Jlay, Constantine was declared a saint, ok? Now you are telling me that he is wrong, but his wrong doing is not very wrong, it's just a little wrong. Jlay he was a murderer who was sanctified... Sorry but this isn't ok by my book and personal beliefs.
Declared. So what? I said, "But if Constantine was WRONG, by what measure was he wrong?" In this I am referring to a standard. Measure as in judge. Not as in rate whether it more wrong or less wrong. In other words, how do we look at Constantine imposing Christianity (or so he thought) upon people, and judge whether it was right or wrong? I said Constantine was WRONG. Period. And I can say this, because it is objectively wrong to force religion on people by political means. You and I can measure/judge this, even looking back in time, because morality isn't just preference. Otherwise, if you judge Constantine and take acception with his actions, then you are being self-righteous.
You are saying your morals are better. You are imposing your preference over his. But how do you do this? You deny (from what I've gathered) any objective moral truth. That is a contradiction. If morals are determined by society, then Constantine wasn't wrong. You just have a different preference. He prefered imposing religion on the populace. You don't. If morality is objective, then we can examine the actions of Constantine and say, "Yes, that is wrong." It was wrong, it is wrong, and will always be wrong. If this is the case, then morality is objective, and that means there must be a source beyond man. A moral law giver. And thus, God.
I would hope you would take acception, because I do as well. For one I do not think Saints can be 'declared' by a religious group. This however, points out a problem in your own logic. You said morality is determined by societies, and it changes. If this is the case, then what right do you have to judge the Crusades or Constantine? You can't, unless you either are in contradiction, or you smuggle in objective morality (OM). So, it is very stubborn to say you can't prove OM, but then stand upon it to make your point. If you say, "The crusades were WRONG," I seriously doubt what you are saying is that you merely have a different preference than people in those days. No, you are saying, "That is wrong!" If someone holds a gun to your head, and says, "You will become a Christian," You may say, "Ok." But in your mind, you know you have been wronged. Not simply that you prefer not to have a gun pointed and your life threatened. If I point a gun at you and demand your money, "would you object?" Or course, you would say I'm wrong. But what if I said, "It's all relative. I prefer taking your money, over your objection to it." Bryan, you know these things in your conscience.
There is certainly nothing in the Bible to support declaring saints. The fact that some religious organization declared something has ZERO weight in my book. Especially if it is contrary to the scripture itself. Constantine may have had good motives. But to think you can coerce people into faith by political edict shows a fundemental ignorance of Christ and His message.
What about the Holy Crusades? Those were supported by the Pope. Was the pope an abuser or a tenet? The line between abuser and tenet is not that clear. Since Christianity was mainly introduced by political choice, well, it is more close to abuse. At those times citizens weren't consulted on such decisions.
Not only was that Pope an abuser, but so were many others Pope's as well. Today, we have many people under the guise of Christianity who abuse and violate the faith. If you reject this, then you've got my support. The thing I hate to see is when the baby is thrown out with the bathwater. I do hope you understand that we are not trying to convince you to be religious. Man's religion is an opiate for the masses, and is responsible for wars and all kinds of abuses. Christ did not come to make you and I religious. He came to set the captives free.
You make assumptions. How do you know that pointing a gun and threatening me wouldn't make me a Christian? I beg to differ. When it comes to my survival I would probably become the best Christian in the world.
Friend, this is exactly what I mean when I say you miss it by a mile. It shows you have a fundemental flaw in understanding what makes a true Christian. (John 1:12) I'd be curious to know, what you think 'makes' a Christian. It is obvious that you think that God is standing there saying, "join my religion or else." Can you give an
scriptural exegesis to support that this is the case? I'm not interested in what some lame brain, back woods, inbred preacher might have said. I'm talking about what the scripture says.
You still haven't offered an explanation on that one so please do. When I said "Please explain" in the other topic, I actually meant it...
There are a lot of Dogmas under the banner of Christianity that are actually opposed to Christ. If we want to understand, then we need to rightly divide the Word of truth. Jesus said that whoever hears his message and the believes the Father who sent Him, shall have eternal life. It doesn't say whoever lives up to this religious performance gets in. In fact Christ turned all that on its head.
The reality of Hell and judgment is not God saying my way or the highway. You won't get that from the scriptures. You get that from people who have perverted religion.
You must have repeated the word "typical" for at least five times. Yes, there is a possibility that I could be wrong about God - maybe 1% if we talk about probabilities. I'm young and I haven't yet researched everything there is about Christianity, that's why I'm not absolutely certain yet. But what does that have to do with anything? I have much more appreciation for people who stick to their values consistently, rather than change them as new fads come and go.