Seagoon's Replies to Nash

[Westy]

Who is the wackiest? The imam who says it's ok to blow oneself up in place filled with infidels because the Quran says that it is a holy war or the pastor who says it's ok to drop bombs on moslems because the bible says that it is a just war?


Bullseye deSelys!   Short, sweet and prefecty to the point.

Which is why IMO mankind would be so much better off without organized religion. Especially the type that have endowed themselves with a selfserving "mission" to tell everyone else how they should live.

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by deSelys
Answer this question, SOF2.

Who is the wackiest? The imam who says it's ok to blow oneself up in place filled with infidels because the quran says that it is a holy war or the pastor who says it's ok to drop bombs on moslems because the bible says that it is a just war?


IMPORTANT EDIT: the capital 'Q' for quran while bible received only a little 'b' was unvoluntary. As gallons of blood have been spilled thanks to both books, they both deserve the smallest font readable.

You really think if there had been no religion or if there was no religion now the world would be peaceful?


War and killing is a human thing, we will find reason to do it, without religion, we would find something else like people not having blue eyes.

Typical I guess for you “tolerant” types, have to blame something, and it can't be people so it has to be that religious book, or gun, etc.

Real tolerant of you there, will you staff your tolerance camps with Germans this time too?

[StarOfAfrica2]

Originally posted by deSelys
Answer this question, SOF2.

Who is the wackiest? The imam who says it's ok to blow oneself up in place filled with infidels because the quran says that it is a holy war or the pastor who says it's ok to drop bombs on moslems because the bible says that it is a just war?


IMPORTANT EDIT: the capital 'Q' for quran while bible received only a little 'b' was unvoluntary. As gallons of blood have been spilled thanks to both books, they both deserve the smallest font readable.

Hehehe, thats funny.  You want to blame BOOKS for people killing each other?  First of all, supposing either book advocated violence in the spread of its respective religion (which they dont, but this is your argument), your statement is the same as saying if I watch a violent movie and then commit a murder you can lay the blame for my actions on the movie.

Ludicrous.  We are responsible for our own actions.  Besides, neither book advocates anything like what you suggest.

To answer your question though, BOTH clerics are not only nuts, they are dangerous.  They take specific quotes out of context and twist the words and their meanings to suit their needs, and then try to cloak their behavior with the mantle of righteousness.  People have been doing it for centuries, and its still working.  That doesnt mean it has anything to do with the Truth.  

I am not advocating organized religion of any kind.  In fact, I agree that in many ways they have not done any more good for our race than any other organization we have put together.  Sometimes their actions have been far from good.  Let me try to put it in a way you can comprehend.

In previous times, before modern technology, military couriers were tasked with vital roles.  Not only carrying orders from one unit to another, but also carrying messages to "the other side".  Their safety was supposedly guaranteed, their person inviolate.  Many couriers delivered their messages orally.  Thus it was required that not only they have good memories, but that they be absolutely trustworthy.  Imagine what would happen if such a courier decided to twist the words of his message to prolong a war instead of shortening it?  To make demands instead of offering concessions?  The courier was given alot of power, whether it was realized or not.  

In the same way, clerics both Christian and Moslem have betrayed their calling and taken it upon themselves to twist the message.  The original intent is still there.  The original MESSAGE is still there.  But some messengers have decided to give their own message instead of the one they were supposed to deliver.  

Whatever you choose to belive though, you cant blame a book for what people do.  People would find a reason to wage war and take land and commit murder without religion, without the Bible, and without the Quoran.

[B@tfinkV]

I'm pretty sure the only important bit in the whole bible is that god said :

'Do whatever you like just DON'T EAT FROM THAT APPLE TREE! ya hear me?'


and what did we go and do?

[Seagoon]

Hi deSelys,

Originally posted by deSelys
Answer this question, SOF2.

Who is the wackiest? The imam who says it's ok to blow oneself up in place filled with infidels because the quran says that it is a holy war or the pastor who says it's ok to drop bombs on moslems because the bible says that it is a just war?

I know that this question was addressed to SOF2, but because presumably I'm the pastor in the example, I hope you won't mind if I answer your question as well.

I know that the distinction here will probably not get through, but I'll try to make it anyway.

The Imam says it is Allah's will as expressed through his prophet in the Quran and the Hadiths, that Muslims fight against the hated infidel apes and pigs [Sura 5.60, etc], wherever they find them. They must first be cleansed from the Dar-El-Islam, and then the Dar-El-Harb must be subjugated. In carrying out the will of Allah, you may conduct Martyrdom operations (suicide attacks) and fight even though there is no hope of survival, for the reward of all who die fighting for Islam is to pass immediately into heaven there to eternally satisfied by one's own 72 houris

Now, I want to point out how different the message I "the wacked out fundy" preach is from that message.

First off, I do not teach that it is God's will as taught in the bible that you fight, kill, and subjugate Muslims, simply because they are Muslims. Furthermore, I don't regard them as "apes and pigs" fundamentally less worthy. They too are created in the image of God and carry the imago dei in them. Consequently, to unlawfully shed their blood is just as bad as it would be to unlawfully shed the blood of any human being.  I do not regard them as much different from myself prior to 1993, and I have stated such in sermons: "The Muslim is no more unworthy of salvation and certainly no more lost than we were when God called us to faith in Jesus." Fighting them is not a religious duty, heck when it comes to our religious duty, we are not even allowed to hate them. I preach that the duty of Christians is to carry the message of the Good News to them even if that means that we get killed in the process. Finally, suicide is self-murder, no Christian has the right to kill himself, and certainly doing so in the process of killing civilians makes one both a murderer AND a self-murderer, it is doubly wrong. Finally, I preach that salvation comes through saving faith in Christ, not works, and that faith is the umerited gift of God. Our salvation is not based on our worthiness or even our good works in the least degree. So yes, even if someone is a soldier who did not abuse his position, or act unjustly, merely doing that contributes nothing to our salvation.

Now, regarding the Civil magistrate, I confess in part:

"Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance." [Westminster Confession of Faith, 23.3]

Therefore, since it is obvious that Jihadis intend violence to the person of all non-Muslims, that they desire to interefere with and ultimately prevent the propogation of all non-Muslim religions, and that is it their stated aim to subjugate the world under Sharia law that would make Christian freedom impossible, I believe it is the duty of the civil magistrate to protect us against them and that includes waging war in our defense. I do not believe that Christians in the military are sinning in any sense when they perform this duty provided they are not abusing the authority given to them and observing the UCMJ to the best of their ability.

Now DeSelys, if you would, point out to me where I'm exactly the same or worse than the Imams, because I'll admit, I'm confused.

- SEAGOON

[Seagoon]

Hi Nash,

Good to hear from you.

I'm just going to intersperse my replies to your statements if that's ok. I'm developing the early stages of Rheumatoid Arthritis in my hands, so typing for a long time (or using my Logitech Twisty Joystick) is beginning to get painful.

Originally posted by Nash
By cherry picking I mean the choosing of those passages in the Bible that support the views of your particular religion/denomination/whatever over the passages supporting those beliefs held by other religions/denominations/whatever.

Not necessarily. I wasn't born or raised in the church, I didn't have an inclination to one Christian tradition over the other. I was converted through the simple message of the gospel, and went through a massive change of perspective and ethics, and then had a chance to simply choose which tradition most accurately taught the doctrines contained in scripture. So my theologizing wasn't done after the fact. I didn't so to speak, try to find what I already believed in scripture, I let scripture teach me what to believe. I may have come to the wrong conclusions, but I didn't search the bible for passages supporting pre-existing beliefs.

So..... we've got a vast array of people, all coming up with wildly differing interpretations of the very same muse.

While Tertullian was a good apologist, but he wasn't exactly smackdab in the mainstream of Christian thought. Tertullian was a Montanist, a radical sect that also believed that God continued to speak through prophets in their midst, and which also encouraged certain gnostic practices like celebacy. Tertullian himself wrote that celebacy was the highest form of Christian life and that marriage was inherently sinful and akin to adultery. I 'd have to say he was as wrong and unbiblical about war as he was about sex.

In the Bible, the main things are the plain things. The fundamentals regarding the way of salvation for instance are abundantly clear and most evangelical denominations, and literally millions of Christians are agreed on them.

What connects them all is not the object of their study, sadly, but the rigorous adherence to their own interpretation of it. It turns out that the Bible doesn't bring people together...

Actually, what should connect Christians is the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit that makes them all members of the body of Christ. They are all also connected by a shared belief in the faith taught in the Bible and are together in their willingness to submit to the Lordship of Christ and declaration that He alone is their savior. Believe it or not, I've managed to share and experience that common fellowship with Pentecostals, Baptists, Methodists, Independents, and so on, even though doctrinally we differ at many points.

an example being that when I pointed out that the largest gathering of Churches just came out and condemned this war, you said that ABC Group of Churches was unworthy of note, and that XYZ Group of Churches was worthy of note.

No, I said that the WCC was theologically liberal and committed to liberal political expression and social action. I don't believe it is the place of the church as the church to be charging around declaring their support for political candidates or causes and mingling the kingdoms of Christ and Caesar, I could care less whether they are conservative or liberal in their politics. I did point out though, that since the liberal church has essentially "demythologized the gospel" and think salvation is the universal right of all men, they don't have much left to do but dabble in social action and politics. You can't spend all your time with bingo, softball leagues, and rumage sales.

Amongst the many possible interpretations of the Bible, you support but one. That's all fine and good. Because it's sorta required, and a matter of faith that I deeply respect.

But what I can do is question the values that your interpretation represents, and hold those values up to scrutiny.

I don't like seeing our spiritual leaders justifying war.

"Blessed are the peacemakers for they are God’s children." J.C.

Yet somehow, the light of Jesus gets catapulted through an ecclesiastical prism that shatters that light into millions of shards not unlike shrapnel from a grenade. From this, from some, we get "Just War."

Nash, respectfully, I'm going to suggest that you like to hear religious leaders saying what you already agree with and don't like to hear things from them you don't like. So you like the statements from the WCC because theologically and politically they are speaking your language so to speak.

But there are countless places I could point out where Jesus says things that I'm sure you wouldn't like either, about the exclusivity of salvation through Him, about sin, about the necessity of repentance, about the reality of Hell for the unbelieving and about how someday He promised to return to judge, there he comes as the Holy warrior. How does this vision of Jesus at the final judgment strike you for instance: Rev. 19:11-21

I don't like the fact that you or any spiritual leader would support it. Instead, I want our politicians to make that call, and make it soberly and objectively and with as much study, advice, consent..... [snip]That's what I want of them. Not our spiritual leaders.

Nash, I speak here as a private citizen, and a player of AH2, last time I checked I am not your Pastor. I'm not saying I'm glad about that, just pointing out the fact.

I don't get together with other Pastors and elders in the courts of the church to make declarations about war or economics or Supreme Court Nominees and when other pastors in my denomination try, I vote against it. I have made no "thus sayeth the Lord" pronouncements about the occupation of Iraq. In my private judgment the overall war against the Islamic Jihad is necessary, and yes it is something that our Civil Magistrates have to do.

I don't like seeing our spiritual leaders justifying war.

I don't like seeing our spiritual leaders obfuscating and passively condoning torture.

I don't like that they would seek to eke out some kind of moral equivalency through mirroring an outrage over cartoons, minimalizing it as "human pyramids" or "a few boots" as if that were even close to the extent of it.

For heavens sake Nash, the abuses at Abu Ghraib were wrong, British soldiers were wrong to dispense extra-judicial "punishment" - both should be prosecuted as clear infractions of their respective codes of military justice. That's my stated belief. HOWEVER, neither of them should be the cause of the civil magistrate giving up the fight against the Jihadis or made available as propaganda tools for the use of the enemy. Also, neither of them are the exact equivalent of men who as an act of faith torture and saw the heads off of their prisoners pretty close to 100% of the time.

You know what I will admit, I DON'T WANT THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE TO STOP FIGHTING TO DEFEND ME AND MINE FROM THE JIHADIS. I want them to win the war against them, I want them subdued, and sat upon once again. Ultimately I want their ideology to be dismantled root and branch in so far as we are able, just as we dismantled Nazism in Germany.

With the entire picture that is Abu Gharib and Guantanamo available for everyone to see, along with the help of a dictionary and thesaurus, what in the world would have you attempt to couch the torture in such soft and misleading terms? What would lead a man of the cloth to go out of their way for this?

I talk to military men every day, I've discussed Abu Ghraib and interrogation techniques, there is a reason why the Clinton administration sent prisoners to ARAB nations for interrogation. More political prisoners die in ARAB jails each day than died during the history of American oversite at Abu Ghraib.  We are excessively mild by comparison. Most of our methods are not significantly worse than what goes on in SERE training for our own personnel. Abuses aimed at humiliation are wrong,  I don't like war, and I wish people never needed to be interrogated. I'm glad I'll never have to do it.

But Nash, before you go condemning every American soldier as fascist torturing scum, tell me exactly how would you go about extracting information from a Jihadi? Time him out repeatedly? Threaten to give him a prayer rug with an ugly pattern?

Who the hell has even HEARD of a Liberal Church? I know they probably exist, but man... What about Dobson? What about Justice Sunday? What about Rove crediting Bush's win to the Church? What about Meirs, Frist, abortion, Shiavo, Intelligent Design? If there are Liberal churches with political voices, I'd sure as hell like to hear them. Just for balance's sake, ya know?

You don't hear about them much, because the media is no more outraged by their political declarations than you are. Think about it the WCC made it's declaration, but they media couldn't care less because to them its good news, and good news seldom gets air time.

But there are countless examples, the King funeral for instance. There we had liberal preachers in a political liberal church stand up and lambaste the administration repeatedly. Clinton, Al Gore, and Kerry were all invited to come stump on Sunday at several large liberal churches. Heck many of these churches do active "get out the vote" work for the DNC without anyone considering taking away their tax exempt status. This kind of image is actually quite a common one at campaign time:




Anyway, can't type anymore (and there was great rejoicing)

- SEAGOON