|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,276 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,276 Likes: 37 |
Quote:
klinton said:
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
I can't recall the precise verse, but there is a verse in the New Testament that allows for service in war for one's country.
How about the general wording of this verse, or the context in which it was supposedly delivered.
As to the rest of your post, it rather makes my point for me. He not only didn't encourage rebellion against the Romans, he decryed any such action passionately. If the crusades were 'Christian' there must be some sort of precendent from Christ, no? Something he said that inspired thier actions in the first place.
I feel like you're trying to play a game of "gotcha" with me, and I don't like it, Klinton.
If I can find the verse later about allowing for service in war time, I'll add it.
In any case, you misinterpret verses extolling the virtues of peace, to mean that war is never an option, allegedly, according to the Bible.
The Bible teaches not to look for war, to use peaceful means whenever possible, but to defend your nation (particularly in the Old Testament, to defend Israel )
If the Bible did not allow for military service, then Israel would never have become a nation, in Biblical times or presently.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
The Bible teaches not to look for war, to use peaceful means whenever possible, but to defend your nation (particularly in the Old Testament, to defend Israel )
If the Bible did not allow for military service, then Israel would never have become a nation, in Biblical times or presently.
I agree. But a lot of things changed between the Old Testament and the new. There were things that were no longer advocated, or in fact discouraged. This was one of them.
This isn't a 'game'...Just a discussion. There are many things that can be read out of the Bible, and debated. But Jesus insitence on peace is not open to debate...It's undeniable. The fact that you are so indoctrinated by church teachings to think otherwise is unsettling.
And the difference between defending one's country and hunting down your enemies is a large one indeed. There is no Christian justification for the crusades.
If karma's a bitch, it will be my bitch!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
Just a further point...The idea that Chritians should be a powerful force, or that a Christian nation should impose itself on others is completely contrary to Christ's teachings. This is a church agenda, not a Christian one.
If karma's a bitch, it will be my bitch!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,276 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,276 Likes: 37 |
Quote:
klinton said:
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
The Bible teaches not to look for war, to use peaceful means whenever possible, but to defend your nation (particularly in the Old Testament, to defend Israel )
If the Bible did not allow for military service, then Israel would never have become a nation, in Biblical times or presently.
I agree. But a lot of things changed between the Old Testament and the new. There were things that were no longer advocated, or in fact discouraged. This was one of them.
I disagree.
The core teaching of the New Testament --of Christ-- is free will.
The freedom to choose or reject Christianity, as one observes its evidence, history and values.
The only thing the New Testament (i.e., Jesus) rejects is empty ritual that bypasses true faith. He rejects empty ceremony that projects the appearance of faith in God, but is not true faith.
Jesus doesn't discourage Jewish rituals, he only says that it is possible to have faith, and not practice those Old Testament traditions and rituals.
But God looks favorably on those who practice those rituals as a manifestation of true faith. And not just the appearance of faith.
You speak presumptuously and innacurately, with a lack of knowledge of Biblical scripture and customs.
Quote:
klinton said:
This isn't a 'game'...Just a discussion. There are many things that can be read out of the Bible, and debated. But Jesus insitence on peace is not open to debate...It's undeniable.
No, it's not.
Jesus taught peace and forgiveness, but not the way you imply, that would castrate Christians of the ability to have a political opinion, or to politically preserve their lifestyle from changes in the law that intrude on the free practice of their religion, and thus ability to serve God.
Or even to serve in the military, and defend their nation.
To say Jesus insists on peace in all circumstances is your uninformed and presumptuous opinion.
Quote:
klinton said:
The fact that you are so indoctrinated by church teachings to think otherwise is unsettling.
That is a really uncivil and sleazy attempt of yours to smear me, and it assumes a lot.
My Biblical opinion comes from reading the Bible, and various scholarly writings that give added understanding to the historic and symbolic context of the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic my NIV and King James (both English language) translations are derived from.
Your opinions, on the other hand, are derived solely from your uninformed opinions, your gay lifestyle, and your pathetic attempts to change Biblical scripture that clearly condemns homosexuality, so as to rationalize your gay lifestyle is not in contradiction with the Bible, and smear anyone who points out the Biblical standard which clearly has the most strenuous condemnation of homosexuality, an act grouped (in both the Old and New Testaments) with adultery, murder, and blasphemy.
And with that, I'd rather not respond to your posts to this topic anymore.
You launched an attack on me, and I defended myself. I'd rather not waste my time continuing to respond to your poisonous rhetoric.
Quote:
klinton said:
And the difference between defending one's country and hunting down your enemies is a large one indeed. There is no Christian justification for the crusades.
To a degree there is, specifically driving invading Muslims out of Europe.
But as I said in the prior topic, I don't pretend that the Crusades were a theologically Christian act, and said that at that time the average person in Europe did not have access to scripture, to see what the Bible truly said.
But again, Biblical or not Biblical, I give people license to defend themselves from invaders, and insure they are not invaded again.
If you want to continue this discussion, please do so without me.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 10,872 Likes: 14
Doog the MIGHTY 10000+ posts
|
Doog the MIGHTY 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 10,872 Likes: 14 |
I'm still waiting for the scripture that Jesus talks about taking up arms to defend your nation.
I know you're not going to find it because it's not there, but I'm waiting for you to admit it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,276 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,276 Likes: 37 |
Stupid Doog said:
I'm still waiting for the scripture that Jesus talks about taking up arms to defend your nation.
I know you're not going to find it because it's not there, but I'm waiting for you to admit it. Here are a few articles for you: And a few others... - http://ocf.gospelcom.net/pubs/mayachri.php
Christ did not allow Peter to defend Him by force because He had come in the world to die for the sins of men in order that they might be forgiven and reconciled to God. It will be otherwise when He comes again in mighty power and glory (Matt. 24:30; II Thess. 1:7-9; Rev. 1:7; 19:11-21).
During the Lord's earthly ministry, He provided for and protected the disciples, but as He prepared to depart, He told them that if they had no sword, to sell their clothing in order to buy one (Luke 22:35-38). Why was this appropriate? Romans 1:18-32 tells us that in order to reveal His wrath against men's rebellion against Him, God has given them up to all of those personal moral evils which cause the troubles in society, among which is war. In Old Testament times, the nation Israel lived in just such a world, and today, so does the Christian.
and - http://www.intervarsity.org/news/news.php?item_id=1161
With this perspective we must recognize that peace is a holistic concept. Peace is not simply the absence of war. It is far more - it is positive, active peacemaking. The Hebrew word shalom contains in it the idea of wholeness or soundness.
Properly read, Romans 13 is telling us that God ordains political institutions for ordering the society: But since God ordains the powers he remains above them. In that light our response on many occasions will be that as Christians, "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). We cannot assume that since God ordains government we are always obeying God in our obedience to it. We are not to be lawbreakers, for Paul says that the authorities do "not bear the sword in vain" (Rom. 13:4). But we also cannot disobey a divine law to obey a contrary law by the government. The passage in Romans 13 calls us to be "subject to" the powers, but it does not use the term "obey." Our ultimate allegiance is to the God who ordains nations to function for order in society. Any serious attempt to resolve the question of a Christian's participation in war hinges significantly on this issue.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,920
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
|
|
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,920 |
Whoa, Jess wrote all those articles?!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 10,872 Likes: 14
Doog the MIGHTY 10000+ posts
|
|
Doog the MIGHTY 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 10,872 Likes: 14 |
So far I've only been able to read the first article, and I can't believe they're using these New Testament scriptures to validate Christ being okay with taking up arms and going to war. Matthew 8:5,8,13; Luke 7:2,6; these are about a military officer having faith that Christ is the Messiah and has the power to heal his manservant just by willing it. It says nothing regarding military service, whether Christ agrees with it or not. Matthew 27:54; Mark 15:39, 44-45, Luke 23:47 regarding a military officer that commented on the events after Jesus died. Again, how does this show God sanctions Military? Acts 10:1,22 Talks about Cornelius, an Italian military officer who is considered to be the first uncircumsized Gentile Christian. Yes, he is found favorable due to his supplication to God. Still, while he is not condemned for his being an officer he is not praised for it either. Acts 21:32 A commander heard there was some sort of uproar in Jeruselem (the people were beating Paul) so they went down to stop it and get a hold of the situation. Kind of like riot police. Acts 22:25-26 They're going to whip Paul, when he mentions he's a Roman citizen so they stop. Why are they using this to try and prove God approves of Military service? Acts 23:17,23; 24:23 This isn't even grasping at straws. This just feels like they put it there because it includes military reference. Acts 27:1,6,11,31,43 Roman soldiers were taking Paul and other prisoners to the island of Malta. See my above post. Acts 28:16 Paul was allowed to stay by himself in Rome but still had to have a soldier guard him. Not one of those scriptures, especially the majority of the cited Acts scripture, had God or Jesus encouraging Christians to join the military. The Old Testament is a different story, however once Jesus came to Earth to offer himself as a sacrifice, thus fulfilling the Law and setting a new standard, the rules were different. Peace was an order, not an option. Love was the highest command. In these two passages from the sermon on the mount, Jesus is ordering peace, regardless of the actions of the other. Matthew 5: 38-40 38 “YOU heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ 39 However, I say to YOU: Do not resist him that is wicked; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other also to him. 40 And if a person wants to go to court with you and get possession of your inner garment, let your outer garment also go to him. Matt 5:43,44
43 “YOU heard that it was said, ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 However, I say to YOU: Continue to love YOUR enemies and to pray for those persecuting YOU.
And I don't think this scripture can be any clearer on Christians going to war... 2 Timothy 2:24,25 24 But a slave of the Lord does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle toward all, qualified to teach, keeping himself restrained under evil, 25 instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed; as perhaps God may give them repentance leading to an accurate knowledge of truth. So even though the Islamists may have been slaughtering Christians, they were still under a direct command to not fight back, but instead to continue leading an example of peace and teaching Gods will. Romans 12:17 17 Return evil for evil to no one. Vengeance belongs to God, not men. Romans 12:19 19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"* says the Lord.
*see Deuteronomy 32:35 for cited scripture. I'll check out the other articles tomorrow. I'm going to bed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,276 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,276 Likes: 37 |
` Quote:
Stupid Doog said:
I'm still waiting for the scripture that Jesus talks about taking up arms to defend your nation.
I know you're not going to find it because it's not there, but I'm waiting for you to admit it.
Y'know, it really bugs me that you addressed me in such a confrontational way.
And even if I am wrong (although I don't think I am), I think it's clear that I'm talking here from my best memory of scripture as I recall it.
I fail to understand your eagerness to see me proven wrong, and attempt to rub it in may face.
Here is the initial exchange I had with Klinton, recalling the first two times I mentioned the verse:
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
Quote:
klinton said:
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
But Jesus also allowed for those who serve in the military to defend their homeland, their homes and their families.
Did he really? Are you sure of that? What did he have to say on the issue of Roman control of Israel?
I can't recall the precise verse, but there is a verse in the New Testament that allows for service in war for one's country.
Again, it's quite clear I was recalling the verse from memory, and I've been very specific about so much, but it's hard to recall everything with complete accuracy.
About a year ago I made comments about the movie The Passion, a South Park episode parodying it, and the contrast of actual scripture and true Christian beleifs. I made some minor factual errors, corrected them, and acknowledged the error.
topic HERE
Regarding this current topic, I spent several hours today looking for the verse that I remember, and the closest I could find is ROMANS 13, verses 1-7. I recall others that I can't find.
I agree that Jesus, in all specific quotes I could find in the four Gospels, urges love, avoiding violence, and turning the other cheek.
But that doesn't mean that the Bible, both Old Testament and New Testament, (i.e., "God-breathed" scripture, written under the direct inspiration of God) doesn't instruct that there are times where war is appropriate action, or military service toward that end, either in active war, or as a deterrant to war.
From a related article to one of my above previous links:
http://www.gotquestions.org/war.html#warwrong
Question: "I think all war is wrong! Jesus told us to love each other, not kill each other!"
Answer: ...I do not think your view of war is Biblical.
In the Old Testament, God ordered the Israelites to: "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites (Num 31:2).
See also Deuteronomy 20:16-17,
"However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them--the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites--as the LORD your God has commanded you."
Exodus 17:16 proclaims,
"He said, "For hands were lifted up to the throne of the LORD. The LORD will be at war against the Amalekites from generation to generation."
Also, 1 Samuel 15:18,
"Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; make war on them until you have wiped them out."
So, obviously God is not against all war. Jesus is always in perfect agreement with the Father (John 10:30), so we cannot argue that war was only God's will in the Old Testament. God does not change (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17).
... It is an error to say that God never supports a war. In a world filled with evil people, sometimes a war is necessary to prevent even greater evil.
If Hitler had not been defeated by World War II, how many more millions of Jews would have been killed?
If the Civil War had not been fought, how much longer would African Americans have had to suffer as slaves?
We must all remember to base our beliefs on the Bible, not on our emotions (2Tim 3:16-17).
Question: "What should our response to the war be?"
Answer: Ecclesiastes 3:8 declares, "there is a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace."
In a world filled with sin, hatred, and evil (Romans 3:10-18), war is inevitable.
Some wars are more "just" than others, but all wars are ultimately the result of sin.
Christians should not desire war, but neither are Christians to oppose the government God has placed in authority over them (Romans 13:1-4; 1Peter 2:17).
The most important thing we can be doing in a time of war is to be praying for godly wisdom for our leaders, praying for the safety of our military, praying for quick resolution to the conflict, and praying for minimum casualties on both sides of the conflict (Philippians 4:6-7).
One last thing:
The verses that you listed as "just thrown in" because they mention soldiers.
As the article you quoted them from makes clear, those verses are listed because they show consistently that soldiers are portrayed (in both Old and New Testaments) honorably working in a noble profession as soldiers, honorably upholding law, and preserving order, in the profession God has allowed them to pursue. And whether Christian beleivers or not, upholding God's design of justice and order.
In the specific verses from Acts that you list as the greatest waste of time, Roman soldiers who don't necessarily like or agree with the apostle Paul, nonetheless listen to reports of an assassination attempt on Paul's life, and act to protect Paul and save his life.
Also, as described with crystal clarity in the same linked verses you deconstructed, several soldiers in the Bible are described favorably in scripture.
If Jesus and his disciples saw being a soldier as anti-Christian or contrary to Christian teachings, these soldiers would not be described as favorably in the Old and New Testament, and exalted ( in Matthew 8, exalted by Jesus himself) as faithful servants of God.
There does seem to be a dichotomy Biblically of :
(1) manifesting and spreading peace/"love one another",
and
(2) with other parts of scripture, more subtlely in the New Testament, where soldiers and war are also conducted in the service of God.
In particular, the battle of Armageddon in Revelation describes Jesus leading the armies of God in The Final Battle.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 10,872 Likes: 14
Doog the MIGHTY 10000+ posts
|
|
Doog the MIGHTY 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 10,872 Likes: 14 |
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
Y'know, it really bugs me that you addressed me in such a confrontational way.
And even if I am wrong (although I don't think I am), I think it's clear that I'm talking here from my best memory of scripture as I recall it.
I fail to understand your eagerness to see me proven wrong, and attempt to rub it in may face.
Boo hoo.
If you're going to make any claim of biblical pretext, be prepared to back it up. If you just quote from memory without rechecking scripture and expect us to just go along with it be prepared to get hammered.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 10,872 Likes: 14
Doog the MIGHTY 10000+ posts
|
|
Doog the MIGHTY 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 10,872 Likes: 14 |
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
Regarding this current topic, I spent several hours today looking for the verse that I remember, and the closest I could find is ROMANS 13, verses 1-7. I recall others that I can't find.
Right before Romans 13, at the very end of chapter 12, it talks about not returning evil for evil and that vengeance belongs to God alone. To take chapter 13 in the context you take it in would conflict with the previous chapter.
chapter 13 talks about respecting the laws of the government because the governments are allowed by God to rule over men. Even Jesus ordered his disciples to obey the laws of the government. When the Pharisees tried to trick Jesus with a question regarding taxes, he told them to pay the government their dues.
Mark 12:17
Jesus then said: “Pay back Caesar’s things to Caesar, but God’s things to God.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 10,872 Likes: 14
Doog the MIGHTY 10000+ posts
|
|
Doog the MIGHTY 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 10,872 Likes: 14 |
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
One last thing:
The verses that you listed as "just thrown in" because they mention soldiers.
As the article you quoted them from makes clear, those verses are listed because they show consistently that soldiers are portrayed (in both Old and New Testaments) honorably working in a noble profession as soldiers, honorably upholding law, and preserving order, in the profession God has allowed them to pursue. And whether Christian beleivers or not, upholding God's design of justice and order.
In the specific verses from Acts that you list as the greatest waste of time, Roman soldiers who don't necessarily like or agree with the apostle Paul, nonetheless listen to reports of an assassination attempt on Paul's life, and act to protect Paul and save his life.
Also, as described with crystal clarity in the same link you deconstructed, several soldiers in the Bible are described favorably in scripture.
If Jesus and his disciples saw being a soldier as anti-Christian or contrary to Christian teachings, these soldiers would not be described as favorably in the Old and New Testament, and exalted ( in Matthew 8, exalted by Jesus himself) as faithful servants of God.
There does seem to be a dichotomy Biblically of (1) peace/"love one another", and (2) with other parts of scripture, more subtlely in the New Testament, where soldiers and war are also conducted in the service of God.
In particular, the battle of Armageddon in Revelation describes Jesus leading the armies of God in The Final Battle.
none of those scriptures in the New Testament say to take up arms for your nation, that's why they're not sufficient evidence to back up your claim.
Before Jesus, the Jews were Gods favored people. They were a sovereign nation and of course they had a military. However when Jesus came to Earth all the rules changed. We are no longer under the Law Covenant as Jesus was the fulfillment of it. Now in order to be found favorable to God you must be a follower of Christ. I already listed several scriptures from the sermon on the mount where Jesus ordered his followers to be peaceable even against those who wrong you. Nowhere does Jesus tell his followers to take up swords for their nation or their beliefs.
And Jesus is as above us as God is above Jesus. God placed Jesus and the angels with the task of eradicating evil through force, not us. We were commanded to stay peaceable and allow God to enact vengeance for us.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Dogg, you're absolutely right concerning the the rule for keeping God's vengeance his own, but as far as justified interventions are concerned, you can't condemn the country or its corresponding citizens in taking up a cause that's proponent of war from a Christian viewpoint. God himself told the Jews to battle and kill the Canaanites. And simply saying that because the Old Testament didn't emphasize Christ's point regarding God's vengeance, that doesn't dispel the inherent principles that make up the rules, which have been in effect since the beginning of time (I'm referring to causality).
Christ tells us to turn the other cheek, but not to remain accessory. If someone's beating up a defenseless innocent--Perhaps to the point of death, how would God feel towards someone simply standing there and doing nothing?
I find it safe to say that God condones and encourages the taking up of arms against another country in the name of your own if the the very country you reside under sponsors component Christian philosophy and acts based upon those (at least) inherent ideals as ordained by The Christ. The Iraqi War, for example, I find, goes under such categories. President Bush sought to protect other people, mainly Americans, from WMD threats. There was also the ulterior motives of freeing the Iraqi people.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,276 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,276 Likes: 37 |
Quote:
Stupid Doog said:
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
Y'know, it really bugs me that you addressed me in such a confrontational way.
And even if I am wrong (although I don't think I am), I think it's clear that I'm talking here from my best memory of scripture as I recall it.
I fail to understand your eagerness to see me proven wrong, and attempt to rub it in may face.
Boo hoo.
If you're going to make any claim of biblical pretext, be prepared to back it up. If you just quote from memory without rechecking scripture and expect us to just go along with it be prepared to get hammered.
I did back it up. With multiple sources.
If you go beyond politely responding to the issue discussed, make angry and personal remarks that are completely unnecessary and divert from the issue at hand, prepare to be called the abrasive jerk you've proven yourself to be.
I certainly think you raise a valid issue in asking whether Jesus always advocates peace, or in some cases justifies war and military service as a solution to human conflict if circumstances get bad enough.
I've answered that question, abuntantly.
You've ignored my answers and dismissively ignored that I give Biblical evidence that God/Jesus does not condemn war in all circumstances.
But I did back my argument Biblically, from several sources.
You say that only in the Old Testament does God/Jesus advocate war as a solution.
But as is clear throughout the new testament, and as you previously ignored, since it didn't sink in to you the first time, I'll repeat it:
http://www.gotquestions.org/war.html#warwrong
Question: "I think all war is wrong! Jesus told us to love each other, not kill each other!"
Answer: ...I do not think your view of war is Biblical.
In the Old Testament, God ordered the Israelites to: "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites" (Num 31:2).
See also Deuteronomy 20:16-17,
"However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them--the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites--as the LORD your God has commanded you."
Exodus 17:16 proclaims,
"He said, "For hands were lifted up to the throne of the LORD. The LORD will be at war against the Amalekites from generation to generation."
Also, 1 Samuel 15:18,
"Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; make war on them until you have wiped them out."
So, obviously God is not against all war. Jesus is always in perfect agreement with the Father (John 10:30), so we cannot argue that war was only God's will in the Old Testament. God does not change (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17).
And also Matthew 5:verses 17-18, also from the Sermon on the mount:
Quote:
Jesus said:
17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law of the Prophets" [the Old Testament] "; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
18 "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter , not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 10,872 Likes: 14
Doog the MIGHTY 10000+ posts
|
|
Doog the MIGHTY 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 10,872 Likes: 14 |
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
If you go beyond politely responding to the issue discussed, make angry and personal remarks that are completely unnecessary and divert from the issue at hand, prepare to be called the abrasive jerk you've proven yourself to be.
Personal remarks? Abrasive jerk? I must have missed my post where I called you a complete moron because I don't remember making angry personal remarks, just scripture and reasoning. You, however, are ready to yell persecution when anybody dares challenges your fragile belief system. Yes, I challenged you because you did not back up your reasoning with scripture. Just because you say it's there doesn't mean I have to blindly believe you. People like you are the reason there are so many people in the dark on things because you flip out when people demand a rational explanation. And notice, I didn't have to go to so called "biblical scholars" to back up my belief. I went straight to scripture.
Talk about not noticing the rafter in your eye...
Quote:
Wonder Boy said to Klinton:
Your opinions, on the other hand, are derived solely from your uninformed opinions, your gay lifestyle, and your pathetic attempts to change Biblical scripture that clearly condemns homosexuality, so as to rationalize your gay lifestyle is not in contradiction with the Bible, and smear anyone who points out the Biblical standard which clearly has the most strenuous condemnation of homosexuality, an act grouped with adultery, murder, and blasphemy.
And with that, I'd rather not respond to your posts to this topic anymore.
You launched an attack on me, and I defended myself. I'd rather not waste my time continuing to respond to your poisonous rhetoric.
...maybe you were talking about yourself in the first quote? Klinton being homosexual has nothing to do with this debate. It's exactly what I was saying above. When anyone challenges you you flip out and go for the low blow thinking we'll just give in.
Now I'm done dealing with you. Get a life and lets get this thread back to what it was originally intended to be a discussion for: Islam.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
Stupid Doog said:Get a life and lets get this thread back to what it was originally intended to be a discussion for: Islam.
In reviewing this thread, it seems like a lot--but not all--of the posts that are a "defense" of Islam are based on the premise that Christianity is just as violent.
Such a defense does not establish that Islam IS a religion of peace, instead it simply admits it is not, but then argues no religion is.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 10,872 Likes: 14
Doog the MIGHTY 10000+ posts
|
|
Doog the MIGHTY 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 10,872 Likes: 14 |
No, unfortunately Christianity as it is known today is not peaceful as it should be, neither towards our brothers or towards other faiths.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
But is that because the tenets of Christianity are not followed correctly or is it, as some claim with Islam, that the tenets demand violence against the "non-believers"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 10,872 Likes: 14
Doog the MIGHTY 10000+ posts
|
|
Doog the MIGHTY 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 10,872 Likes: 14 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Dogg, you're absolutely right concerning the the rule for keeping God's vengeance his own, but as far as justified interventions are concerned, you can't condemn the country or its corresponding citizens in taking up a cause that's proponent of war from a Christian viewpoint. God himself told the Jews to battle and kill the Canaanites. And simply saying that because the Old Testament didn't emphasize Christ's point regarding God's vengeance, that doesn't dispel the inherent principles that make up the rules, which have been in effect since the beginning of time (I'm referring to causality).
Christ tells us to turn the other cheek, but not to remain accessory. If someone's beating up a defenseless innocent--Perhaps to the point of death, how would God feel towards someone simply standing there and doing nothing?
I find it safe to say that God condones and encourages the taking up of arms against another country in the name of your own if the the very country you reside under sponsors component Christian philosophy and acts based upon those (at least) inherent ideals as ordained by The Christ. The Iraqi War, for example, I find, goes under such categories. President Bush sought to protect other people, mainly Americans, from WMD threats. There was also the ulterior motives of freeing the Iraqi people.
First off, thank you for a reasonable, level headed post. Of course if I saw somebody being attacked I would step in, however I would try to not step over the line of murder. It's one thing to disable somebody from causing you harm, it's another when you have to kill them to do it. Of course, if in the act of self preservation you would kill the other person (whether purposefully or accidentally), that is a matter to weigh on your conscience and something you would have to be held accountable to God for, and He would judge you righteously.
Since I strongly feel killing somebody goes against Christs teachings, I would not put myself in a situation where I would have to choose their life or mine. That is why I, as a Christian, will never go into military service nor support the actions of war. My duty to God is more important than duty to my government.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 10,872 Likes: 14
Doog the MIGHTY 10000+ posts
|
|
Doog the MIGHTY 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 10,872 Likes: 14 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
But is that because the tenets of Christianity are not followed correctly or is it, as some claim with Islam, that the tenets demand violence against the "non-believers"?
I do not believe the tenets have been followed correctly in regards to conversions.
Again, I quote 2 Timothy 2:24,25
24 But a slave of the Lord does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle toward all, qualified to teach, keeping himself restrained under evil, 25 instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed; as perhaps God may give them repentance leading to an accurate knowledge of truth.
It speaks out against violent preaching methods and encourages peaceful methods.
If Jesus wanted forced conversions, why did he instruct his disciples to go door to door teaching, and if somebody didn't want the message to just walk away?
Mark 6:10
10 Further, he said to them: “Wherever YOU enter into a home, stay there until YOU go out of that place. 11 And wherever a place will not receive YOU nor hear YOU, on going out from there shake off the dirt that is beneath YOUR feet for a witness to them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Stupid Doog said:
First off, thank you for a reasonable, level headed post. Of course if I saw somebody being attacked I would step in, however I would try to not step over the line of murder. It's one thing to disable somebody from causing you harm, it's another when you have to kill them to do it. Of course, if in the act of self preservation you would kill the other person (whether purposefully or accidentally), that is a matter to weigh on your conscience and something you would have to be held accountable to God for, and He would judge you righteously.
Ah yes, but in the regards of war, one must kill to disable a hostile country. You've lived and have been sheltered in the nation that's going to war. Provided that your life and the life of your fellow citizens have been attended to in a satisfactory manner with the intent to allow you, the society of individuals, to flourish, you'd owe that country a debt. And in the case of America, I feel strongly that we've been as equally attending to ourselves as we have tried to be to other countries. Granted that our reasons for going to war don't merit extremist ideals (domination, monopoly, etc.), it's more than likely in our Christian interest and duty to repay our country. In turn, I see no reason why we would be judged for the death of other soldiers. The real ones who are fighting are the political powers. If anyone's going to be judged, it's them. The instrument of a soldier is made up of two things: Objectives and Survival. Nothing in that job description implies murder.
I'll just end this with a, "Render unto Caesar what is do Caesar. Render unto God what is do God."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,276 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,276 Likes: 37 |
Quote:
Stupid Doog said:
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
If you go beyond politely responding to the issue discussed, make angry and personal remarks that are completely unnecessary and divert from the issue at hand, prepare to be called the abrasive jerk you've proven yourself to be.
Personal remarks? Abrasive jerk? I must have missed my post where I called you a complete moron because I don't remember making angry personal remarks, just scripture and reasoning.
"Just scripture and reasoning" ?!?
A bit more than that, S. Doog.
Quite a bit more.
Here's your opening salvo:
Quote:
Stupid Doog said:
I'm still waiting for the scripture that Jesus talks about taking up arms to defend your nation.
I know you're not going to find it because it's not there, but I'm waiting for you to admit it.
And here's my response, with your 2nd salvo:
Quote:
Stupid Doog said:
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
Y'know, it really bugs me that you addressed me in such a confrontational way.
And even if I am wrong (although I don't think I am), I think it's clear that I'm talking here from my best memory of scripture as I recall it.
I fail to understand your eagerness to see me proven wrong, and attempt to rub it in may face.
Boo hoo.
If you're going to make any claim of biblical pretext, be prepared to back it up. If you just quote from memory without rechecking scripture and expect us to just go along with it be prepared to get hammered.
That is considerably more than respectful dissent, and a respectful counter-argument.
And as I said, I did back up my position with scripture, you just chose to to ignore it, and paint me as unable to back up my position.
I initially couldn't recall the specific verse, and I still was unable to find the specific verse I had in mind. But I offered plenty of scripture that supports my position that the New Testament does not condemn military action, and does allow submission to state authority. ( Specifically ROMANS 13: v 1-7)
Romans 13
Submission to the Authorities
1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.
4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.
7 Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
Quote:
Stupid Doog said:
You, however, are ready to yell persecution when anybody dares challenges your fragile belief system.
I simply said I don't like being accused of things and being talked to by you like I'm an idiot, simply because you disagreee with me.
Whether you like it or not, there is a counter-argument, scripturally, for military service of Christians, that I'm sure a fair percentage of the Christian community would agree with me.
As the articles I posted make clear, it is not just my opinion. These are the articulated views of many Christians.
If you disagree with that and you would choose conscientious objector status to maintain the integrity of your scripture-based beliefs, I respect that.
My interpretation of scripture is different from yours.
Perhaps you see my perspective as blasphemous, and that possibly explains the abrasiveness of your first two posts.
But again, I backed up my position with scripture, both in my own words, and with articles on the subject by others.
Quote:
Stupid Doog said:
Yes, I challenged you because you did not back up your reasoning with scripture.
Again, I did back my views scripturally, chapter and verse.
You simply choose to reject the logic of a scripture-based argument on the issue counter to your own.
I've listened to your view, and it has made me reflect on my existing interpretation.
I might eventually agree with you, as I've similarly turned 180-degrees from accepting abortion to condemning it.
But the fact remains, there is a scripturally-based counter-argument (which I voiced) that many Christians who have struggled with the issue see as the correct interpretation.
Whether or not you agree with it.
Quote:
Stupid Doog said:
Just because you say it's there doesn't mean I have to blindly believe you.
Fair enough.
Quote:
Stupid Doog said:
People like you are the reason there are so many people in the dark on things because you flip out when people demand a rational explanation.
I realize you feel strongly about the issue, as do I.
But that's abrasive, overly personal, and not a rational discussion of the issue.
Quote:
Stupid Doog said:
And notice, I didn't have to go to so called "biblical scholars" to back up my belief. I went straight to scripture.
I also directly quoted scripture, chapter and verse.
In addition to quoting scripture and cross-referencing verses that discuss previous wars, God's commanding the Jews to war in the Old Testament, and the favorable portrayal of soldiers in the New Testament (particularly the centurion in Matthew 8), yes, I did post some articles as well.
Matthew, chapter 8 :
The Faith of the Centurion
5 When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help.
6 "Lord," he said, "my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering."
7 Jesus said to him, "I will go and heal him."
8 The centurion replied, "Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed.
9 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it."
10 When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.
11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.
12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
13 Then Jesus said to the centurion, "Go! It will be done just as you believed it would." And his servant was healed at that very hour.
Please note that Jesus did NOT say to the centurion: Your work as a soldier opposes God's will. To serve me, you must abandon your work as centurion and follow me.
No.
Jesus said:
"I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. "
and
"Go! It will be done just as you believed it would." And his servant was healed at that very hour
Indicating that he was faithful to Jesus already in his work as a soldier, and was not condemned by Jesus for it.
If I didn't post articles to show others hold the same view of scripture not being in conflict with military service, you'd be saying: "well, that's just your opinion."
So I demonstrated that it's not just my opinion.
But it's Catch-22, you condemn me instead for posting articles of scripture by others that explore the issue of New Testament scripture and military service.
Again, your point that vengeance is God's alone, and that Jesus' commandment going forward is that man is, from Jesus' birth forward, to leave war and vengeance to God and his angels, is not a point that's lost on me, and it's compelled me to reflect on the issue.
I see your view as also an interpretation at this point, but it's potentially just as valid as my own interpretation.
Quote:
Stupid Doog said:
Talk about not noticing the rafter in your eye...
Again, I understand you feel strongly about the issue, as do I.
That is not a logical argument, just an angry cheap-shot.
Quote:
Stupid Doog said:
Quote:
Wonder Boy said to Klinton:
Your opinions, on the other hand, are derived solely from your uninformed opinions, your gay lifestyle, and your pathetic attempts to change Biblical scripture that clearly condemns homosexuality, so as to rationalize your gay lifestyle is not in contradiction with the Bible, and smear anyone who points out the Biblical standard which clearly has the most strenuous condemnation of homosexuality, an act grouped with adultery, murder, and blasphemy.
And with that, I'd rather not respond to your posts to this topic anymore.
You launched an attack on me, and I defended myself. I'd rather not waste my time continuing to respond to your poisonous rhetoric.
...maybe you were talking about yourself in the first quote? Klinton being homosexual has nothing to do with this debate. It's exactly what I was saying above.
Klinton being homosexual is relevant. It underscores his personal biases that warp his interpretation of Biblical scripture, particularly on the subject of homosexuality and sodomy.
As his angry misrepresentation of me manifests. And again, he fired the first inflammatory shot, not me.
How conveniently you removed those remarks from their full context.
Up to that point in the topic I had exchanged multiple posts, respectfully discussing the issue with Klinton, not voicing the slightest anger or hostility, just discussing the issue.
Then Klinton posted the following remarks I quoted and responded to:
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
The Bible teaches not to look for war, to use peaceful means whenever possible, but to defend your nation (particularly in the Old Testament, to defend Israel )
If the Bible did not allow for military service, then Israel would never have become a nation, in Biblical times or presently.
Quote:
Klinton said:
I agree.
But a lot of things changed between the Old Testament and the new. There were things that were no longer advocated, or in fact discouraged. This was one of them.
I disagree.
The core teaching of the New Testament --of Christ-- is free will.
The freedom to choose or reject Christianity, as one observes its evidence, history and values.
The only thing the New Testament (i.e., Jesus) rejects is empty ritual that bypasses true faith. He rejects empty ceremony that projects the appearance of faith in God, but is not true faith.
Jesus doesn't discourage Jewish rituals, he only says that it is possible to have faith, and not practice those Old Testament traditions and rituals.
But God looks favorably on those who practice those rituals as a manifestation of true faith. And not just the appearance of faith.
You speak presumptuously and innacurately, with a lack of knowledge of Biblical scripture and customs.
Quote:
Klinton said:
This isn't a 'game'...Just a discussion. There are many things that can be read out of the Bible, and debated. But Jesus insitence on peace is not open to debate...It's undeniable.
No, it's not.
Jesus taught peace and forgiveness, but not the way you imply, that would castrate Christians of the ability to have a political opinion, or to politically preserve their lifestyle from changes in the law that intrude on the free practice of their religion, and thus ability to serve God.
Or even to serve in the military, and defend their nation.
To say Jesus insists on peace in all circumstances is your uninformed and presumptuous opinion.
Quote:
Klinton said:
The fact that you are so indoctrinated by church teachings to think otherwise is unsettling.
That is a really uncivil and sleazy attempt of yours to smear me, and it assumes a lot.
My Biblical opinion comes from reading the Bible, and various scholarly writings that give added understanding to the historic and symbolic context of the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic my NIV and King James (both English language) translations are derived from.
Your opinions, on the other hand, are derived solely from your uninformed opinions, your gay lifestyle, and your pathetic attempts to change Biblical scripture that clearly condemns homosexuality, so as to rationalize your gay lifestyle is not in contradiction with the Bible, and smear anyone who points out the Biblical standard which clearly has the most strenuous condemnation of homosexuality, an act grouped with adultery, murder, and blasphemy.
And with that, I'd rather not respond to your posts to this topic anymore.
You launched an attack on me, and I defended myself. I'd rather not waste my time continuing to respond to your poisonous rhetoric.
That is the full context of my mentioning Klinton's homosexuality.
I was very respectful in my posts up to that point.
I guess I'm just supposed to say nothing when he, out of the blue, says to me " The fact that you are so indoctrinated by church teachings to think otherwise is unsettling.".
Oh, yes ! That's SO representative of my discussion of scripture in this topic up to that point.
I should just let that pass unchallenged, right ?
In spite of that, I made a great effort to otherwise respectfully answer all the legitimate issues he raised, aside from my necessary response to such a pointlessly abrasive smear of a remark on his part.
Why is it you guys feel like you can be such unbeleivable cocksucking bastards in the way you smear those you disagree with, and then when I respond, as any human being would to such inflammatory remarks, you -- amazingly !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-- can in your minds see ME as the one who is being uncivil.
Look at what you posted. The level of venom.
Look at what I posted. A measured, less over the top response.
Quote:
Stupid Doog said:
When anyone challenges you you flip out and go for the low blow thinking we'll just give in.
Now I'm done dealing with you. Get a life and lets get this thread back to what it was originally intended to be a discussion for: Islam.
See above.
Abrasive jerk.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 10,872 Likes: 14
Doog the MIGHTY 10000+ posts
|
|
Doog the MIGHTY 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 10,872 Likes: 14 |
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
Y'know, it really bugs me that you addressed me in such a confrontational way.
And even if I am wrong (although I don't think I am), I think it's clear that I'm talking here from my best memory of scripture as I recall it.
I fail to understand your eagerness to see me proven wrong, and attempt to rub it in may face.
Quote:
Stupid Doog said:
Boo hoo.
If you're going to make any claim of biblical pretext, be prepared to back it up. If you just quote from memory without rechecking scripture and expect us to just go along with it be prepared to get hammered.
That's brutal honesty. You ascerted something was scriptural. I challenged you bluntly to prove it because for whatever reason you did not feel it was necessary to indicate what scripture you took it from, and you took it personally.
Did I hurt your ego? What did you expect from me? An apology?
I'm sorry, but...
You're way too touchy for a debate here.
And you still can't find your scripture.
And I already made my point about Romans 13. In order to take the context the way you want to take it, you have to ignore the scriptures directly before it that says to not return evil and to be peaceable with all men and allow God your vengeance.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
the KKK are Christians.
near as I can tell the only one of the big 3 religions without violent fanatics are the Jews.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Meir Kahane and his followers come pretty close.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Meir Kahane and his followers come pretty close.
fucking anti-semite
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
the KKK are Christians.
The KKK isn't Christian-based. The majority is Christian (probably), but the organization itself isn't centred around it. The entirety of the terrorism that originates from Muslims is represented by them as Islamic wrath and/or Allah's vengeance.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Quote:
rex said:
Are their any religions of peace?
Does anyone remember the crusades?
No, and that includes modern-day Christianity.
No it doesn't.
In the context of this thread, the analysis of what religions are or are not based on peace is rooted from doctrine. If the first post of this thread is to be believed, Muslomic religion has an inherently violent logic that accompanies it. Christianity, however, doesn't have this characteristic. The Crusades were started because Christians felt threatened that their way of life was going to be annhilated. They were extending defense, not launching mass conversion.
Last edited by Pariah; 2005-07-11 6:46 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
the KKK are Christians.
The KKK isn't Christian-based. The majority is Christian (probably), but the organization itself isn't centred around it. The entirety of the terrorism that originates from Muslims is represented by them as Islamic wrath and/or Allah's vengeance.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Quote:
rex said:
Are their any religions of peace?
Does anyone remember the crusades?
No, and that includes modern-day Christianity.
No it doesn't.
In the context of this thread, the analysis of what religions are or are not based on peace is rooted from doctrine. If the first post of this thread is to be believed, Muslomic religion has an inherently violent logic that accompanies it. Christianity, however, doesn't have this characteristic. The Crusades were started because Christians felt threatened that their way of life was going to be annhilated. They were extending defense, not launching mass conversion.
I don't think Muslomic is a word.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
|
|
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000 |
Pariah, the crusades happened because a few Popes needed to call for war so they could better control the kings of Europe. They had nothing to do with self defense and everything to do with murdering non Christians throught Erurope and in Israel itself.
<sub>Will Eisner's last work - The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of ZionRDCW Profile"Well, as it happens, I wrote the damned SOP," Illescue half snarled, "and as of now, you can bar those jackals from any part of this facility until Hell's a hockey rink! Is that perfectly clear?!" - Dr. Franz Illescue - Honor Harrington: At All Costs"I don't know what I'm do, or how I do, I just do." - Alexander Ovechkin</sub>
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
rex said:
Are their any religions of peace?
Does anyone remember the crusades?
No, and that includes modern-day Christianity.
No it doesn't.
In the context of this thread, the analysis of what religions are or are not based on peace is rooted from doctrine. If the first post of this thread is to be believed, Muslomic religion has an inherently violent logic that accompanies it. Christianity, however, doesn't have this characteristic. The Crusades were started because Christians felt threatened that their way of life was going to be annhilated. They were extending defense, not launching mass conversion.
I don't think Muslomic is a word.
The NT may have a doctrine of peace but it hasn't been practiced that way since Constantine's conversion and merging of thhe Church with the Roman Empire.
The G-man says: You are GOOD
r3x29yz4a is my hero!
rex says I'm a commie, asshole, fag!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
PenWing said:
Pariah, the crusades happened because a few Popes needed to call for war so they could better control the kings of Europe. They had nothing to do with self defense and everything to do with murdering non Christians throught Erurope and in Israel itself.
PenWing, this is such bullshit. The Muslims were eating up territory like empirical whores and, in retaliation, the Christians reacted by taking that territory back. Were the Europeans pushing for war? Maybe. But they weren't the ones who started the shit.
Where exactly do you get your info from?
Quote:
magicjay said:
The NT may have a doctrine of peace but it hasn't been practiced that way since Constantine's conversion and merging of thhe Church with the Roman Empire.
I agree with this to an extent. I, however, prolly find that more has come from Christianity in this past century, in terms of spreading peace, than you do. i.e. Things aren't as good as they were, but they're not necessarily bad.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
|
|
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240 |
Most people are stupid..stupid people should die... or be put in labor camps...
just joking..kinda
Last edited by Pig Iron; 2005-07-12 3:18 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
|
|
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000 |
Pariah, did you ever watch Highlander, the TV series? There were these guys called watchers, and they watched the immortals though history?
Well, the only difference between the watchers and my people, is that we unfortunately had to experience the history.
<sub>Will Eisner's last work - The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of ZionRDCW Profile"Well, as it happens, I wrote the damned SOP," Illescue half snarled, "and as of now, you can bar those jackals from any part of this facility until Hell's a hockey rink! Is that perfectly clear?!" - Dr. Franz Illescue - Honor Harrington: At All Costs"I don't know what I'm do, or how I do, I just do." - Alexander Ovechkin</sub>
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
this argument is like saying there's more crime in Harlem therefore all black people must be criminals.
Christians and Muslims both do bad shit. Most of the times though the Christians are "legit." Bush is Christian, he's killed more than Osama.
The IRA are Catholic and have been pretty much in the same vein as the Iraqi insurgents.
Pariah reads movie scripts and complains (that's the most offensive thing I say).
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
this argument is like saying there's more crime in Harlem therefore all black people must be criminals.
Christians and Muslims both do bad shit. Most of the times though the Christians are "legit." Bush is Christian, he's killed more than Osama.
The IRA are Catholic and have been pretty much in the same vein as the Iraqi insurgents.
Pariah reads movie scripts and complains (that's the most offensive thing I say).
The difference between Christian violence and terrorist violence seems to be the level of detachment by the perpetrator of the violent act. Xtian from far away, Muslims, in your face and personal. For example, you're riding on Muni and a guy gets on with explosives strapped to his body and detonates it during the morning rush. You are killed or injured. Transport this scenario to Fallujah. You're on the bus and a US F-18 is overhead and the pilot decides that your bus looks like a military target so he launches an air to ground missle and blows the shit out of your bus. You are killed or injured. In what way is this different from what happened in San Francisco. Either way, you are fucked. The Muslim terrorist committed suicide for the greater glory of Allah. You looked him in the eye before the explosion. The Xtian pilot was 10 miles away and 5000 feet above you. One perp goes to the morgue in pieces, the other returns to base and drinks beers with his buddies. In a moral sense, what differentiates these two?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
PenWing said:
Pariah, did you ever watch Highlander, the TV series? There were these guys called watchers, and they watched the immortals though history?
Well, the only difference between the watchers and my people, is that we unfortunately had to experience the history.
This isn't good enough PenWing.
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
this argument is like saying there's more crime in Harlem therefore all black people must be criminals.
No. It's not.
I'm saying that a confirmed Muslim terrorist is 99.9% likely to be representing Islam than some other cause that's....Secular or something.
Quote:
Christians and Muslims both do bad shit. Most of the times though the Christians are "legit." Bush is Christian, he's killed more than Osama.
If you'd please to note, the Iraq War and the elimination of the Taliban had nothing to do with religion.
Quote:
The IRA are Catholic and have been pretty much in the same vein as the Iraqi insurgents.
In the sense that you're referring to Christians doing "bad shit", you're correct, but it's not entirely analogous with the motivations of the Iraqi insurgents. While it isn't any excuse, the IRA....Was angry about God's doctrine being changed by the Protestants and they, in turn, said fuck off. Truth be told, I don't know who started the actual violence, but the point is that the reason they started terrorizing was because they both felt their respective religion was threatened to destruction by either one's presence. At this point, eye for an eye has denominated their motives into pure hatred. In the case of the Muslims' actions: They were always hate-inspired.
Quote:
magicjay said:
The difference between Christian violence and terrorist violence seems to be the level of detachment by the perpetrator of the violent act. Xtian from far away, Muslims, in your face and personal. For example, you're riding on Muni and a guy gets on with explosives strapped to his body and detonates it during the morning rush. You are killed or injured. Transport this scenario to Fallujah. You're on the bus and a US F-18 is overhead and the pilot decides that your bus looks like a military target so he launches an air to ground missle and blows the shit out of your bus. You are killed or injured. In what way is this different from what happened in San Francisco. Either way, you are fucked. The Muslim terrorist committed suicide for the greater glory of Allah. You looked him in the eye before the explosion. The Xtian pilot was 10 miles away and 5000 feet above you. One perp goes to the morgue in pieces, the other returns to base and drinks beers with his buddies. In a moral sense, what differentiates these two?
You're a moron.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,747
I've got more guns than you. 6000+ posts
|
|
I've got more guns than you. 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,747 |
Quote:
The difference between Christian violence and terrorist violence seems to be the level of detachment by the perpetrator of the violent act. Xtian from far away, Muslims, in your face and personal. For example, you're riding on Muni and a guy gets on with explosives strapped to his body and detonates it during the morning rush. You are killed or injured. Transport this scenario to Fallujah. You're on the bus and a US F-18 is overhead and the pilot decides that your bus looks like a military target so he launches an air to ground missle and blows the shit out of your bus. You are killed or injured. In what way is this different from what happened in San Francisco. Either way, you are fucked. The Muslim terrorist committed suicide for the greater glory of Allah. You looked him in the eye before the explosion. The Xtian pilot was 10 miles away and 5000 feet above you. One perp goes to the morgue in pieces, the other returns to base and drinks beers with his buddies. In a moral sense, what differentiates these two?
It's all a question of your beliefs and culture. Whilst the suicide bomber sounds like a heartless killer to us, he's a saint to his people. As for the pilot... well, we don't talk about that kind of mistake on the news, so shhhhhh
Last edited by PCG342; 2005-07-12 5:22 PM.
"Ah good. Now I'm on the internet clearly saying I like tranny cleavage. This shouldn't get me harassed at all." -- Lothar of the Hill People
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 188 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
magicjay said:
The difference between Christian violence and terrorist violence seems to be the level of detachment by the perpetrator of the violent act. Xtian from far away, Muslims, in your face and personal. For example, you're riding on Muni and a guy gets on with explosives strapped to his body and detonates it during the morning rush. You are killed or injured. Transport this scenario to Fallujah. You're on the bus and a US F-18 is overhead and the pilot decides that your bus looks like a military target so he launches an air to ground missle and blows the shit out of your bus. You are killed or injured. In what way is this different from what happened in San Francisco. Either way, you are fucked. The Muslim terrorist committed suicide for the greater glory of Allah. You looked him in the eye before the explosion. The Xtian pilot was 10 miles away and 5000 feet above you. One perp goes to the morgue in pieces, the other returns to base and drinks beers with his buddies. In a moral sense, what differentiates these two?
You're a moron.
Could you elaborate, please?
|
|
|
|
|
