愛的真正含義是什麼？
| « 1 | < | > | 4 » |
殺唔乾淨，未能清零 | |||||
你比中世紀的教士更想:不信---->殺 (因傳教士不醜, 不塗黑, 你反基就不夠理由矣?) | |||||
你唔好以為天主教在中世紀是霸道的， 唯一的宗教。 當時在歐洲北部地區， 人仍信拜多個神祗。與天主教共存。如： 今日的電子競玩遊戲都用他們作人物。 你抽水不要活在你自已「以為就是這樣」的世界裡， 看看現實世界是否如你幻想的模樣。 | |||||
完全是「信就有著數」的因素。根本不會用上「不信/—-》殺」的手段。 | |||||
排隊想受洗既人多過七一遊行。 反基仔無掟企。全民皆基。 | |||||
基督教 专误导 [quote]1500年代，西班牙人首次抵達墨西哥時，他們試圖讓土著族群歸信羅馬天主教。很多族群都歸皈了天主教, 有人會話是 (不信---> 殺)的威能。 但當中就有一個族群:紮波特克人沒有放棄自己的傳統宗教。紮波特克人最初居住在該國南部的瓦哈卡州（Oaxaca） 傳教士, 西班牙人...也没有把他們殺清光。 今日紮波特克人散居在墨西哥各地，總人口為三十至四十萬 ... beebeechan 發表於 2022/6/9 11:47 基督教徒你 ...也没证据可证明基督教没把他們殺个近乎清光。 | |||||
總人口只為三十至四十萬，特区1个深水埗已可能是他们2倍。 | |||||
基督教 专误导不是基教仁慈。 因为保存得好。 屌你基督老母。 | |||||
中国人，闻过则喜。 基督教，文过饰非。 SEO TAG - 对联 | |||||
自己睇下：https://exchristian.hk/forum/red ... 74297&ptid=6658 | |||||
殺呀 CHARLEMAGNE'S RELIGIOUS MOTIVATION However, treasure and land were not the sole motivation for the conquering king who wore a sword with a “cross-shaped hilt at the ready for attacking pagans.” The Saxon Poet calls him “a teacher of faith” who came to the Saxons “to save them against their will.” A text on the life of Saint Liborius written between 887 and 909 states that Charlemagne “preached to the Saxons with an iron tongue,” perhaps echoing Notker’s striking image of the conquering “iron Charles” riding down his enemies: “helmeted in iron, armed with iron gloves, his iron chest and broad shoulders safe in an iron breastplate… ‘Oh, the iron; alas the iron’: the bewildered wail of the citizens sounded forth.” Charlemagne by D.J. Pound In 775, the original RFA entry simply describes another Saxon raid by Charlemagne with no motivation given. The revised RFA, however, states that he “decided to attack the treacherous and treaty-breaking tribe of the Saxons and to persist in this war until they were either defeated and forced to accept the Christian religion or entirely exterminated.” This determination is something quite different from territorial expansionism and gathering of wealth. The religious nature of the Saxon war goes beyond the “with God’s help” trope repeated to the point of banality in the RFA. Charlemagne saw himself as a new Constantine, emulating the first Christian emperor by naming a Frankish stronghold Karlsburg after himself, as the earlier emperor had done with Constantinople. To his consternation, the eponymous stronghold was destroyed by the pagan Saxons rebelling under the leadership of Widukind. In Einhard’s Life, the Saxons are the only non-Christian people whose religious beliefs are discussed. The biographer introduces them by stating that the Saxons, “like almost all the peoples who live in Germany, were ferocious by nature, devoted to the cult of demons, hostile to our religion, and did not consider it shameful to transgress divine or human laws.” Einhard’s assertion that the Saxons were demon-worshipers parallels the eight-century Old Saxon baptismal vow used by those who converted to Christianity: “I renounce all the words and works of the devil, Thunaer, Woden and Saxnot, and all those demons who are their companions.” Along with this demonization of Saxon religion, Einhard sets out the trope of Saxon dual disobedience of sacred and secular law, an idea that pervades contemporary portrayal of the Saxon war. Unlike the RFA, Einhard gives Charlemagne a clear motive for his first offensive against the Saxons by asserting that the Saxons provoked the war: “Murder, robbery, and arson never ceased on either side [of the Frank-Saxon border]. The Franks were so irritated by these incidents that they decided the time had come to stop responding to individual incidents and to open a full-scale war against the Saxons.” Despite Einhard’s description of a reasonable defensive action taken by the Franks, the first action against the Saxons was of an overtly religious nature. https://www.norsemyth.org/2015/1 ... ligio-cultural.html | |||||
維京人驍勇善戰，就梗係難啲執行「不信---->殺」呢個偉大行動啦。 | |||||
但歷史就告訴我們, 大部份「驍勇善戰」既維京人都陸逐歸皈成基督徒。 你豈不是更加說明傳教, 不是單靠「不信--->殺」。 傳教, 是靠把口, 不是靠把刀。 刀....辦不來的事, ..... 口..卻做到 | |||||
殺呀 我同你講緊傳教士用咩手段傳教, 你就同我講查理曼, 佢都唔係傳教士嚟。 真係 「連傾緊啲乜都跟唔到」 | |||||
殺呀 查理曼「留信不留命」是要被征服者有降服的外表行為而己。不是在傳教。 正如公務員也要宣誓忠特區政府,是表面降服。難道六萬多公務員中真的没有黃絲? 口中宣誓不等如心服的。 不肯宣誓的就會被炒魷。 正如, 當年, 不肯受洗的就是不願投降, 不願查理曼當王 (因為當年教宗曾為查理曼傅油加冕， 說他是上主挑選的， 不要他作王， 另立新君的都是罪， 要逐出教會） 查理曼當然會以「受洗」來代表投降。 是「不投降。。。就殺」， 不是「不信——殺」 | |||||
殺呀 有証據顯示「不信--->殺」的手段是出自甚麼主教, 教宗的授意嗎? | |||||
殺呀 你帖內貼文, 有特別加粗體字的一句,當是你讀文時的焦點放到這裡。用來說明查理曼攻打 北方的Saxon 的動機純為宗教理由， 不信就殺。 可是, 你就没有留意上邊那句:「the revised RFA」 這說明之前有史家的看法（即寫ＲＦＡ的那個）不是這樣的。查理曼與Ｓａｘｏｎ 開戰的動機目的是甚麼， 就是另有因由。 你還要多讀一點史料。 你自己貼的文也提到當年的 Saxon 是 treacherous, treaty-breaking | |||||
殺呀 貼文的另一處, 也說明 action against the Saxons was of an overtly religious nature. 只是一家之說。 至少, 有另一史家 Einhard 有不同看法, 也列舉出動兵原因 再一次奉勸你睇資料， 唔好單起隻眼嚟睇， 唔好只係去睇你想睇到既野 | |||||
你將傳教定義咗係「靠把口, 不是靠把刀」，咁「不信---->殺」呢個當然就排除响傳教以外啦。 假如傳教只限於主教／傳教士，其他郁手郁腳既人就當然唔屬於傳教既一部分啦。 好似啲人話「所有宗教都是導人向善」，按這個定義，異端邪教就不屬於宗教了。 被自限定義規範，只能得出定義之內的結論。 | |||||
異端邪教都有導人向善既野架, 好比耶和華見証人, 天主教基督教一致認為是異端, 少少邪....當中也不乏行善既耶証喎. 即使名門正派既天主教, 也會出邪惡神父主教哩...係咪? 是不是邪....看你行甚麼的為, 不是信甚麼的教條 |
| « 1 | < | > | 4 » |