page of ambiguous and interpretable teachings!

40,000 sects of christianity are built on the "absolute morals" of God!


Millercl profile image

Millercl 4 years ago

It is irresponsible to manipulate a statement to mean something that it isn't trying to convey.

That is like saying, "It is wrong of you to have a kitchen knife because someone can use it to hurt someone else."

-----

I bet if someone pointed you out to DNR you would quickly point out they were misrepresenting your statement.

Where does the bible say it is a "clear source of absolute morals"? I think Jesus even says it is for those who have ears to hear. If you don't understand, then it is consistent with what is taught that not everyone will understand.

"40,000 sects of christianity are built on the "absolute morals" of God!"

What is that suppose to mean? Or does it just prove my point that there is something wrong with man and his interpretive method?


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London Author

Millerci, but that's just the problem, you don't know what the statement means. You yourself can only guess at it. The literal denotation of the words means something very malicious.

If you start taking connotations of the words, you are just interpreting it yourself.

I would not believe you if you said "that quote means this and this because the word "kill" actually means "this" because earlier in the bible Jesus said "this"" I might think it's a very good explanation, but that doesn't change what the actual words mean.

If you say things like "I'm gonna kill you" to a person on the street, it doesn't matter what you meant, or what context you thought you were saying it in, you will be punished for it.

And the point about the 40,000 sects is that the bible is not clear, and so should not be used as a source of information.


WD Curry 111 profile image

WD Curry 111 4 years ago from Space Coast

Hello?! I know you aren't saying that. Let me take another run at it. It is not the best example to use. How about when Peter cut off the dudes ear and Jesus scolded him. Then he went into a thing about how he could call down angels, but he had a job to do that was more important. After the scold he said something about when he was gone, then go get a sword. Or something like that. Get my drift?

Switch this one with the one you used, and you will be packing heat. I have heard it referred to, just like you say.


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London Author

Why would you think that is more malicious than to say "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them - bring them here and kill them in front of me"

In this one, he makes the direct command of bringing all non-christians to be slaughtered before him.

Allowing all events against non christians to be done under the name of the bible.

I personally think it's the worst one I've found, though the one you talk about sounds interesting too :)


Millercl profile image

Millercl 4 years ago

"...but that's just the problem, you don't know what the statement means."

Sure if we can't read the context. But I don't think we are devoid of context and we can then see how this parable is teaching something else.

There is plenty of literature that uses hyperbole, analogies, metaphors and such that you do not try and criticize so harshly.

-----

"killing 100,000 people in London has positive and negative points because although it will kill a lot of people and cause pain and confusion amongst the masses, it solves over-crowdedness in London"

Are you suggesting genocide here? Do you think this is really true Philanthropy?

It is irresponsible to have such an easily manipulated statement.


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London Author

Millerci, no I mean even with context it's still not clear.

Literature that uses hyperboles, analogies etc.? If that literature claims to be factual and claims to be a moral guideline for people to live by, I would criticise as necessary. Literature is literature. The bible is not taken as just literature by its adherents.

And you see? When did I ever suggest genocide in my quote? I said there are positive and negative points and listed some. I didn't say anything akin to "go and commit genocide" or "I condone genocide"


Millercl profile image

Millercl 4 years ago

I think it is fair to say, if it isn't clear to you that doesn't mean it is wrong.

I think I can provide plenty of 'factual' literature that uses such literary devices. I think I know what you mean when you say, "the bible is not taken as just literature," and I agree there is a wrong way to understand and interpret the text.

This happens a lot with all kinds of writing. Dissertations, Journal Articles, research, etc. The stuff can be misconstrued in a wrong manner.

I think you can see the point I made by citing your article. You cleared it up, but it wouldn't be too difficult to believe you are condoning genocide by giving a positive reason for it.


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London Author

Millerci, I get what you're saying, but in the case of this quote, it's not journalism, it's not even misconstrued to say it's malicious.

Here's the full:

11While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a]'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.'

14"But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.'

15"He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.

16"The first one came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned ten more.'

17" 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'

18"The second came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned five more.'

19"His master answered, 'You take charge of five cities.'

20"Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.'

22"His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?'

24"Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.'

25" 'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!'

26"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

In actual fact, in context I think it seems even worse.


Millercl profile image

Millercl 4 years ago

It is a difficult parable, but I am curious, what do you think it means?

I know you are not a Christian, but if you were to pretend you were for the interpretation and to make sense of it, what do you think Jesus is teaching here?


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London Author

Given no other context but these 12 lines I would say that the parable is a metaphor of Jesus and his predictions.

That in the sentence "Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back" he means himself returning after going (somewhere), with the money symbolising something, perhaps his word, his story, his life, his faith, and asking his slaves, who are his adherents, to build upon what he has taught.

As for the slaves, he rewarded those who built upon whatever it was that he wanted them to build upon with whatever it is that money is supposed to symbolise.

The third slave who did nothing with it was vehemently punished and called "wicked" for not increasing whatever it is that money symbolises Jesus. The sentence "why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?" is probably some reference to rather than hiding what it is that money symbolises, why not put it somewhere where it can grow. This could be a reference to faith, and that the 3rd slave should have allowed himself to think about it, with Jesus being sure that when he returned, the 3rd man's faith would have grown, had he not dismissed it right away. Alternatively it could have meant that the 3rd man should have passed it onto his children at which point there would have been 'interest' in Jesus' faith/whatever money symbolises.

Lastly, the statement "'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given" is probably something about giving more faith to those that already have it, or goodness to those that already have it" and the taking away from those who have nothing meaning taking away faith from the faithless or even worse, goodness from the bad. Either way, punishing those who have been already neglected because of God's will further by the will of God (fundamentally unjust)

The closing sentence "but those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them- bring them here and kill them in front of me" by no stretch of my imagination could mean something moral. Meaning non christians deserve to die, in one sense or another.


WD Curry 111 profile image

WD Curry 111 4 years ago from Space Coast

Maybe it isn't more malicious, but it has really been used to perpetuate violence. What you are using is a parable. It was standard practice in that day to slay treasonous servants who ripped you off. It is so far out of context that it is ridiculous. You are not ridiculous. I have recognized your talent since day one. I am only trying to point something out. I am a teacher, even if I don't have as much talent as you.. I know full well that you can reach your potential without me. I just want to get in on the act.

For real, the thing about go get a sword is vague, but proponents of violence have twisted it, or at least interpreted a verse that isn't clear to perpetuate violence. It holds more water than what you are presenting.

To encourage you. May I say that this is a very original approach that you have taken. Grip the ball with both hands. Take a hint. Use a better verse. Don't let pride stop you from doing your best.


WD Curry 111 profile image

WD Curry 111 4 years ago from Space Coast

Look. The Crusades were crazy. Have you studied them? Did you know Genghis Khan's nephew (or maybe son) got to the outskirts of Jerusalem and was considering taking it from both factions? He could have done it, too. He had a bigger and better army than both sides combined. His wife was a Nestorian Christian. A fifth of the army was hers. The Nestorian Christians wanted to help the Europeans take the Islamic army on.

At the last minute old Ghendis croaked and his son/nephew headed back home to protect his interests from his siblings/relatives. Now, go back and read the last few chapters of Daniel and see if that scenerio doesn't fit better than what the TV preachers are telling us.


Millercl profile image

Millercl 4 years ago

So Phil, you can clearly see there is symbolic meaning in the parallel. I think if you can see that, then you can call those who would use such a verse to actually hurt people wrong in their understanding.


Borsia profile image

Borsia 4 years ago from Currently, Philippines

PT; (& anyone else who wants to see some real insight into the Bible's real meaning and value.) watch this P&T video it is both entertaining and informative;

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=009_1198085630

For those of you who are in support of the Bible you have to watch the entire video to glean anything from it. So don't turn it off before the end.


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London Author

Haha thank you Borsia! That was very useful indeed! Comical and informative, I'd never heard of this Penn & Teller but I really like them and what they do now.

Some very interesting points, I'm going to be talking to some mormans on Saturday about their beliefs at my house, I'll bring some of those points up.

WD Curry111, I will be adding more points including the one you suggested and the ones in the link because It'll make a stronger argument. I strongly suggest watching the video on that link because it quite clearly points out the frustrating contradictions in the educated theist's argument.

And Millerci, I clearly see that there is a symbolic meaning, but it's important to note that I've had practice in analysing texts for their connotations and noticing allegories, writing poetry and taking English at school. I know that a lot of people would not be able to take a symbolic meaning from it, some may, a lot won't. The key point of the matter is that I couldn't find a moral way of concluding it, and also the idea that if I wanted to go to a war, this sort of thing is definitely what I'd use. I would ask "so what do you think "and slay them before me" means if not slay the non believers? To which most will not have an answer and say "I guess you're right".

Another very likely factor is that because of my past in analysing, I'm actually reading too much into this parable. Perhaps it means exactly what the words denote. And I would not be surprised considering the other parts of the bible.

All in all it's important to realise that this is such an easily manipulated text. It's not clear what it wants, and you have to pick and choose parts of the bible to reinforce what society would deem moral.

In that link it mentions that the bible says specifically that one man should not lie in bed with another, only women. Then there's the rest of the Old Testament, I don't understand why Christians say they believe in the bible if they are going to reject most of what the Old Testament actually says. Most of it is quite horrific or factually inaccurate !


WD Curry 111 profile image

WD Curry 111 4 years ago from Space Coast

Hey, I'm game. Borsia is a genius!


SanXuary 4 years ago

Your interpretation of the Crusades are taken completely out of context and are no different then the Crusaders. Where ever man kind decides to place its Earthly agendas above God, will always corrupts its purpose. We see this happen every time a Priest drives his Cadillac to his million dollar home to those man made rules of the Medieval Church of Europe. We interpret passages and fail to follow the story or its lessons. A non-believer is not an enemy of God and we must find out what is. Free will first is a requirement in order to learn salvation. Man does not hold any such authority or true knowledge of the individual to even know a persons true beliefs. One should not judge God based on what man does with his teachings to further his own agendas based on Earthly purpose.


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London Author

Sanxuary, It's interesting that you say "we interpret passages and fail to follow the story or its lessons" but then you yourself go ahead and say a bunch of things that you presumably interpreted from all of these passages.

That is to say you believe that your way of interpretation is the best and/or only correct way to interpret it.

Things like "free will first is a requirement for salvation" and "man does not hold any such authority or true knowledge" and even the existence of God, you have taken from the passages in the bible.

The bible is a visual aid for humans, it allows them to read what they want to read from it. That is just the nature of an ambiguous stimulus.

Do you see a butterfly or a vase? Or maybe a woman divorcing a man? ^^


Borsia profile image

Borsia 4 years ago from Currently, Philippines

I love how so many go on about how to interpret a book.

A book, any book, says what is written and nothing else.

One can make wild guesses about what someone else might have been thinking but wild guesses are all they are.


SanXuary 4 years ago

No I do not believe any of the things you just said. I do believe that each individual must find salvation on there own. I said man does not know what another man truly believes in reference to the fact that he can not be converted by the sword. Every man can find the existence of God but to do so and mature requires the separation of Earthly purpose by having a Heavenly purpose first. Yes, the Bible clearly gives us the free will to decide our salvation. Yes, this is free will but salvation requires spiritual maturity and growth. No one is free to change the Bibles meaning but yes it must be interpreted by the individual as well. One of the greatest failures to religion is the concept that you have no free will in order to learn and that one shoe fits everyone. We forget that the body has many parts and many purposes. With that said I can only tell you that it is a personal relationship with God that determines your maturity and salvation which means nothing I say is the so called best and only way. I invite argument and discussion with a complete open mind. I even use the crusades myself to make the point that man failed God only to seek Earthly purpose and his own agenda and it does not get any better then the believers who support our criminal politicians today, they serve no purpose. If I was alive during the crusades I would have pounded the 95 thesis on Rome's door myself. Consider the fact that few people were even allowed to read a Bible at the time and also realize that if they had a Bible in their hands. 75 percent of them would have never been able to read it any way. Is it any wonder that they failed to understand what they were doing but the ones running the show knew. One of the reasons why Martin Luther survived his condemnation of the Church in his day was the fact that the first printing press had been invented and he printed literature to back his argument and the rest was politics. Before that many like him had already been burned at the stake.


Mike 4 years ago

Luke 19:27 does not tell people to kill.It is a parable used to describe the return of Jesus Christ to this earth after the 7 year tribulation. The bible is clear, you are either for God or against Him. We are all sinners.Jesus shed His own blood on the cross and rose from the dead so that we don't have to be judged by our own works. He is offering to put His own righteousness onto your account as a free gift! I would be a fool to turn down forgiveness and eternal life. The problem is not that there is only one way to God because even if there were 1000 people would want 1001. If a person rejects Jesus, they have sealed there own fate. God loves you and He has left a rope for you to be saved. Take it! I did.Thank-you Jesus!


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London Author

@Mike, those are all nice words, though have you ever considered that what they are, are just interpretations you, or someone else has made from a book that has 40,000 of them?

What makes you think that your preaching is any better than anyone else's? A little over confident no?


Tyler 4 years ago

a parable means: A simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson, as told by Jesus in the Gospels.

Do you seriously think that you can directly translate the words into the true meanings? Look at the parable of the lost sheep. Do you think he is talking about sheep? If you do then your brain must be the equivalent of a couple marbles rolling around in a tin can.

Even if you are right (which you aren't) the Bible has never been proven fake, and nothing has been found in archeology that disproves it (in fact things have been found that approve the accuracy of the NT). Please man read the whole Bible or at least the Gospel, and don't make your own crazy assumptions. Ask a pastor or a well read Christian you know. I hope you do, God is the best thing in the world. Read it, please!!! With an open mind, not saying crap like, "if there is a God how could he ever let that happen." I will pray for you man.


Tyler 4 years ago

Quoting Philanthropy2012:

You are right about Jesus and his quotes, how can people remember word for word what he said 40 years ago, surely human bias and what they wanted to hear would have come into it. And what about the parts that they didn't want to hear and didn't want to remember, those probably died with the recipients.

Sorry if i get a little overwhelmed in my writing to you.

How can they be real, good question. You should learn your background before you put down something and falsify it. My proof comes from facts. The gospel of Mark was historically(I mean by archeology) proven to be written approxamitely 40-50 years after Jesus assends into heaven. So, you say how can it be accurate. It is accurate for a few reasons: number one, it was Jewish tradition to keep everything accurate, and to every last detail. Also you say that they could have made crap up about him, that is not true because people (Jewish leaders would have not allowed that) the wittnesses of Jesus' death, and assension would have said that's not what I saw and the whole thing would be stopped emmidiately. Also, do you think that 12 guys would make up a story that they would be persecuted for, and many die for. What would their motives be? Another point is that a lot of the preachings of Jesus make the people of the church look stupid, why would they not change it or make that up then? Also something that does not prove (you could never exactly prove the Bible is true or you would have no Faith), but helps the case is that when Jesus' tomb is seen with no one in it. In Mark chapter 16 you can read this, it says Mary Magdalene, Mary the Mother of James and Salome saw the angel. Now some background is that in those days the word of a women ment nothing, and was unesless in court. Why would somebody make up that it was three women that saw the empty tomb? Unless it was the truth. Furthermore, when the Bible lists the witnesses in stories who seen Jesus it doesn't say Mr. S, It says actual names, with the relations of the person often. Why would somebody trying to fake the Bible list off specific names, and traceable family geneologies. Unless it was true. I strongly urge you to read it with a Christian that can explain this to you (not cause you are not smart, cause if you have no explanations it will seem wierd and not make sense). If you go to a Christian Reformed Church (were I go) they will deffinitely make time to meet with you if you are willing. Thank you, and God Bless You!!!

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working