Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Reconquista
Palladin, you are off track, mentioning John 20:30-31, the truth of which I'm not arguing. I do like the preface to the Amplified Version of the New Testament, however, that the common Greek term that is transliterated "pisteo" and often translated as believe doesn't mean "intellectual assent" or forced assent because they'll kill you. Believe means to coherently, spiritually, thoroughly trust with all your being, to depend totally upon, etc.

Back on track, you don't answer the topic, or my repeated question. Do you see that your agenda as a Christian is to convert Muslims at the point of a gun (which doesn't really convert them), and the Islamic fanatics' agenda is to convert non-Muslims at the point of a gun (which also doesn't convert to true faith)? Do you see that your motivation is just as misguided, immoral, and perverted, as what the Muslim fanatics propose, or are you just ignoring the main topic here?
I'm often wrong. But I'm not always wrong!
Quote:Whether the story is true or not, the aborigines on both continents were victims of a several-hundred years long genocide, surely no accident. The invaders brought nothing but slavery, misery and death. The Americans of today brought the Irakis nothing but slavery, misery and death. Nothing has changed. A masterpiece of demagogy to talk about delivering 'God's word' or the modern equivalent, 'democracy'.

The story is not true, but that is a minor issue for you isn't it quadrat? Who cares as long as it makes a good story and the left then points to Churchill as an authority for thier "indignation". A base of lies that is built on lies. And we should accept it because it is politically correct to do so?

The sickness brought by the early Europeans certainly did devestate the Indian population, making them too weak to protect themselves from the onslaught of the European and Asian immigrants.

One must ask though, who protected the earlier tribes from the onslaught of other Asian based tribes? Could it be that the American Indian which lived by the sword and conquest of territories, in effect, died by the sword and conquest of its territories? The only difference being that the invader was not from the same continent?

Hmmmm..... Makes one chuckle when they think about the quadrats in the world who fall on their swords over a people that would have just as gladly conquered Europe, had they the technology to do so.
"I detest the man who hides one thing in the depths of his heart and speaks forth another"
(just shortly - the indigenous North and South American tribes were not "healthy." Their own cultures had virtually killed themselves off. The Incas are no more than a legend, and opening their lands to salt seawater for irrigation destroyed much of the Aztecs and Mayas. The North American tribes had devolved from city-states to hunter-gatherers and killed each other off for "coup" as well as for possession of prime hunting land. The various tribes are now healthy, larger than ever, and largely integrated into the contemporary culture. The only distraught natives are those who keep to the discredited hunter-gatherer ways and stay apart. - Note: I am part Native America - Quapaw.)

As for European conquest presaging a tidal wave of Islamic reconquest, I think that will hinge upon simple cause and effect: catalyst and synthesis. The stage is already set with large, unintegrated Islamic ghettos spread throughout Europe. If the modern education system penetrates past the Muslim schools then Islam may loose its momentum. Samira Haddad, a teacher of Arabic, asked the equality commission in the Netherlands to rule Islamic College in Amsterdam was wrong to demand she cover her head in order to work there. She is just one of many fronts in the battle being waged. The Dutch Equality Commission ruled that the ICA had been wrong to refuse Tunisian-born Ms Haddad employment. The school decided to ignore the ruling, and continue to disbar Muslim women job applicants who refuse to wear the headscarf, or hijab. Despite this ruling, the Equality Commission has no powers to compel the Islamic College to hire her.

As far as I can see, the ball is in play, and lawmakers can straddle pillarization, allowing Islam deeper penetration - or resist the fear of Islamic mass violence to take a stand. At some point, the flash point will be reached and society must stand up to their fear of reprisal and toe the line.
I believe the Incas were more than merely legend, in fact they were, even after the major pox epidemics and civil war, a viable nation. The trouble was that Pizarro et al. were just sufficient enough to teeter the last portion of the empire over the edge and leading up to the dissolution.

Inca power was absolute but efficient. On a religious level, they rarely took part in the human sacrifices so predominant among Aztecs and others. Theirs was a much more utilitarian society in which food and other items were redistributed based on a centralized economy. It worked, but required a religious following (much like monastacism) to make it work.
"I detest the man who hides one thing in the depths of his heart and speaks forth another"

Of course I don't want to force a person to believe something,it's both wrong and it's IMPOSSIBLE and ignorant of you to suggest it's possible.

No one forced anyone in human history to pisteo anything,it's impossible.

Mexicans centuries ago were evangelized by the Spanish,period. It was God's Will and millions are praising God in Heaven tonight because He saw fit to dispatch the Spanish to do His Will. It apparently you off,but it was His Will.

Don't get caught up in Catholics maybe aren't your favorite doctrinal Church,you have to remember,God uses we believers and one limitation on His power is our volition. Spain was more prepared than any other peoples to do this evangelism.

I dispute they were forced,this was centuries ago and today they still believe that Jesus is the Son of The Living God. In fact,looking at that era,it is nothing short of a Divine miracle how rapidly all the south Americans went from pagan human sacrifice religions to faith in Christ,however flawed were the other teachings of the Catholc Church in that day. God's Word out of a parrot's mouth is still with it's force,it will not return to Him without it's proper work.
Thanks, Palladin, for your continuing contributions to this far-ranging discussion.

In recent years, my opinion of Catholics, especially in Mexico, rose very high. Just one example: the victims of Acteal are/were faithful, pacifist, diocesan Catholics, who would rather die obediently, than to live sinfully.

But as you say, even an invading army can't force someone, through violence, to truly "believe" anything. And that's about all the conquistas have done. And that's precisely what caused the Church to fall from God's grace, almost entirely, since 325 AD. Your admission that violence can't force true faith, shows that such 'evangelism' is false.

And just in the last 12 hours, a madman burst into an Amish school near Nickle Mines, Pennsylvania (in Lancaster County, the heart of Pennsylvania Dutch territory), killing little girls. Would that Old Order Amish community have wanted the killer to be killed, if he had not committed suicide? No.

Most Catholics I met in Latin America, however, are no more "Christian" or en route to heaven, than a doorknob. Remember, having the powerful truth of the Gospel of Peace preached at you, has little lasting effect if it's preached as part of a genocidal threat, or if isn't accompanied by "teaching them all things whatever I have commanded you." By their fruits you shall know them, and when you look at the false fruit of most Christian behavior in the world, it is extremely doubtful that most people who claim the faith will get to heaven.

More on topic, does the end justify the means? Can invading armies rape our relatives in order to justify some 'greater good' like their nationalism or their religion? No, and I'm sorry to use such an example to make my point, but you just don't get it when I merely talk about slaughter. The conquista of Latin America, the first reconquista of the Iberian peninsula, and these proposed conquistas of or by Muslim peoples, are sinful. You can't create virginity by raping people, and God doesn't bless the spreading of His Gospel by bloody genocide during this era of the Church. That's the point of this topic, here. Can you see our point yet, or is it still righteous to kill and rape for Jesus, in your perverted mind?
I'm often wrong. But I'm not always wrong!
Quote:The Incas are no more than a legend, and opening their lands to salt seawater for irrigation destroyed much of the Aztecs and Mayas.
WmLambert, you confuse something. The Incas lived in South America, west of the Andes, from todays Ekuador, Peru down to Chile and Argentina. The Aztecs in Mexico.
Your angst of a 'islamic tidal wave' is unsubstantiatet. Islam is nothing but an obsolete faith, such as Christianity. It has nothing to offer that makes live or mind better or more interesting. As with all faiths, the followers have to be constantly influenced and encouraged or they stray of. That's what's happening in Europe, the vast majority of the second generation of Muslim immigrants is completely westernised. Let's not forget, the original immigrants came because they were not happy in their home countries.
Quote:One must ask though, who protected the earlier tribes from the onslaught of other Asian based tribes? Could it be that the American Indian which lived by the sword and conquest of territories, in effect, died by the sword and conquest of its territories? The only difference being that the invader was not from the same continent?
Baldar, if you want we can also speculate about an invasion of Marsians, no trouble. Let's stick to the facts? Many millions of native Americans, whose ancestors settled the continents thousands of years earlier as the first humans there, were killed by a gold- and silver greedy bunch of scum from mainly Spain. What religion that riffraff followed, does not matter. I fail to see that as a victory of civilization or humanity. Whatever wars were waged between the native Americans, they were by far, by a very great margin not on the scale as the contemporary European ones. Otherwise, the Indians would have had advantages in military technology and not only in the more peaceful areas of live. Time to realise, Europeans in earlier centuries, Americans today; the facade being Christianity, were or are nothing but a war drunken, greedy bunch of bandits. Dominating other people, say me, what's so great about it?
"You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." Dick Cheney
LOL, again the limit of your intellect is somewhat obvious.

Tell me quadrat, do you believe that there was no aggression in the Americas prior to the ascension of the Europeans upon American soil? Facts are that the continents were able to sustain a great deal more life and higher population centers. The Mejeeca or Aztecs showed that, as well as other larger population centers.

Do you deny that the Aztecs, as documented, did not attack and dominate other tirbes in their areas through militaristic expansion and then used those selfsame tribes in massive sacrificial acts by the thousands? All of this is accurate and documented. Do you deny the driving force for those sacrifice and their militarism was religious?

Do you deny the Incas were an imperialistic people whose militarism was stopped only by a more aggressive check from other tribes in the Amazon basin?

Do you deny that the North American Indians with their own cultures aggressively attacked and wiped out other tribes and that boundaries changed based not on mutual negotiation, but the fact that one tribe was stronger than another and therefore more prone to increase its own territory militarily?

What part do you seem to be missing. We aren't talking about Martians. You seem to be the only one here who has not studied or even sought to back up your own somewhat warped view.

There is a certain henotheistic nature in man today, which is fine, but you seem to assume the contraview being against the belief of any single deity and simultaneously ignoring actions that you find problematic among American tribes.
"I detest the man who hides one thing in the depths of his heart and speaks forth another"

Pacifism is not the issue here.

The issue is millions of lost humans worshipping a pagan human sacrifice set of gods that were converted to faith in Christ almost overnight on an entire continent. In Mexico,it started with only 300 Spaniards.

God could NOT have allowed them to perish without Christ. It would have compromised His entire Integrity.What does it matter if violence was used to establish control of the area,would you REALLY prefer they all went to he.ll but never seen a Spaniard???????

Would you prefer USA native Indians were in he'll that have been saved via ethnic European evangelization in the past which also was due to military victory?

It seems to me you literally worship "anti war" and nothing else is meaningful to you. Without war,the Gospel cannot advance,otherwise there would truly be NO WAR. It's from one end of the Bible to the other,CHRIST controls human history and Christ takes a personal interest in the advancement of His Gospel.

IF global peace was best for His interests in this era,you best understand we would have it. HE is in control,not me,not GW Bush or Tony Blair.
This topic is about justifiying bloody conquest by faith, mistaken faith. Other posters are addressing the topic from similar angles. It's about the moral justification of bloody conquests of foreign countries by superior, foreign powers. And how, then and now, such foreign powers with a false religion mistakenly think that God - their perversion of God - wants them to slaughter innocent victims in order to "spread the faith."

And you, Christian brother Palladin, show us something that looks like a twisted theology and morality. You clearly think it's divinely righteous in this church age, to kill Muslims in Jesus' name. Are the Muslims divinely righteous to do their reconquista? Aren't you in the same general category of fantatical religious conquerers, as the radical Muslims are? Aren't you?

Last year, I read Bernal's firsthand account of the conquest of Moctezuma, including the smell of the human sacrifices. Previously, I wept upon seeing the mural at the museum in Tapachula, Chiapas, which depicts children happily preparing to be sacrificed. I celebrated the new milenium in that neighborhood, and saw clear evidence that most modern Mexicans are not Christians, not truly "little Christs." However, your parish priests around the USA will tell you their Mexican immigrants are better Christians than the American citizens in the parish, which isn't saying much. The true Christians I did see in Mexico represent less than 0.01% of Mexico (perhaps 10,000 if you include all the pacifist groups).

Pacifism is my measure of discipleship. We could start a new topic on that. For this topic, let's just say that armies that march in genocidal conquest, blessed by high-ranking and low-ranking clergymen, are not behaving like the One they call LORD ordered them to behave. And God doesn't bless the crusading Muslim suicide bombers, either. Shame upon the Muslim world for not denouncing such insane conquest attempts. Shame upon Christendom for not condemning their own participation in such conquests as those which you bless.
I'm often wrong. But I'm not always wrong!

All conquest is bloody,each nation has developed by the sword and it was God's doing to see to it.

The Bible teaches God created each nation(yea,America with our whacking the Indians was part of that,Turks killing off Armenians and Kurds was part of that,etc.),he has already programmed in before we existed how large America would be ,our boundaries and when we would be destroyed. You want to argue with Him about how large each nation becomes and the violence used to accomplish it,take it up with Him,not me.

You want to debate with Him how you feel Mexicans in the past 400 years ought to be in he.ll because you are offended by the Spaniards,tell Him,He's the one that allowed it and used the Spaniards to advance His Gospel.

Your view that evangelism must always be free from peripheral violence is nonsense,to put it bluntly. Without righteous violence to remove Hitler,no German today would be free to even hear Christ preached. Without righteous violence,Paul would have been murdered in Jerusalem. The Bible presented that as RIGHTEOUS violence,it would call today's Islamic violence EVIL Violence.

Countless millions of lost folks are to be condemned literally to he.ll or you wish they were because it upsets you the Spaniards evangelized them? Come on Thai,take a fresh eyeball on this evangelism thing,God doesn't make errors,He knew what He was doing when He gave the Spaniards the powers He did and He knew what He was doing when He prevented them from colonizing North America as well.

Ah,He left that to those who He would bless in greater quantities and raise up this powerful nation to defend human freedom and dispatch millions across the globe to further evangelize lost mankind in all corners of our globe. He always knows what He's doing.
Palladin, Fit, I must diaagree with both of youse. shock
Neither of you seem to have the sense of a bed-bug. Quadrat on the other hand doesn't even understand the questions. oops

William, Baldar, thank you for trying to inject some clarity here, but the religious nuts of all persuasions here seem to think God, THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE...can be 'bottled' in their so limited world-views.

Look guys, NONE of you has the wisdom or knowledge to 'know the mind and motivations of your creator'. To believe otherwise is just stupid and childish.
"We see as in a glass darkly..." ALL OF US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Palladin, if your particular brand of zealots come to my neighborhood to "do the will of God"...I will defend my family, and my neighbors, Muslim, Christian, or Jew..... with fire and my last breath, and let God Himself sort us out!!!
Fit, stay in nowhere land following your own perversions, and we can argue long distance.

Quadrat, get a darned clue of what the issues are here. You and your fellow idiots can either learn...or be quarantined or killed....and God Himself will sort us out. Why? because for one reason or another, God gave us the power to wipe your idots off the face of the earth if you frighten us too much, or pith us off too much.

The only things I know for sure are that God is just, and merciful, and sent His Son to demonstrate His love (agape') for we humans.
I also get the impression that He is forgiving of our stupiditys. (I hope so.)

...Boys, that is good, because He DOES know 'our minds and motivations', along with the number of hairs on our heads.

I shall be indefatigueable in defense of my family and my neighbors....Muslims of good will...Christians of good will...and Pagans of good will...etc.

I am so very very good at self defense and defense of men of good will. DONT SCREUE WITH US!

Take all of your idiotic plans for God, and shove them where the sun don't shine. Be peaceful and tend your gardens, and walk humbly with God.
So, let's see if this ignorant son of his mother (myself) can even begin to describe the positions of the three Christians in this debate.

Fit thinks that Jesus commands all his followers to be absolutely pacifist. He's got plenty of Scripture to prove it, 300 years of pacifist Christian history, 1700 years more of small minority Christian history, etc. But it just doesn't sound "practical," as if righteousness has to be more practical than unrighteousness.

Palladin thinks that Jesus wants Christians to do bloody warfare against so many Muslims, sometimes entire whole Muslim countries should just be eliminated, by Christians, with God applauding.

Ken Bean thinks he has a divine mandate to protect self, family and the neighbors he considers worth defending; none of which is a New Testament command or concept.

So, Palladin believes in a reconquista, or another Muslim-killing crusade, just as the Muslim fantatic terrororororoitsts believe.

And Ken just ain't gonna let no gosh darn conquest, conquista, or crusade get into his neighborhood.

Ken, I'm arrogant, but I don't think I understand the mind of God. Like a good soldier (but not violent) I think I understand my marching orders. And those are not orders like "The Bloody Battle Hymn of the Bloody Republic."
I'm often wrong. But I'm not always wrong!

Don't mix apples and oranges here. I desire the destruction of so many Muslims because they declared war on my nation. Otherwise,I wouldn't want a single one to perish and in fact wouldn't ever think of them.

I desire no "reconquista" of anything Islamic,we never have ruled Muslims and I have no desire to today,that's a false idea. I suspect you know it is,but I won't openly call you a liar,you can state what you meant yourself in response.
I desire enough Muslims to be killed as soon as possible so THEY call off their "reconquista" of my country. You forgot about the Islamic war on America didn't you? All you condemn is our response.


God's Sovereignty and desire for the advancement of His Gospel are not among those issues you feel are opaque to us. IMO. Both issues must be confronted when examining anything occurring in all human history,not just this era with Spain and South America.

Was it an accident America is what we are? China is as well. Mongolia and Turkey as well. Was it luck we won WWII but lost Vietnam? Not IMO it wasn't.

Christ controls human history. All the good and the bad you read of in history was not unknown to Him,His Command Intent decided each battle. Based on various criteria He understands and we often do not. At Thermopolae Pass,He caused the Spartans to hold back the Persians,though not a single believer was in the midst of either.

The Bible teaches God drew the boundaries of all nations and already decided in eternity past how long each would live and when each would perish. That's in Acts. Yes,I feel confident I understand that issue,notwithstanding me being a zealot.
Christ does not "control history" to the extent that he made millions of Christian Germans and Christian Italians commit the Holocaust. But those Germans and Italians weren't obedient Christians in the first place.

In my mind, Palladin, you desire a bloody conquest for religious reasons, much like the Muslims do. I put you in the same category for practical, warfaring purposes.

Nah, I must have missed that time when the entire world of one billion Muslims declared war on the USA. Oh, you probably mean my sister's birthday in 2001, when Mom couldn't fly to see Aunt Dot. I was fed breakfast that morning by one of the lady heros of X'oyep, in Yaghemel. We were still trying to clean up 11 bloody days of warfare from January, 1994. It ain't over yet.

One guy, one Saudi, apparently led some of his followers to fly airplanes into American buildings. Unless the guys from the CIA did it, or Oliver Xiilldfhls Jones did it; I don't know.

Only a very, very, very small radical, violent wing of Islam declared war on the USA that day. Thanks to the response by GWBush and his team, perhaps 10% of all Islam is at war with us today. Soon, maybe a whole lot of Islam.

Maybe you don't want a conquista or a reconquista, exactly, but I don't hear you criticizing any of them yet, and what you do want sounds pretty conquistish to me. But I'm not silly enough to joke about it. Your version of bloody conquest saddens me.
I'm often wrong. But I'm not always wrong!

Christ controls history,period,otherwise the Bible is wrong. It says this in so many areas and ways. No leader in human history led without the authorization of Christ. Take time to read Daniel in the first 6 chapters for a study on this issue. That's just 101 of this doctrine.

You fail to distinguish between the desired intent of God and His passive Will after factoring in human evil. Germans and Germany's neighbors got Hitler due to their collective evil for example. Of course Christ would have preferred Germans would have been awarded say Konrad Adenauer,but their collective evil did not MERIT Konrad Adenauer. God's Justice does not take vacations. It isn't with us right now either.

Concerning your judgement of what I desire vis a vis Muslims,suffice it to say you are as far from truth as you've ever been making that statement. I wouldn't have wasted the salty sweat off my son's balls to accomplish the lie you just told.

I wouldn't waste used toilet paper to rule every Muslim on earth. But,I would be pleased to see all 1.2 billion of themdead if that's what it takes to prevent our being their slaves.
Welllllll ) (In Ronald Reagan's words)
Fit, you haven't read the scriptures as well as you think. I'll let you look it up, dummie )
....."Love (agape') your neighbor as yourself..."

When asked what "neighbor" meant...Jesus Christ told a story...about the 'good samaritan'. Read the darned parable and then argue with me.

Palladin, of course Christ 'controls history'.....BUT He and the Father are ONE! Duh! And His Father GUARANTEED US FREE WILL...ALL OF US!

With God as my (only) Judge, I choose to watch out for my 'neighbors' to the best of my understanding.

As a corollary, we must be willing to live and be judged (for...and IN... eternity) by our choices.
Ken, you're referring to Luke 12:25-37. In today's world, the Samaritan would be a Muslim, maybe even a Muslim terrorist. I think we've always taught that the point of the story is that your real neighbor that you're supposed to love is the despised person, the Negroes or Jews or illegal aliens that everybody else likes to kick, hate and conquer.

In line of this conversation about re-conquests and reconquistas, since you clearly believe Jesus' command to "love your neighbor as yourself" is perfectly illustrated in the story about the despised Samaritan, our job is not to conquer our enemies with hatred, but to overcome evil with goodness, love our neighbor, and win him over by agape love that requires no reciprocal love in return.

Thanks for reminding us. How's Houston?
I'm often wrong. But I'm not always wrong!

You're right,so what does free will have to do with my posts above?

Christ controls human history and not 1 human hair is harmed without His authorization.

I don't understand what free will of humanity has to do with it,Christ over rides freewill when it is opposed to His over riding Will at His pleasure. If I desire to murder you and He is not prepared for that to occur,it won't.

Where's the argument?
Palladin Wrote:Ken,

You're right,so what does free will have to do with my posts above?

Christ controls human history and not 1 human hair is harmed without His authorization.

I don't understand what free will of humanity has to do with it,Christ over rides freewill when it is opposed to His over riding Will at His pleasure. If I desire to murder you and He is not prepared for that to occur,it won't.

Where's the argument?
I think the argument is that free will gives us the ability to violate God's will, and that would be meaningless if every sin that is committed, is God's will. If Christ controls 100.00000 % of all history,then each one of us is just a robot, no more responsible for our behavior than a grain of soil is.

Is there sin in the world? If we say we have no sin, the truth is not in us. Is it Christ's fault that we sin? Did Christ control that mass killer's hand?
I'm often wrong. But I'm not always wrong!

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Putin's Russian Style Reconquista John L 403 151,833 08-21-2020, 06:16 AM
Last Post: Fredledingue

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)