Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sakai on August 23, 2005, 09:11:25 AM
-
Sanctity of life? Well, some of the time, anyway
Pat Robertson is all about the sanctity of human life -- except when he isn't. The Christian Coalition founder and Christianist political activist said on his television show Monday that it's time for the United States to stop Venezuela from becoming "a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism.'' How do you do that? Assassinate the president, Robertson says.
"We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator," the Associated Press quotes Robertson as saying. "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."
OK, so he was really talking about a CIA-orchestrated coup or something, not the assassination of Hugo Chavez, right? Wrong. "You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson said. ''It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war . . . and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."
-
Religion's ability to breed crazy people no longer amazes me.
The sanguine attitude on this board from the Christians who fail to see the similarities between Christian and Muslim extremists, however, does.
"Oh," they say dismissively, "that's different."
-
Chairboy, help me out here.
Could you list maybe 5 or 10 of the "Christians who fail to see the similarities between Christian and Muslim extremists" that post on this BBS?
Because I'd like to ask them directly what they think of Robertson's Chavez comment.
Thanks.
-
I've got to be pretty careful here. I don't want to troll, and I don't want to make posts that offend or disrespect other members.
I believe that those who hold the publicly stated opinions that I've mentioned will post on their own.
-
This is allready being covered in another thread.
How bout leaving Christianity and religion out of it?
BTw, I don`t believe a coup was mentioned. No need for it when you cut off the snake`s head instead of the tail.
-
" How bout leaving Christianity and religion out of it?"
That's impossible when that nutjob Robertson is a Christian extremist.
"I'd like to ask them directly what they think of Robertson's Chavez comment. "
A gaggle of em can be found in the topic from July "Comparing Islam to Christianity"
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=155078&highlight=white
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I've got to be pretty careful here. I don't want to troll, and I don't want to make posts that offend or disrespect other members.
I believe that those who hold the publicly stated opinions that I've mentioned will post on their own.
No problem. Just send me a Private Message listing those "Christians who fail to see the similarities between Christian and Muslim extremists" that post on this BBS.
I'll take it from there.
There'll will be no troll, no post that may offend or disrespect other members.
Unless you were just posting an unsupported (-able) blanket charge against the famous "them"?
Thanks again.
-
Originally posted by Westy
A gaggle of em can be found in the topic from July "Comparing Islam to Christianity"
[/b]
Since I'm not sure of how you and Chairboy qualify posters to be "them" and since there's a "gaggle of 'em", perhaps you could also PM me with a short list of the worst of "them"?
I'll keep it private.
Thanks!
-
In the context of the discussion on this weboard for me "them" are the people who proselytize Christianity. In a "we're good and righteous while they're evil and oppressive" kind of way. (fwiw I feel disdain for all religions)
I do not have PM"s enabled as I have not yet found the need to go private with any discussion to date. But to be plain about it the "handles" of some people I feel are "them" would be rshubert, seagoon, simaril, lasersailor184, hacksaw1, bustr and SOB.
(Added SOB as IMO this topic could use some kind of accelerant)
-
Originally posted by Westy
" How bout leaving Christianity and religion out of it?"
That's impossible when that nutjob Robertson is a Christian extremist.
"I'd like to ask them directly what they think of Robertson's Chavez comment. "
You answered that yourself with the second quote.
It`s not even close to impossible. Robertson may be a nutjob and can be viewed as such without religion being brought into it. He doesn`t speak for , nor represent the majority or anywhere close to the majority of Christians or any other religion. It doesn`t enter the picture.
What does enter the picture is the statement.
I agree he is a nutjob.
I also think that the no assasination crap is just that, crap. If someone is giving us a load of it, off em. Simple. Saves lives, money, etc. After all , it`s been done before so pretending it is against policy is a wagon load of BS.
-
I agree with Westy's list, looks about right. This is not to say that these posters are somehow evil, just that they have shown a willingness to focus on generalizing Islam as a religion inherently violent and suggesting that Christianity is virtuous.
Everyone on this board is entitled to their own opinion, and I believe that I'm entitled to mine that those and others are selectively blind to the 'indiscretions' of Christian extremists until forced to respond. I expect Seagoon, for example, to post shortly that Pat Robertson, while a charismatic leader with his own opinion, does not automatically represent the views of Christianity in general. Of course, if this happens, then it's certainly odd considering his voluminous written history equating Islam with evil and suggesting that, unlike Christianity, it is unavoidably violent and can bring only grief to the world. An opinion, of course, fueled by the actions of an extremely small but vocal group of muslim extremists.
I respect that Seagoon is no sockpuppet, and that he honestly believes himself to be a font of balance and objectivity, but that doesn't equate to automatic acceptance of everything he says to, pardon the language, be 'gospel'.
One final note, while I believe us all to be entitled to our opinion, I am very careful not to suggest that this is the same as having some right to post whatever I want to this board. HTC is offering this area, and I wish to respect the rules that they have put in place. Consequently, I will continue to strive for avoiding personal attacks while I enjoy vigorous debate. I was unwilling to bring specific posters into this, but I feel that the confrontational basis of your challenge limited my options. I hope that my post does not exceed the very reasonable standards established by HTC.
-
Sorry but the radical is linked at the hip with Christianity. Anything he declares publicly, as he has, is tantamount to being delivered from a pulpit.
I wonder if your stance would be the same if some cleric named Abdullah Hackensackensein annoucned he was advocating killing the leader of some Western country because he felt that said leader was a threat to Mecca and a danger to Islam?
Robertson only gets recognition for what he said because he is a leader in the Christian community. To make it appear otherwise is to try "Rove" the issue.
-
Originally posted by Westy
Sorry but the radical is linked at the hip with Christianity. Anything he declares publicly, as he has, is tantamount to being delivered from a pulpit.
You certainly have a right to your opinion, but I totaly disagree.
I beleive you are selling the public short by suggesting this. Robertson does not speak for Christians. His word is not taken as gospel by the general public, Christian or otherwise.
Oh...and if any leader was threatening one of our leaders, I`d say off him. :)
Are you suggesting that threats such as this hasn`t been made?
-
I think you've headed out to left field. Disageement is fine but I have no idea where you're going. I didn't suggest the public was dumb or that Robertson speaks for all christians. Anymore than the when the Pope, Rev Moon, Ayatollah Whoever or al-Zarqawi speeks do they speak for all in thier respective religions.
Fact is though he IS a MAJOR "Christian" figurehead.
Fact is he is a fundamental, extremist nutjob and is calling for the murder of a head of state.
Fact is he is a hypocrit and prrof of how in this day and age Christianity has thier extreme, hate mongoring radicals
And I think it ironic that if he were a cleric from the Middle East you about a dozen others (add in the Christian prostheltysers) on this board would calling for a nucular bomb to be dropped on the lot of em.
"if any leader was threatening one of our leaders, I`d say off him."
So if some Islamic state puts out a decree calling for Robertsons beheading that'd be ok? (IMO it is but wondering about yours)
Westy
-
Originally posted by Westy
I think you've headed out to left field. Disageement is fine but I have no idea where you're going. I didn't suggest the public was dumb or that Robertson speaks for all christians. Anymore than the when the Pope, Rev Moon, Ayatollah Whoever or al-Zarqawi speeks do they speak for all in thier respective religions.
If anyone is in left field it is not me on this one. Got your glove and cap? ;)
Not only does Robertson not speak for ALL Christians, he doesn`t speak for the general popualtion or even close to a majority of Christian, population, etc.
Fact is though he IS a MAJOR "Christian" figurehead.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Wrong! He is no more of a Christian figurehead than I am.
Fact is he is a fundamental, extremist nutjob and is calling for the murder of a head of state.
He is a nutjob IMHO, nothing more. He is calling for the assasination. It carries no more weight than if I asked for it. He is not a leader nor a decision maker for our country in any form or fashion.
I happen to agree that assasination would cure a lot of probs in some cases. Hard to follow stupid rules when your opponent will not even look at or have any interests in the 'rule book"
As for as robertson goes...even a blind squirrel gets a nut occasionaly. :)
And I think it ironic that if he were a cleric from the Middle East you about a dozen others (add in the Christian prostheltysers) on this board would calling for a nucular bomb to be dropped on the lot of em.
Being a cleric in ME or anyplace else has nothing to do with it. That is the point I am making. Nothing to do with religion. It`s what they call for. I could care less what religion they are if it is a threat to our country. A threat is a threat, period.
No need for a nuclear bomb or any massive measures if the snake was cut off at the head instead of the tail.
So if some Islamic state puts out a decree calling for Robertsons beheading that'd be ok? (IMO it is but wondering about yours)
Talk about your left field. :)
If any state, country, individual calls for any beheading of anyone in my country it would not be OK with me. If one is threatened we all are. Islamic has nothing to do with it. A threat is a threat.
-
Really? You may want to check into his audience has before making any claims as to who he speaks for and who likes what he says.
As for "He is no more of a Christian figurehead than I am" youve got be be kidding or being facetious. Or legally blind or deaf.
As to his words carrying no more wiehgt than yours? Now I know you're slinging buckets of cow dung.
When has anything you said made international headlines? When has anything you've ever said or posted brought about White House denial and distancing? When has anything you have ever stated made headlines in over 600 newspapers worldwide?
As for my example of irony and hypocrisy using the fictional Islamic cleric for example? Just ignore it as it's clear it sailed way over head.
-
Naw, it didn`t sail over my head bro, but I believe the concept religion not making one bit of difference when it comes to threats or enemies does yours. It`s not religion, it`s the man or group of people and the threat. I could care less what religion any enemy of mine is.
I`m sure I could make national headlines if I so desired. I believe most people could. All you have to do is come out with something majorly controversial concerning recent events, etc. and be willing to be made out as a lunatic or complete idiot.
The fact that the whitehouse and politicians denounced his statement should give ya a hint.
Anyone can make headlines. Media is just itching for some mud to sling, no matter what the source. If it makes headlines, it makes money. That is all matters to them. Right/wrong, contributing to the population or damaging anyone just doesn`t enter into the picture.
Look at the Mom that was in the headlines overnight by going to Crawford and acting a total idiot.
One day before this nobody knew or cared who she was.
Out of the blue and into the black.
It`s been interesting reading your viewpoints. Especialy that you think the population puts so much stake in Robertson.
Robertson is just another goofball that has a TV show to make money from the weak of mind. Nothing more. The majority realizes this and pays him or many more like him any attention and certainly doesn`t follow his word as the gospel or correct. I`m amazed you think they do.
Peace. :)
-
Imprimis I haven't read or heard that statement being made by Mr. Robertson directly. I have heard it attributed to him but not conclusively. Forgive me for disbelieving much that is printed or reported in the mainstream press. However if Mr. Robertson did in fact make those statements then he is completely out of line. Killing anyone for their political belief is anathema. But don't let that stop you from trashing all Christians for it, by all means continue.
-
OK, let me put it simply and definitively:
Regardless of what Pat Robertson calls himself, calling for assassination is 100% directly in conflict with what Jesus taught. His call is incompatible with Christian doctrine or belief.
However, there are a good number of Muslim clerics who use direct Koranic references to claim that Mohammed calls for violence against enemies of Islam. It is indisputable that Mohammed used warfare for religious expansion during his lifetime; Jesus did not, and the gospels specifically record Jesus telling his right hand man to "put away the sword."
If you are interested in Biblical references, I'll get 'em by the cartload -- but I suspect you're not, because it sounds like you're mind's made up. I am in no way an expert in the Koran, and am fully dependent on what I read about it for info (as are most of the BBS readers).
Simple question: If "christian extremists" are no different from muslim ones, please respond with references to fatality lists from christian terrorist actions.
As much as it pains relativists to consider, some things actually are meaningfully different -- and acknowledgeing that is not bigotry.
-
many notable imams (SP?) and muslim clerics preach hate speech every day. There's even more than a few muslim schools that pander to terrorists and actually train them. Mosques are used as recruitment centers for radicals to carry out terrorism in the name of islam.
One figure head of cristianity talks about assasination of somone and it's front page news.
Islam = teh bad
islam = christianity????
therefore christianity = teh bad????
yea you guys make alot of sense.
and as a christian I don't agree with what he says nore do I condone pipe bombings of abortion clinics.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Simple question: If "christian extremists" are no different from muslim ones, please respond with references to fatality lists from christian terrorist actions.
There are the easy ones, like the Oklahoma City bombing, which was to avenge the deaths of the Branch Davidians, a christian cult.
There are the 200,000 muslims killed by christian serbians, both uniformed and not, during the 1990s.
There are folks like Eric Rudolph, who bombed abortion clinics and other places in the name of Christ and with the tacit support of congregations nationwide. Stephen John Jordi is another.
The KKK is a protestent organization that did things in the 20th century that would meet modern classifications of terrorism, but trying to reverse engineer the label onto them would be self defeating.
There's the 'Lord's Resistance Army' in Uganda that kills, murders, and more in the name of Jesus. Same with 'God's Army' in Burma.
Please surprise me and acknowledge that the implicit statement in your 'question' of 'there are no christian terrorists' has been properly refuted.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Simple question: If "christian extremists" are no different from muslim ones, please respond with references to fatality lists from christian terrorist actions.
I'm not sure how many have died by christian terrorists, but I know they attack smaller targets, such as Abortion clinics as opposed to embassy's and the WTC. I'm sure many have died and many many more maimed in attacks on abortion clinics.
-
Originally posted by Westy
...snip...
Fact is he is a fundamental, extremist nutjob and is calling for the murder of a head of state.
Fact is he is a hypocrit and prrof of how in this day and age Christianity has thier extreme, hate mongoring radicals
Is Robertson's statement consistant with Christianity? Absolutely not. It is in no way a Christian statement, regardless. Period. He'd have a hard time defending sanctity of life arguments after this, and his feet should be held to the fire until he recants one position of the other.
Question: if he happened to also be a Boy Scout, and spouted off such nonsense, would the Boy Scouts be worthy of smearing?
Answer: No, because the Boy Scouts have nothing to do with his position.
I trust the allegory is obvious.
Originally posted by Westy
...snip...
And I think it ironic that if he were a cleric from the Middle East you about a dozen others (add in the Christian prostheltysers) on this board would calling for a nucular bomb to be dropped on the lot of em.
Westy, I understand you're worked up over this, but I hope you'll back down on this generic statement. You have slandered me by including me as a "proselytizer" and saying that I'd call for retaliatory mass murder -- without provocation or any basis in fact.
First, I challenge you on the very term Proselytizer. I have never sought to convert anyone on this board. I have stood up for my beliefs, and I've tried to explain why there seem rational to me. Where I come from, this is considered rational discourse, exchanging ideas. And for the record, I work professionally and closely with muslims, christians, and atheists with absolutely no problem. I do not froth, despite your implication.
Second, I have never advocated murdering another person. I'm a Christian, but I'm also a physician. I deal up close with death and pain regularly, I know what they look and smell like, and I'm firmly opposed to both on principle.
If others somehow linked Christianity to retaliatory nuclear strikes against terrorists, I challenge them now to show biblical foundations for such a call.
The founder of my faith humbled himself, bypassed the cultural elite, and verbally trashed the religious establishment -- while he cared for the poor, oppressed and the diseased. Not all faiths can say that -- so lets be honest and admit there are some fundamental differences.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
There are the easy ones, like the Oklahoma City bombing, which was to avenge the deaths of the Branch Davidians, a christian cult.
can't pin that one on me -- the minute Koresh called himself the son of god, he passed out of the realm of christianity. And the terrorists relied on a warped libertarian view of Jefferson more than christianity anyway -- i recall the one guy was wearing a shirt quoting TJ's comment on the guillotine's free use in France: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time
to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." I'd argue that shows their motivation was more political than religious.
Originally posted by Chairboy
There are the 200,000 muslims killed by christian serbians, both uniformed and not, during the 1990s.
Again, I'm gonna refute this one. I've never seen any evidence that this genocide was triggered by religious fervor -- and I doubt you have either. This was an ethnic cleansing. The line in the 90s had it that the difference between Bosnian muslims and bosnian christians was that the muslims didnt go to mosque on Friday and the christians didnt go to church on Sunday. :)
Originally posted by Chairboy
....snip.....
The KKK is a protestent organization that did things in the 20th century that would meet modern classifications of terrorism, but trying to reverse engineer the label onto them would be self defeating.
I dont know about that -- I think they were pretty clearly a terrorist organization. They were, however, clearly motivated by race, not by religion. They did twist religion to give them cover, but they were protestant in name only. The Blacks they killed were often more christain than the KKK. The modern KKK is a racist organization period.
Originally posted by Chairboy
There are folks like Eric Rudolph, who bombed abortion clinics and other places in the name of Christ and with the tacit support of congregations nationwide. Stephen John Jordi is another.
....snip.....
There's the 'Lord's Resistance Army' in Uganda that kills, murders, and more in the name of Jesus. Same with 'God's Army' in Burma.
Please surprise me and acknowledge that the implicit statement in your 'question' of 'there are no christian terrorists' has been properly refuted.
Dont have any direct knowledge of the 3rd world groups, so cant say if they're motivated by their faith or not. Would love some references of you have them.
The US dudes are terrorists, motivated by a warped view of christian doctrine.
EDIT: I missed the tacit support line; love to see your evidence for that. Everyone I know -- and everything I heard -- was firmly on the side of the horrified condemnation generally held.
/EDIT
But you've warped what I said too. I never claimed that there were no Christian terrorists, nor did I imply it. I asked you to show how christian extremists were the same as muslim ones. They clearly are not.
Christians doing violence in the name of religion are directly disobeying their founder's explicit instructions. This is why the leaders of a huge majority of christians condemn violence aginst abortion clinics, etc.
Neither can be said with regard to muslim extremists.
-
Originally posted by Westy
" How bout leaving Christianity and religion out of it?"
That's impossible when that nutjob Robertson is a Christian extremist.
"I'd like to ask them directly what they think of Robertson's Chavez comment. "
A gaggle of em can be found in the topic from July "Comparing Islam to Christianity"
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=155078&highlight=white
I think its a herd of lemmings Westy:)
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
You answered that yourself with the second quote.
It`s not even close to impossible. Robertson may be a nutjob and can be viewed as such without religion being brought into it. He doesn`t speak for , nor represent the majority or anywhere close to the majority of Christians or any other religion. It doesn`t enter the picture.
What does enter the picture is the statement.
I agree he is a nutjob.
I also think that the no assasination crap is just that, crap. If someone is giving us a load of it, off em. Simple. Saves lives, money, etc. After all , it`s been done before so pretending it is against policy is a wagon load of BS.
Pat reaches and gets support from millions of christians.
http://www.patrobertson.com/Biography/index.asp
He has consideral influence and power to shape opinion.
-
Originally posted by Silat
I think its a herd of lemmings Westy:)
That thread refernces some of my posts; read what I said here.
How does my stand qualify for lemming status?
Which brings up an important point: no one can lead where no one will follow. Just because some christians think of Robertson as a leader, dont expect them to obey his commands like some Oz- like flying monkeys.
If you guys' assumptions are correct, Disney should be bankrupt -- didnt the SOuthern Baptists, the largest fundamentalist protestant group in the US, have a decade long boycott of Disney? The "mindless christians" quietly ignored their "leaders" because they disagreed with the stand. The same will happen to Robertson if he tries to lead "christians everywhere." He doesnt, cant, and won't.
-
" Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel said the U.S. response to Robertson would be a test of its anti-terrorist policy and that Venezuela was studying its legal options.
“The ball is in the U.S. court, after this criminal statement by a citizen of that country,” Rangel said. “It’s a huge hypocrisy to maintain this discourse against terrorism and at the same time, in the heart of that country, there are entirely terrorist statements like those.”
Rangel called Robertson “a man who seems to have quite a bit of influence in that country,” adding sarcastically that his words were “very Christian.” He said the comments “reveal that religious fundamentalism is one of the great problems facing humanity in these times.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9047102/
religious fundamentalism is one of the great problems facing humanity in these times.
lol. You don't say...
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Robertson is just another goofball that has a TV show to make money from the weak of mind. Nothing more. The majority realizes this and pays him or many more like him any attention and certainly doesn`t follow his word as the gospel or correct. I`m amazed you think they do.
Peace. :)
Oh? (http://www.backchannelmedia.com/newsletter/story/5028779305/The_Club_November_Sweeps_In_Tr.html)
VIRGINIA BEACH, Va., January 20, 2005-- The 700 Club's average daily audience, according to AC Nielsen's November sweeps, is up 26% over last year. At a time when most daily shows are struggling The 700 Club is experiencing tremendous increases. November's average daily audience of 922,000 households is the highest in ten years and we experienced the same success in October and November.
...
The 700 Club is a live television program that airs weekdays before a studio audience from the Christian Broadcasting Network's (CBN) broadcast facilities in Virginia Beach, Va. On the air continuously since 1966, it is one of the longest-running programs in broadcast history and can be seen in 95% of homes in America. Hosted by Pat Robertson, Terry Meeuwsen, Kristi Watts and Gordon Robertson, with news anchor Lee Webb, The 700 Club is a mix of news and commentary, interviews, feature stories and Christian ministry. The program is carried on The ABC Family Channel three times daily and is seen in 104 million homes by local broadcast syndication. It is seen daily by approximately one million households and over 17 million over the course of a month.
-
you guys are right. He's got a HUGE following. That automatically makes all christians terrorists???
I know I got it, we can have EACH and everyone of his audience members sign a petition saying they don't like what he said and christianity is saved right?
I'm a christian and this guy doesn't represent me. I've honestly never heard him speak.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Pat reaches and gets support from millions of christians.
http://www.patrobertson.com/Biography/index.asp
He has consideral influence and power to shape opinion.
ROFL
Not one to pop your bubble Lew, but that is the "official" Pat Robertson website.
Westy bailed on me. :)
-
Originally posted by Nash
Oh? (http://www.backchannelmedia.com/newsletter/story/5028779305/The_Club_November_Sweeps_In_Tr.html)
Lmao
Too easy.
Advertiser Information: DRTV Connected reaches 15,000 subscribers daily in the direct response, home shopping, and television advertising industries. Banner rates, and barter opportunities, are available. For more info contact advertising@backchannelmedia.com.
-
Uh, what?
The website that posts the numbers about Robertson's teevee numbers to the advertising industry is baaad for posting about its own numbers in garnering ad revenue?
How does that make the Robertson numbers wrong?
Too easy?.... Righto.
Everybody knows who Pat Robertson is, and there is a reason why, and that is because he's piped into people's homes all the time and there is a reason why that is too - because he's popular and you're trying to tell me that he's some insignificant tard...
If he was, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Everybody knows who Pat Robertson is, and there is a reason why, and that is because he's piped into people's homes all the time and there is a reason why that is too - because he's popular and you're trying to tell me that he's some insignificant tard...
Robertson happens to have a TV show that prays on the weak of mind for revenue. are you putting yourself in this group?
How total friggen naive can you get? :)
There are numerous ones just like him out there. All are insignificant unless you happen to be totaly brain dead.
-
Oh, he just happens to have a TV show.
And people just happen to watch him.
By the millions.
And he just happens to have said some random thing that everyone in the entire world heard.
Yet, he's just some random insignificant guy that has happened to spawn an equally random argument on a bulletin board by people seperated by thousands of miles, and whoah, even countless news stories. Two US Senators visiting the very subject of Robertson's version of foregn policy had to ensure him that he "shouldn't lose sleep over it."
Yeah, he's insignificant alright.
-
Tell ya what Nash. It`s pretty well going south from the subject matter, but I am about to pee on the fire and call in the dogs.
If you really beleive that a lot of stock is put into ANYTHING Robertson says or does and are that easily suckered then think on this overnight. In about 15 minutes I will put up a website expounding on your superior wisdom and insight. I will also include the fact that JC consults you on an hourly basis for guidance. I`ll even include a statement on how extremely handsome you are.
I can do all this if you will only send me a measely 2 to 300 grand for starters.
It will carry the same amount of influence as anything Robertson has or will say in the future.
G`night.
P.S. For an extra hundred grand i`ll say that the rumours are not true. :rofl
-
Sorry to butt in on a conversation in progress, but I have to say this:
"Everybody knows who Pat Robertson is"
Not everyone. As a test, I asked my wife "Hey, do you know Pat Robertson?" and she just looked at me blankly. To be honest, I don't know much about the guy either. I can't even link the name with a face. When I think of "The 700 club", I think of a hideously boring show my Aunt used to watch when I was a kid. I don't even know if what I remember is the same show or not.
This news is "slow news week" news.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
you guys are right. He's got a HUGE following. That automatically makes all christians terrorists???
I know I got it, we can have EACH and everyone of his audience members sign a petition saying they don't like what he said and christianity is saved right?
I'm a christian and this guy doesn't represent me. I've honestly never heard him speak.
Gunny, I don't think anyone is saying that.
Robertson is an extremist fundamentalist christian. Much like he isn't a true christian, neither are those extremist muslims true muslims either. Neither will be seeing their heaven in the after-life.
-
I think its safe to say that any kind of religious fundamentalists should be treated as public enemies.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
I think its safe to say that any kind of religious fundamentalists should be treated as public enemies.
It's the extremists, religious or otherwise that I view with suspicion.
-
I didn't bail on you. I only got online last night for a few minutes. Still, I can't find any logic or factual foundation to your myopic pov with which I can (or want to waste my time on) refute or counter.
All you've been doing is trying to minimize who Robertson is and any influence he has - which is considerable. Your argument so far is tantamount to "Neener neener! I can't hear you."
In other words anything I say may as well be directed toward a brick wall.
-
chairboy... you believe that the oklahoma bombing was because of religion? It was about attacking the federal government and would have happened if the branch dividians were just hermits with no religious background or... muslims.
I think that the point that the muslim religion promotes killing of non believers and the christian one does not is the fundamental difference... individual nutjobs asside... I am no fan of organized religion but the less tollerant of others a religion is... the more I fear it. If I were a woman I would be even more frieghtened of the muslims... course... you libs don't really care about womens rights tho except to get rid of the kid you spawned... that little problem... right?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
If I were a woman I would be even more frieghtened of the muslims... course... you libs don't really care about womens rights tho except to get rid of the kid you spawned... that little problem... right?
lazs
Yes, women have something to fear from fundamental Islam and fundamental Christianity both. Baptists recently said women, previously allowed to preside, could not and their place was in the home. Is this a step forward or backward? Give that trend time mate, they'll be wearing Burkas.
And let's not get snippy about religious tolerance, most of the US is evangelical Christian and they do not tolerate other religions. The nation makes them, but they personally do not. So saying Christianity is somehow tolerant as opposed to Islam is wholsale ignorance of what Christianity is and what its history is as practiced by men. Heck, most evangelists say that Catholics are not Christians! Boy, how's that for tolerance and enlightenment.
Every Christian believes it is their god appointed duty to convert others:
Where is the tolerance in that?
This is tolerance of convenience my friend, because you're forced to be tolerant in America under our laws, but when you look at Christian political strong arming and attempts to dogmatically control legislative and educational agendas, you have to admit:
Christians are ignorant, intolerant salamanders and that is likely why Christ himself said:
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Sakai
-
Lazs2, you're in error when you call me a 'lib' for 'liberal'. I can best be described as 'lib' for 'libertarian', and I'd appreciate the distinction.
Christian extremists have advocated the killing of unbelievers for hundreds of years. This is not a trait that is limited to Islam. You'll find that the majority of muslims feel the same way that the majority of christians do.
The christians think the muslims want to kill all non-muslims, and the muslims think the christians want to kill all non-christians.
The reason I suspect you can't see this is because you're involved by identifying yourself as christian. It's not until you're outside looking in that you see both groups are crazy.
-
chairboy...where have I identified myself as christian? I am not a christian by any stretch of the imagination... I am looking at it from the outside and see much more danger to my human rights from the muslims than from the christians.
saki... how cute... "give em time"? I deal with the now. mulsims advocate killing of nonbelievers and intolerance of non believers right now... when the christians get enough power to intrude on me I will worry about them.
I am not talking about extremists here... extremists by the very defenition are.... extreme.. I am talking about the fundamental teachings and beliefs of the two religions.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I was unwilling to bring specific posters into this, but I feel that the confrontational basis of your challenge limited my options. I hope that my post does not exceed the very reasonable standards established by HTC.
You didn't bring specific posters into this. Westy finally did, and I salute him for being forthright.
What you did was throw out an unsupported non-specific, derogatory statement that implies or assumes there is a group of posters here that cannot make a distinction between Christian and Muslim extremists.
I'm out of town but when I get home I'll research the names Westy posted and we can discuss this statement in further detail.
Except I expect that you'll have no interest in doing so.
You find me confrontational and that may be so. I see a lot of stuff posted here as fact that is really merely opinion and I often questions such posters. In fact, I believe you and I had such an encounter not long ago, didn't we?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Oh? (http://www.backchannelmedia.com/newsletter/story/5028779305/The_Club_November_Sweeps_In_Tr.html)
Jesse Jackson has a bigger following, and he's more "dangerous' to America than a little old white man could ever be.
-
Originally posted by Toad
In fact, I believe you and I had such an encounter not long ago, didn't we?
With all due respect, 'beats me'. Have we?
Toad, unless you're willing to attach specific bibliographic citations to everything you post, you may wish to avoid this strategy.
Originally posted by Chairboy
Religion's ability to breed crazy people no longer amazes me.
The sanguine attitude on this board from the Christians who fail to see the similarities between Christian and Muslim extremists, however, does.
"Oh," they say dismissively, "that's different."
I stand by my statement. If you review other posts to this thread and the other Pat Robertson thread, you'll see that the characteristic I described is in full swing. Even Lazs2 is guilty of this with this in this thread with quotes like this:Originally posted by lazs2
I think that the point that the muslim religion promotes killing of non believers and the christian one does not is the fundamental difference...
Since christianity has a historical record of killing hundreds of thousands of jews, muslim, and other in the name of Christ, it's not a very supportable assertion.
-
america exporting terrorism to latin america, well that's nothing new.
it's that double standard we see so often.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
With all due respect, 'beats me'. Have we?
[/b]
Indeed we have. It was HERE (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=155812) , wrt the Patriot Act.
You posted
Because we did have an incident in 2001, and we have lost lots of liberties.
[/b]
But when asked to provide specifics you were apparently unable to do so.
Originally posted by Chairboy
Toad, unless you're willing to attach specific bibliographic citations to everything you post, you may wish to avoid this strategy.
[/b]
Chairboy, with all due respect, I think you'll find I do try to support statements/positions that I make/take.
What I also try to do is post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. I personally don't think your first statement was particularly respectful to some other users here.
Further, I think your first post here could be considered "Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy."
That's just my opinion, of course, which carries no weight. But I can certainly see where some folks here might find that very inciting.
Lastly, I don't think that Laz has said that. I think you are using semantics to twist what he said into a strawman for you to attack.
Laz will correct me if I'm wrong but I think he's pointing out that the Muslim "book", the Qu'ran, does indeed call for killing non-believers but the Christian "book" does not call for killing non-believers.
-
Toad,
That is out of context. The Quran makes the statement in the section regarding when at war.
It has references specifically forbidding killing.
I'll try to find the links (again - I've linked em before).
-
Toad,
These belong from a chapter generally regarded from a "When at war" reference.
I still have to find the link though (gotta go to work).
[9:1] An ultimatum is herein issued from GOD and His messenger to the idol worshipers who enter into a treaty with you.
[9:2] Therefore, roam the earth freely for four months, and know that you cannot escape from GOD, and that GOD humiliates the disbelievers.
[9:3] A proclamation is herein issued from GOD and His messenger to all the people on the great day of pilgrimage, that GOD has disowned the idol worshipers, and so did His messenger. Thus, if you repent, it would be better for you. But if you turn away, then know that you can never escape from GOD. Promise those who disbelieve a painful retribution.
[9:4] If the idol worshipers sign a peace treaty with you, and do not violate it, nor band together with others against you, you shall fulfill your treaty with them until the expiration date. GOD loves the righteous.
[9:5] Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
[9:6] If one of the idol worshipers sought safe passage with you, you shall grant him safe passage, so that he can hear the word of GOD, then send him back to his place of security. That is because they are people who do not know.
[9:7] How can the idol worshipers demand any pledge from GOD and from His messenger? Exempted are those who have signed a peace treaty with you at the Sacred Masjid. If they honor and uphold such a treaty, you shall uphold it as well. GOD loves the righteous.
-
Hi Chairboy,
Originally posted by Chairboy
I agree with Westy's list, looks about right. This is not to say that these posters are somehow evil, just that they have shown a willingness to focus on generalizing Islam as a religion inherently violent and suggesting that Christianity is virtuous.
Everyone on this board is entitled to their own opinion, and I believe that I'm entitled to mine that those and others are selectively blind to the 'indiscretions' of Christian extremists until forced to respond. I expect Seagoon, for example, to post shortly that Pat Robertson, while a charismatic leader with his own opinion, does not automatically represent the views of Christianity in general. Of course, if this happens, then it's certainly odd considering his voluminous written history equating Islam with evil and suggesting that, unlike Christianity, it is unavoidably violent and can bring only grief to the world. An opinion, of course, fueled by the actions of an extremely small but vocal group of muslim extremists.
I respect that Seagoon is no sockpuppet, and that he honestly believes himself to be a font of balance and objectivity, but that doesn't equate to automatic acceptance of everything he says to, pardon the language, be 'gospel'.
I hope you will forgive me for being late to the conversation, I had been debating staying out entirely as I believe this is and will remain a discussion generating more light than heat, but since it doesn't seem to be going away anytime soon.
First, please allow me to address your comments in reverse order.
Actually, I do not claim to be a font of balance and objectivity. Quite the opposite, I am not moderate at all when it comes to the Christian faith, I am in fact quite fanatical and have always taught and preached (http://www.providencepca.com/sermons/rev3_14-22.html) that it is Christ's calling to all those who would be his disciples to be as fervent as possible in following Him. In fact throughout the bible, Christ indicates that being moderate or lukewarm in one's Christianity is far worse than not believing at all:
"And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write, ' These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God: "I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth." (Rev. 3:14-16)
"He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters." (Luke 11:23)
"He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it." (Mat. 11:37-39)
Therefore I strive to be as a devoted to Christ, His Word, and His People, as I possibly can. I am willing to sacrifice all on his behalf, I will proclaim His gospel message without compromise or man-pleasing as a dying man to a dying world. I will love the sheep he has entrusted to my care with all my heart and strength and be willing to lay down my own life for them. I will remember that as I serve and work for them, I am serving my Lord. I will remember always that I am a poor blind beggar who received the bread of heaven from the hands of the king, and as my cup has overflowed with mercy I will seek to extend mercy to others. I will not do these things "moderately" but will seek to serve and love the Lord my God with all my heart, with all my soul, and with all my mind.
Now the way this Christian "extremism" differs so markedly from Islam is that while the Christian is called to be willing to take up his Cross and lay down his life for Christ, and in the case of Shepherd's, the sheep. He is never called to kill for Christ. The Christian faith simply does not have a doctrine in any way comparable to that of Jihad or the rule of conversion, subjugation, or death.
Chairboy, what you seem to be unwilling to acknowledge is that when a fanatical evangelical following the commands of the Bible enters the Muslim world, he does so preaching the gospel, bringing medical and other humanitarian assistance, and ultimately being willing to die to bring light, grace, and peace. On the other hand, when a fanatical Muslim following the commands of the Quran and the Hadiths enters the Christian world, he does so with an entirely different spirit.
In any event the only ultimate question worth asking is not "Which religion seems nicer?" but rather "Which religion is true?" Both Islam and Christianity insist upon the truth of their own claims and say that other claims are false. I know that this is immaterial to those who believe that all religious claims are false, but for those who are actually more concerned about eternity than time, this is a paramount consideration. So yes, I am concerned because Islam makes life on this earth a more wretched experience, but I am far more concerned because I believe the bible when it says that there is only one way to heaven, and that Islam isn't the way.
Now as to Pat Robertson, as it so happens, Pat and I have more theological differences than Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims, so I don't feel particularly constrained to make excuses for him. Aside from his belief in continuing direct revelation (for instance, when Pat says "God told me" and he means spoke to him directly, I have no problem answering, "Not so.") he and I also differ markedly on the issue of the spirituality of the church. One doesn't assess and then praise or condemn Christianity and Islam by the statements of a few adherents, one assesses that religion by the founding documents and the life, teachings, and actions of the founder(s).
So when we do that, we find that the Christian faith nowhere endorses extra-legal assassination of rival political leaders, and Christ certainly did not engage in anything even close to that, nor did he advocate it as a method of advancing the faith or suppressing dissent.
So if as he is speaking as a Pastor, Pat commends assassination, he is out on his own, saying that which the Word does not [It is worth noting however, that the USA has accepted asssassination as a tool of foriegn policy in the past so secular leaders have not always been exactly scrupulous about following the law of God either] and the Christian faith cannot be held liable for his statements.
However, Muhammad, on the other hand used and commended assassination during his lifetime, and therefore while a legitimate claim can be made that Christianity is in fact anti-assassination, no such claim can be made for Islam.
For more on this, please click here:
Muhammad and the Assassinations of Asama Bint Marwan and Abu Afak (http://answering-islam.org.uk/Muhammad/Enemies/asma.html)
- SEAGOON
-
Hi Seagoon,
First of all, thank you for your thoughtful response. I erred when I used the phrase 'believes himself to be' to describe your position as a font of wisdom and balance on this board in religious matter. If I had put more thought into that aspect of my post, I would have phrased it as "is considered by many" instead. Even me, in the sense that as an atheist I consider you a well spoken (if misguided, just kidding sorta) member of the christian contingent in the O'C.
Second, while I believe that historical events (such as the many Crusades and variations of the Inquisition over the last thousand years) take credence away from the assertion that the hands of the Christian churches are free of blood, I respect your opinion in the matter. I would much rather discuss the issues with you than Toad, who, in my opinion, has a tendency to fight using techniques a lawyer would find familiar. The only things in life worth being buried in paperwork for are the purchase of a house, having a baby, or launching a spacecraft into orbit. I find no satisfaction is refuting little points piece by piece by churning through past posts, especially when my advesary will just duck and legalese out of it.
The issues of life, the universe, and everything are too big to fit in 80 columns, 25 rows segments. I'll continue to participate in these discussions, but I make no claim to having 'The Answer'. That doesn't mean I won't call shenanigans on other people who do. Anything else would be, as the poet Charles Barkley said, "uncivilized."
Best regards and wishes,
cb
-
well... I could be guilty of poor interpretation but it sure seems to me that the koran advocates killing of anyone who doesn't go along with their program... It doesn't apear to me that the bible does except in self defence...
That is, as toad says... all that I was saying... I realize of course that people have been killed in the name of every religion imaginable... I simply can't imagine in this day and age, christians saying that god wants them to kill unbelievers tho. the oppossite is not true however... it is quite easy for a muslim to make his case for killing non muslims and having god on his side.
Of the two... muslim or christian... I feel much less threatened in every concievable way.... by christians than by muslims. Tolerance in this case is relative.... I simply find that the muslims have a zero tolerance policy on just about every subject and are willing to use pain of death to inforce it.
I simply can't believe that anyone would compare contemporary christians and contem,porary muslims and not feel as I do about it.
lazs
-
Well. It's a moot point now as Robertson has (semi) apologized.
See? It was all just a simple misunderstanding! The AP merely misinterpreted what he was trying to relay to his audience is all.
When he said our special forces should "'take him out' he hadn't meant that they should be killing Chavez. Hells bells no.
Robertson meant that they should take "him out" like to dinner, an ice cream cone perhaps or to see an off-Broadway production maybe.
Sheesh
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/24/robertson.chavez/index.html.
-
Guys,
You shouldn't worry about me, there is a very good chance I'm going to hell anyway.
I read one of Seagoon's posts one day and the subsiquent responses seemed more of a gang lyching than a reasoned discussion. I liked the man's christian and gentelmanly conduct in the face of his tormentors. So I stepped in and have yet to regret the decision.
As for being a christian......I havent set foot in a house of worship in over 30 years. And Pat Roberts and most Telivangilists have always impressed me as fruitcakes. Publicly calling for the assasination of the leader of another country is not the American way, nor should it ever be. On the other hand, America at war, killing the leadership of the enemy is an excellent tactical move. I hope someone some day counts coup on Osama while going in the record books for the longest sniper shot ever.
-
Originally posted by Westy
Well. It's a moot point now as Robertson has (semi) apologized.
See? It was all just a simple misunderstanding! The AP merely misinterpreted what he was trying to relay to his audience is all.
When he said our special forces should "'take him out' he hadn't meant that they should be killing Chavez. Hells bells no.
Robertson meant that they should take "him out" like to dinner, an ice cream cone perhaps or to see an off-Broadway production maybe.
Sheesh
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/24/robertson.chavez/index.html.
Westy what play should they see?
-
Originally posted by Westy
Well. It's a moot point now as Robertson has (semi) apologized.
See? It was all just a simple misunderstanding! The AP merely misinterpreted what he was trying to relay to his audience is all.
When he said our special forces should "'take him out' he hadn't meant that they should be killing Chavez. Hells bells no.
Robertson meant that they should take "him out" like to dinner, an ice cream cone perhaps or to see an off-Broadway production maybe.
Sheesh
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/24/robertson.chavez/index.html.
I love the reported "retraction" on Fox's website -- after the description of the wafflespeak, they reported teh actual transcript (which clearly included the word assassination several times) and linked to a video.
Who does he think he's fooling???
-
"What play should they see?"
Jesus Christ Superstar of course!
butta bump_bump...
Thank you, thank you....
-
Originally posted by Westy
Well. It's a moot point now as Robertson has (semi) apologized.
See? It was all just a simple misunderstanding! The AP merely misinterpreted what he was trying to relay to his audience is all.
When he said our special forces should "'take him out' he hadn't meant that they should be killing Chavez. Hells bells no.
Robertson meant that they should take "him out" like to dinner, an ice cream cone perhaps or to see an off-Broadway production maybe.
Sheesh
Dejavu. :D
More free media hype to direct attenttion to his money machine TV show as I have said.
Robertson speaks for Robertson and that is all. He speaks to the tune of cold hard cash. End of story. :)
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I would much rather discuss the issues with you than Toad, who, in my opinion, has a tendency to fight using techniques a lawyer would find familiar.
I suspect you would rather discuss the issues with anyone that will blindly accept your unproven and unsupported generalizations as a basis for further discussion.
-
Originally posted by Westy
"What play should they see?"
Jesus Christ Superstar of course!
butta bump_bump...
Thank you, thank you....
Or the "Producers" :)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
well... I could be guilty of poor interpretation but it sure seems to me that the koran advocates killing of anyone who doesn't go along with their program... It doesn't apear to me that the bible does except in self defence...
That is, as toad says... all that I was saying... I realize of course that people have been killed in the name of every religion imaginable... I simply can't imagine in this day and age, christians saying that god wants them to kill unbelievers tho. the oppossite is not true however... it is quite easy for a muslim to make his case for killing non muslims and having god on his side.
Of the two... muslim or christian... I feel much less threatened in every concievable way.... by christians than by muslims. Tolerance in this case is relative.... I simply find that the muslims have a zero tolerance policy on just about every subject and are willing to use pain of death to inforce it.
I simply can't believe that anyone would compare contemporary christians and contem,porary muslims and not feel as I do about it.
lazs
lazs2,
Yeah poor interpretation.
There are around 800,000,000 to over one billion (http://www.islamicweb.com/begin/population.htm) Muslims in the world.
Fact is the ones you see on the news are the fanatical, extreme that are truly in the tiny fraction of the muslim population.
My post above were passages from a section detailing of warfare, of when attacked. There are many passages that outline tollerance, peace, and forgiveness. I have yet to meet personally a muslim that's out to kill non-believers.
Look at the numbers, surely you can admit that even if a healthy fraction of the muslim population were suicide bombers/murderers, there'd be a hell of a lot more casualties in Israel and the US.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Now the way this Christian "extremism" differs so markedly from Islam is that while the Christian is called to be willing to take up his Cross and lay down his life for Christ, and in the case of Shepherd's, the sheep. He is never called to kill for Christ. The Christian faith simply does not have a doctrine in any way comparable to that of Jihad or the rule of conversion, subjugation, or death.
Greetings Seagoon,
I wonder if you can help me reconcile your comment here with some Bible passages...I'm sure I am misinterpreting them:
Deuteronomy 13: 1-18
But specifically: Deuteromomy 13:5 "And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God..."
And Deut 13:8-9 "thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him but thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people"
I consider that this must be Christ's view as well given Matt: 5, Matt:15 and Mark:7.
But beyond Old Testiment, I'm confused by Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
These seem to advocate killing in the name of God and Christ, especially those who refuse to convert or be subjugated.
-
subaro... perhaps.. I does seem tho that they put some pretty intolerant and extreme conditions on not killing the unbelievers... If you are an idol worshiper or unbeliver you better still kiss their butt...
"If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go."
I don't think they would be letting me go.. And how does the term jihad come about? Wasn't there somehing in their about jihad?
I think it is all odd tho that I am hearing about how tollerant and loving muslims are and how many there are... all in the context of today... yet.. Today.. let us look at muslim run countries and compare. What muslim country would you point at as an example of tolerance?
In the mulim religion I see a total lack of tolerance.. This will allways lead to killing.
lazs
-
Hello Crowmaw,
Originally posted by crowMAW
Deuteronomy 13: 1-18
But specifically: Deuteromomy 13:5 "And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God..."
And Deut 13:8-9 "thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him but thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people"
Crowmaw, please understand that these verses are applied in one of three ways by bible believing Christians. In none of them is the verse simply carried over and the assertion made that we should establish a theocracy in which false prophets are put to death by stoning. In giving you a thorough answer, I'm going to end up boring most people to tears.
For instance, let me start with the majority report amongst American Evangelicals - Arminian Dispensationalism, and as I do so, please let me stress that I am neither an Arminian nor a Dispensationalist, so I am merely reporting, in a simplified fashion, how other Christians who would identify themselves as bible-believing & evangelical understand these verses.
Dispensationalists make a definite break between the theology of the Old Testament and the theology of the New. They believe that the law applied to a different group of believers (Old Testament Jews) and was never intended to be observed by New Covenant gentiles who are saved apart from the works of the Law. They stress that Paul and the Apostles affirmed that the Law was given to the Jewish people and that only they were called upon to keep it (which they also point out they failed to do) and hold that unless a law is repeated in the New Testament, its force is abrogated. Therefore Dispensationalists would hold that they are subject only to the "law of Christ" and His commands for holiness. This theology has predominated amongst American evangelicals since the publication of the Schofield Reference Bible in the 19th century. Therefore there are no Dispensational schools advocating the stoning of false prophets, this is providential because there are a lot of modern Charismatic/Pentecostal leaders who have made reams of prophecies which have subsequently turned out to be false.
Prior to the rise of Dispensational theology in the 19th century, the major stream of interpretation in evangelical protestant circles was Reformed theology, which draws its name from the Reformation. This is the theological school that I fall into (I wasn't raised in it, I just happen to believe it accurately reflects the theology taught in the bible). The Reformed discern a tripartite division in the law, into ceremonial, moral, and civil (or judicial) catagories.
The ceremonial law, pointed forward to or foreshadowed Christ and He is the fulfillment of what the signs pointed to, therefore it is fulfilled and its requirements no longer binding.
The Moral law, which is summarized in the Ten Commandments is an expression of the moral holiness of God and is forever binding on all. It in turn serves a three-fold purpose, first in driving us to Christ, the only one who ever kept it, second as a guide for our own civil laws, and third as rule of life for believers directing them to walk in accordance with it, so that "Although they that are regenerate, and believe in Christ, are delivered from the moral law as a covenant of works, so as thereby they are neither justified nor condemned; ... it is of special use, to show them how much they are bound to Christ for his fulfilling it, and enduring the curse thereof in their stead ... thereby to provoke them to more thankfulness, and to express the same in their greater care to conform themselves thereunto as the rule of their obedience." [Quote from the Westminster Larger Catechism, circa 1648]
The third part of the law is the Judicial Law, made up of particular civil laws given by God to the nation Israel as a theocracy, all of which expired when that state passed away and which are no longer binding. Deut. 13 is actually part of this law, and was an application of the 1st and 3rd commandments made directly by God to Israel.
There are other streams of Christian interpretation, the Lutheran for instance, which is close to the Reformed but which views OT law for the most part as the antithesis to gospel as far as salvation is concerned and only having a condemning role rather than a normative one in the life of the believer.
But I should stress that there is within the Christian faith no active and expanding network of terrorist groups pressing for the implementation of OT Juduical law, and when "fringe groups" arise pressing for an unorthodox implementation of the OT law (even though it is usually only pressed on believers in their movement as in the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Worldwide Church of God under Armstrong) arise, the rest of us condemn them and spend considerable effort in "counter-cult" ministry showing why these beliefs are false. None of which can be said of Islam and Sharia.
But beyond Old Testiment, I'm confused by Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
These seem to advocate killing in the name of God and Christ, especially those who refuse to convert or be subjugated.
The context of this verse is in the midst of a parable referring to the return of Christ and the final judgment. That judgment is to be rendered at the end of time by Christ. This is not a verdict to rendered or a sentence to be carried out prior to that final judgment. We live in the age of grace, where the command is not to slay the unbelieving but to carry the gospel message to them. Christ made this clear in his rebuke to his disciples who wished to destroy the unbelieving Samaritans who refused to accept the gospel message:
"Now it came to pass, when the time had come for Him to be received up, that He steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem, and sent messengers before His face. And as they went, they entered a village of the Samaritans, to prepare for Him. But they did not receive Him, because His face was set for the journey to Jerusalem. And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, "Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?" But He turned and rebuked them, and said, "You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. "For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives but to save them." And they went to another village." (Luke 9:51-56)
Even when the Martyrs cry out in Revelation 6 to Christ asking how long it will be till their blood is avenged on those who wickedly put them to death, Christ answers that this will not happen till the final judgment after the last of their brethren is slain.
In any event, properly understood, Luke 19:11-27 should be more convicting, frightening, and sobering to those within the church than without it. I preached on this section back in May. Not my best sermon, by any stretch of the imagination in fact if you are bored by the above, listening to this just might kill you stone dead, I was definitely having a bad week, but I hope it explains the general meaning of this pericope.
Luke 19:11-27 (http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=sermonssource&sermonID=71305144852)
Come to think of it, a friend of mine in Long Island, did a much better job with this same section: (http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=sermonsbible&sermonID=9300420952)
- SEAGOON
-
Great post Seagoon...thanks for the detail. I am glad to hear that you are not Arminian...I have an unnatural fear of two things...Arminians and...carnies. :p
Originally posted by Seagoon
The third part of the law is the Judicial Law, made up of particular civil laws given by God to the nation Israel as a theocracy, all of which expired when that state passed away and which are no longer binding. Deut. 13 is actually part of this law, and was an application of the 1st and 3rd commandments made directly by God to Israel.
I guess I'm not aware of Bible passages that negate those laws. In fact it seems that Jesus rebukes those who fail to be consistant. If the New Testament is all that needs to be read, why bother tacking the Old Testiment to the front of the Bible? It seems inconsistant to do so.
Can you indulge me more? It would seem then, by what I have seen of your interpretations, that Jesus does not condone killing...is that correct? If not have you direct me to where He indicates that it is OK.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
subaro... perhaps.. I does seem tho that they put some pretty intolerant and extreme conditions on not killing the unbelievers... If you are an idol worshiper or unbeliver you better still kiss their butt...
"If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go."
I don't think they would be letting me go.. And how does the term jihad come about? Wasn't there somehing in their about jihad?
I think it is all odd tho that I am hearing about how tollerant and loving muslims are and how many there are... all in the context of today... yet.. Today.. let us look at muslim run countries and compare. What muslim country would you point at as an example of tolerance?
In the mulim religion I see a total lack of tolerance.. This will allways lead to killing.
lazs
lazs,
Keep it in context. Mankind warps their religion to fit them, not the other way around.
"When at war" reference.
You left out some that changes the context of the message.
"and they refuse to make peace" seems to point out that the enemy wants war.
[9:5] Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.
Heck it would be hard to name "tolerant" countries regardless of the faith.
You speak of other's tolerance. Where's yours?
-
Why do people keep responding to these bigoted trolls?
-
My tolereance? why is that in question? I feel that I live in one of the most tollerant countries in the world if not the most. I feel that like most Americans that my idea of tollerance is to allow people any religion or government they want so long as it is what the people want and not some dictator...
I do not think that the U.S. should take over any country and put Americans in charge and take away the right of the people to vote..
I also think that you are dodging the subject when you say that no government is tollerant and use that to compare the U.S. with the likes of fundamental muslim countries... I think you know better.
and... The part I quoted does not seem to be about war... making people pay tax and pray or die.... You don't do that on the battlefield.... it appears to be talking about a subjucated people. A people who I do not want to be... I do not want to be left to the tender mercies of a fundamental muslim government.... I don't think you do either.
lazs
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
Great post Seagoon...thanks for the detail. I am glad to hear that you are not Arminian...I have an unnatural fear of two things...Arminians and...carnies. :p
I guess I'm not aware of Bible passages that negate those laws. In fact it seems that Jesus rebukes those who fail to be consistant. If the New Testament is all that needs to be read, why bother tacking the Old Testiment to the front of the Bible? It seems inconsistant to do so.
Can you indulge me more? It would seem then, by what I have seen of your interpretations, that Jesus does not condone killing...is that correct? If not have you direct me to where He indicates that it is OK.
CrowMAW, I dont pretend to have Seagoon's scholarship, but as he hasnt gotten online with his answer yet I'll be presumptious enough to offer mine.
First, as to the background issue of the Old Testament's role in christian teaching. In the Old Testament, God told men who he was, what he was like, and what character traits we needed to reproduce in our selves to be like him. This is where the Ten Commandments and the Law come in.
Understand that the main dividing point between the OT and teh NT is less a matter of dates, and more a matter of the entry of Jesus (who I believe was the "messiah" promised in the OT). Jesus' work on earth included teaching, but most importantly he came to pay the price for our imperfections "once and for all." During OT times, mankind was to show their desire to seek God by obeying his rules --"The Law" -- in deed and in spirit. Because no human can be perfect, shortcomings were to be paid for by sacrifices of animals, grain, etc. Even in the OT, though, God taught that the whole point was a man's internal state rather than the rules themselves:
Psalm 51:16 You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it;
you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart,
O God, you will not despise.
After Jesus' own sacrifice, which he described as a gift given "to pay the ransom for many," the purpose of the law was fulfilled.
Romans 3
19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice...
(my emphasis)
In this restated setup, the character of God didnt change. He still hated lying, demanded justice, despised murder and oppression and greed. The OT still reflects who God is, and its stories give concrete insight into the abstract principles taught elsewhere. So that's why we still look at the Old Testament.
Jesus upped the ante by focusing on the heart more explicitly: Matt 5
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I 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. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven....
21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brotherwill be subject to judgment...
27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart...
So clearly Jesus doesnt condone murder; he even condemns inward anger. He goes beyond the Law's prohibition of marital affairs; he says the point is a wandering heart.
And that increased focus on the inward life, coupled with "(Luke 6:31) Do to others as you would have them do to you" pretty well rules out hatred, persecution, and murder.
PS If your question about killing was intended to cover warfare, Seagoon has a post dealing with that issue extensively.... I jsut cant seem to find the thread right now...
-
Originally posted by lazs2
My tolereance? why is that in question? I feel that I live in one of the most tollerant countries in the world if not the most. I feel that like most Americans that my idea of tollerance is to allow people any religion or government they want so long as it is what the people want and not some dictator...
I do not think that the U.S. should take over any country and put Americans in charge and take away the right of the people to vote..
I also think that you are dodging the subject when you say that no government is tollerant and use that to compare the U.S. with the likes of fundamental muslim countries... I think you know better.
and... The part I quoted does not seem to be about war... making people pay tax and pray or die.... You don't do that on the battlefield.... it appears to be talking about a subjucated people. A people who I do not want to be... I do not want to be left to the tender mercies of a fundamental muslim government.... I don't think you do either.
lazs
I can't think of a govt that didn't stay in power when the majority of its people didn't tolerate it. It all comes down to the individual people.
That's why I find it ironic that you see intollerance in others yet you fail to look in the mirror.
My point from the very beginning has been that a lot of people tend to focus on the fanatical minority of any group different than their own and paint with a broad brush whole groups.
A true muslim would not commit murder of innocent people, just as a true christian wouldn't. Those that justify their murder of others are not being true to their faith, nor will they end up in their heaven.
The US has a checkered past, both good and bad about "tolerating" other countries.
But, hell no would I want to live in any fundamentalist country, whether it be a Muslim, Christian, or _____( <---fill in group). My being an atheist would be dangerous to my health.
You're definitely right on if we're talking individual rights for its own citizens. I love my country and would not wish to live in any other (fundamentalist or not).
You would agree that if a vast majority of a country's people wanted a fundamentalist government, then as a democracy, they should be able to elect their own government? Have their own rules?
BTW, I never said "governments"(I don't think anyway, but it's late), I said countries. I wanted to focus it on the people, not the machine.
Well, I'm not going to repeat myself on the context of the muslim text. I've elaborated on it, we'll agree to disagree.
FWIW, I would feel relatively safe if traveling with friends in Iran, Syria, Libya, and Malaysia.
I'd be scared to even step foot in Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan.
-
Ok... but I don't think you can seperate the people from their government... I don't think you can seperate the government from it's peoples religion (or lack of in the case of communism).
The muslim countries we are talking about are run by and for muslims... there is no tollerance and no freedom. The U.S. is run under christian principles with a majority of the leadership and people being christians and basing government on a christian god.
Which would you rather live in?
If not being able to vote leaders in is not important and the will of the people... a fundamental muslim rule... how do you exp;lain the turnout in voters in Iraq say? I bet the same would happen in any fundamentalist muslim country.
You may say that "well yeah but the muslim countries are backwater economic hellholes" I say it is because they are intolerant ignorant muslim fundamentalist countries that they are hellholes.
lazs
-
What specifically are you talking about when you concern yourself of tollerance or freedom.
Iran had a revolution and chose their government. They have their elections. It is their choice. Democracy in action.
Ironic that you speak of tolerance when you yourself have shown very little in certain circumstances. Your opinion on the right to vote for women, hiring African-Americans for your business, your very argument right here.
You point the finger at target countries that somehow gives us the right to overthrow those governments to install our own model, regardless of whether those people want it or not.
If you think that we can waltz right into Iran and change their elected government to a model we approve of, it will be a most major miscalculation. Worse than hitlers invasion of the USSR.
***********
Our government is seperate from religion. That's what makes it so special. Constitution, Bill of Rights, and all that. Your comparing apples and oranges. Because I choose to live in the country I was born in over any other doesn't mean that I have the right to dictate to other people what govt they should live under. Our country's not perfect, nor is it being very tollerant right now.
If they don't like their government, they'll overthrow and put in one they like.
***********
I'm an atheist. I wouldn't look forward to living in any country where its people and government were fundamentalist religious types. I wouldn't mind visiting some of them, but no way would they tolerate my living there.
Heck, on a personal note, I wouldn't want to live in any other country other than my own, the good ole US of A.
The fact that we keep seperate our religions from our government is what makes it great.
Iran is a democracy. It is a government of its people of their choosing. Is it rather oppressive? I'd say so (from a non-muslim's viewpoint looking in from the outside). It's their choice though, one where we shouldn't dictate their choice. They don't dictate ours.
-
OK... so you admit that you would not like to live in any fundamentalist country... You would have to admit that the U.S. is fundamentaly a christian country tho. I am agnostic about christian religions but can't imagine that there is no god... I can't imagine someone believeing that they have the real answer.. that would include fundamentalists of any religion and of course.... atheists. And... we have seen what happens when athiests run a country..
Me, intolerant? How so? I don't believe in PC or or baseing hiring or privlidge on race or gender? How does that make me intolerant? I would not hire a black because the laws have made it so that he is more trouble than he is worth. In a free country I would use different standards... like, skill and ability to do the job.
Women should not be allowed to vote because they place security above freedom and they have no concept of what most criminals are. This is the makeup of women and until a very short time ago... everyone understood that.
lazs
-
Stolen from Mother Jones:
Thomas Friedman, foreign affairs columnist, New York Times, Nov. 6: "Saddam Hussein is the reason God created cruise missiles. ...So if and when Saddam pushes beyond the brink, and we get that one good shot, let's make sure it's a head shot."
George Stephanopolous, former Clintonite and current ABC News analyst, on ABC'S "This Week," Nov. 9: "This is probably one of those rare cases where assassination is the more moral course...we should kill him."
Sam Donaldson, co-host of "This Week," Nov. 9: We should kill Saddam "under cover of law.... We can do business with his successor."
...
Jonathan Alter, Newsweek, Nov. 17: "It won't be easy to take him out. ...But we need to try, because the only language Saddam has ever understood is force."
Newsweek, Dec. 1: "Why We Should Kill Saddam."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heck it sounds like Pat is in good company.
-
Howdy Crow,
Originally posted by crowMAW
I guess I'm not aware of Bible passages that negate those laws. In fact it seems that Jesus rebukes those who fail to be consistant. If the New Testament is all that needs to be read, why bother tacking the Old Testiment to the front of the Bible? It seems inconsistant to do so.
There isn't much that needs to be added to what Simaril wrote, so let me just make two points.
The Bible is the product of progressive revelation, in other words the book did not drop out of the sky in its completed form at the beginning. Rather the story unfolds throughout history with God gradually revealing more and more about his plan of Redemption to his people, book building upon book. Moderns tend to be a little on the chronologically arrogant side, so we assume that the bible was written only for us in our current time, forgetting that God has been revealing His will to his people since the creation, so that for instance, to adopt a reading of Revelation that would have made it utterly unintelligible to the churches in the time it was first given (about 90AD) would be wrong, but to only say it was for those first century churches is equally wrong, there is a message there for the church in every age. The same is true of the books of the Law, they were not only written for the people of God at the time of Moses, they are intended for God's people in every time. The bible has a "plot" running throughout the books with the overarching theme being Fall/Redemption/Restoration. The plot builds and climaxes at the birth/death/and resurrection of the long promised redeemer, and yet that climax as important as it is, is not the end of the story, we are living in what the Bible calls "the last days" which began at the resurrection of Jesus. The bible also promises that those days will come to a close with His return.
So all that to say, the New Testament isn't all that needs to be read by any stretch of the imagination, that would be like simply choosing to read the last three chapters of a detective novel. You'll probably get the main drift and find out the most important facts (who done it and why) but you'll miss a lot of the main themes in the plot and a lot of it simply isn't going to make sense. Unfortunately, a lack of familiarity with and understanding of the Old Testament is often the greatest stumbling block to Christians in understanding the New. I myself am often astounded to be reading a passage in the Old Testament and suddenly recognize a theme or a verse or an event that Paul or one of the other apostles uses or builds on.
So don't think in terms of negation, think in terms of progression and fulfillment. As far as the Ceremonial Law in the OT is concerned, the apostles are constantly endeavoring to point out that these things were signs or types designed not to be complete in themselves but to point to the Redeemer. They are the types, he is the Archetype. You see this in statements like:
"For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near." (Hebrews 10:1)
Can you indulge me more? It would seem then, by what I have seen of your interpretations, that Jesus does not condone killing...is that correct? If not have you direct me to where He indicates that it is OK.
Yes, you are correct, Jesus does not condone Murder, in fact as Simaril pointed out he makes clear what should have been realized all along, that the prohibition on murder is also a prohibition on murderous thoughts. When one realizes that, and then logically concludes, "Well then, I'm a murderer too", the next obvious question is "Who then can be saved?" Which was part of the purpose of the law, to drive us to the Redeemer who alone could atone for the sins of men.
You'll notice I said "murder" above, from the Hebrew "Ratsach" and the Greek "Phoneuo" (A verb meaning literally "to commit murder" as in Matt. 5:21). The bible forbids murder, not all killing. In fact the following kinds of killing are permitted:
1) The killing of animals for food or as sacrifices under the OT ceremonial law.
2) Capital Punishment (see Gen. 9 and Romans 13)
3) Killing in a just war or individual acts of true self-defense against evildoers
The above do not include, revenge, vigilante justice, and the like. Also, the sword is given into the hand of the magistrate, not the individual.
I remember discussing these issues in previous posts to the BB, but like Simaril I can't remember exactly where. I do know that I have 3 sermon texts expositing the 6th commandment on-line at:
Pt.1 - What it Doesn't Mean (http://www.providencepca.com/sermons/6thpt1.html)
- S E A G :rolleyes: :rolleyes: N