New Extremist Threat Alert....

[segovius]

Since the infinite alerts we have experienced over the last few years I suppose some of us have become a bit jaded and let our guard down. It's so easy to become blaise and I myself have often treated fundies and other extremists as a laughing matter.

Not any more. I read something today that chilled me to the bone. The evangelical movement has finally jumped the shark - and on the other side of that shark is a whole bunch of sharks: heading straight for you and me with blood-stained jaws snarling as we paddle unawares in the shallow soothing waters of our comfort zones.

Well, it's later than you think... (http://www.counterpunch.org/hubert05152006.html).

BattleCry (http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060513_battlecry_philadelphia/) is a Christian fundamentalist movement which is increasing in popularity and sweeping the nation. It has the full support of President Bush and leading Church figures and it aims to install a theocratic society based on a literal interpretation of the BIble.

And they do mean literal.....

I would execute gays only if we catch them indulging in sodomy," says Gary DeMar, popular Christian evangelical minister.

Gary DeMar stated he'd execute gays only if they were caught indulging in sodomy, but others envision sinners in line for the death penalty would include women who commit adultery or lie about their virginity, blasphemers, witches, children who strike their parents, and gay men. Thus, DeMar is considered somewhat of a liberal in this extreme authoritarian movement.

But there's more.....

To answer my question about the war in Iraq and pointing out that "there were some 100,000 casualties in this war led by a self proclaimed Christian," Stanley and his followers proclaim defensively and somewhat eerily "we are not fighting people, we are fighting Satan and Evildoers," and "George Bush claimed God counseled him to go to war for our country and furthermore, sometimes God favors war." Charles Stanley boasted repeatedly about G.W Bush being his good friend and intimate prayer partner.

The obsession with war and killing is a marked theme in the BattleCry rallies. They feature personnel from the US Navy Seals on the podium along with the preacher. They don't do much - just stand ther ein full battle gear holding machine guns.

And the war motif is echoed in the movement's language 'Crusades', 'war on evil' and even - chillingly - 'blitzkrieg' are all over-used buzzwords.

The 'Crusades' are targetted on impressionable teenagers and are held relentlessly across the nation. One shocked journalist attending a rally reported:

Throughout the three and a half hours of BattleCry’s first session, I thought of only one analogy that fit the experience: This must have been what it felt like to watch the Hitler Youth, filled with self-righteous pride, proclaim the supremacy of their beliefs and their willingness to shed blood for them.

While in the bathroom, I saw something equally unsettling--a preteen girl wearing a shirt being sported by many attendees that night: Jesus on the cross, robes waving, and emblazoned across the front the words “Dressed to Kill.

Truthdig (http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060513_battlecry_philadelphia/)

And all this has the support of the President.

Be afraid.

[Chris Cuilla]

Though reluctant to even dignify this thread by posting to it, I feel compelled to ask how is this movement/group/whatever "supported" by President Bush?

In the links you posted, the only thing I found was:


It began with fireworks so loud and startling I screamed. Lights and smoke followed, and a few kids were pulled up on stage from the crowd. One was asked to read a letter.

This was the letter that opened the event. Its author was George W. Bush. Yes, the president of the United States sent a letter of support, greeting, prayer and encouragement to the BattleCry event held at Wachovia Spectrum Stadium in Philadelphia on May 12.


Since we don't know the contents of the letter at all (I didn't see/read it in any of the links), all we have is hearsay wrt to the so-called "letter of support, greeting, prayer and encouragement". In other words we know nothing.

I guess I'd hope for something more substantive than that (you know, like actually knowing what the letter said, to whom it was addressed, etc.) before declaring (and sounding the alarm) with such certainty that "all this has the support of the President".

Wouldn't you agree?

[segovius]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Though reluctant to even dignify this thread by posting to it, I feel compelled to ask how is this movement/group/whatever "supported" by President Bush?

In the links you posted, the only thing I found was:



Since we don't know the contents of the letter at all (I didn't see/read it in any of the links), all we have is hearsay wrt to the so-called "letter of support, greeting, prayer and encouragement". In other words we know nothing.

I guess I'd hope for something more substantive than that (you know, like actually knowing what the letter said, to whom it was addressed, etc.) before declaring (and sounding the alarm) with such certainty that "all this has the support of the President".

Wouldn't you agree?

Let me get this straight: you yourself post a direct quote that states

the president of the United States sent a letter of support, greeting, prayer and encouragement

and your question is:

how is this movement/group/whatever "supported" by President Bush?

Well, luckily for you (and I will have to be asking for your take on the murdering of gays when we've done this bit) there's more.

Battle Cry’s leader, Ron Luce, is a Bush appointee to a federal anti-drug-abuse commission and BattleCry's events have been addressed by Barbara Bush the First Lady.

Maybe they violently disagree with it though eh?

[MarcUK]

"Immediately afterward [the reading of the letter - my insertion], a preacher took the microphone and led the crowd in prayer. Among other things, he asked the attendees to “Thank God for giving us George Bush.�

I cant imagine from that, that George W's letter was pretty down on their agenda really.

Still, you may be able to help me Chris.

http://www.battlecry.com/login.php

i've got the login name (Chris_Cuilla), but just what is the password?

[segovius]

Actually this is much more disturbing than I have realized.

A program they have is called 'Acquire the Fire' shortened to an acronym (as cults often do): ATF.

Here is one of their merchandising ads:

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/atf_pub.jpghumdng.jpg

Nice weapon.

I'm hot on the trail of the Jesus 'Dressed to Kill' T shirt.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
Let me get this straight: you yourself post a direct quote that states

the president of the United States sent a letter of support, greeting, prayer and encouragement

and your question is:

how is this movement/group/whatever "supported" by President Bush?

Don't play games seg. What I quoted was from the text of the article you linked. In other words it was their "reporting" and/or characterization of this letter. So, we have to take Sunsara Taylor's (who, according to the site, writes for Revolution newspaper and sits on the Advisory Board of The World Can’t Wait—Drive Out the Bush Regime) word for it.

Well, luckily for you (and I will have to be asking for your take on the murdering of gays when we've done this bit) there's more.

Originally posted by segovius
Battle Cry’s leader, Ron Luce, is a Bush appointee to a federal anti-drug-abuse commission and BattleCry's events have been addressed by Barbara Bush the First Lady.

Now you are getting closer. But before I have to whip out the logical fallacies reference, let's clarify a couple of things:

1. That "Ron Luce, is a Bush appointee to a federal anti-drug-abuse commission" does NOT equate to "all this has the support of the President"

2. There is no mention of Barbara Bush in either of those links, so I will assume you are lying until you provide citation.

3. I will take some time to re-read the links you have posted to see what other conclusions you (and the author) may be jumping to about the various parties mentioned.

P.S. Where does Luce call for the killing of gays"?

P.P.S. Where do you find that Battle Cry "aims to install a theocratic society based on a literal interpretation of the BIble"? Or is that simply your own interpretation of its aims?

P.P.P.S. How is Gary DeMar (the source of the comment about executing gays) connected to "Battle Cry"?

[segovius]

Barbara Bush video (http://www.acquiretheevidence.com/sources/dayone-bush.html)

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
Barbara Bush video (http://www.acquiretheevidence.com/sources/dayone-bush.html)

OK.

So you still have several other questionas to answer.

Seems like the only (legitimate) complaint you have is the "military/battle" metaphor that Battle Cry uses.

Basically you've stitched together a couple of unrelated things to create some sort of "alert" about "extremism" (BTW...seg...you aren't one of those constantly harping about Bush's "politics of fear" are you? Because that seems to be exactly what you are attempting to engage in here and now.)

[segovius]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
OK.

So you still have several other questionas to answer.

Seems like the only (legitimate) complaint you have is the "military/battle" metaphor that Battle Cry uses.

Not so.

Here is a list of BattleCry supporters (http://www.acquiretheevidence.com/sources/battlecry-coalition-partners.html) and partners.

Members in fact. There views are synonymous with the organization. They include:

Jerry Falwell, Liberty University
Kirk Franklin, Fo Yo Soul, Nu Nation Ministries
Jack Graham, Prestonwood Baptist Church
Ted Haggard, National Association of Evangelicals
Benny Hinn, Benny Hinn Ministries
Greg Laurie, Harvest Christian Fellowship
John Maxwell, INJOY
Josh McDowell, Josh McDowell Ministries
Joyce Meyer, Joyce Meyer Ministries
Bob Reccord, SBC North American Mission Board
Pat Robertson, Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN)

I take it you are familiar with the quotes that could be adduced from a fair number of these jokers.

I suppose the real question is how little of it you would disagree with.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
I suppose the real question is how little of it you would disagree with.

No, the real question is what is your specific issue?

Still waiting on answers to these:


P.S. Where does Luce call for the killing of gays"?

P.P.S. Where do you find that Battle Cry "aims to install a theocratic society based on a literal interpretation of the BIble"? Or is that simply your own interpretation of its aims?

P.P.P.S. How is Gary DeMar (the source of the comment about executing gays) connected to "Battle Cry"?

[MarcUK]

"Besen pointed out that one of the speakers at the "Reclaiming America" conference is Gary DeMar, whom Besen described as a recognized leader in the Reconstructionist movement. "DeMar once said of homosexuality: ‘The Bible doesn’t say that homosexuals should be executed. What it says is this: If two men lie together like a man and a woman lie together, they are to be put to death.’"

http://www.exgaywatch.com/blog/archives/exgay_organizations/exodus/

[Outsider]

I found this site about Teen Mania (http://www.acquiretheevidence.com/).

[segovius]

Originally posted by Outsider
I found this site about Teen Mania (http://www.acquiretheevidence.com/).

That's Luce as well.....

[MarcUK]

"Luce put great emphasis on following every word in the Bible, treating it as an instruction book,� even when a person doesn't understand or agree. This is, of course, the logic that leads to the stoning of gays, non-virgin brides, disobedient children and much more”because the Bible says so.
Chillingly, when I confronted Ron explicitly about these passages, he refused to disavow them."

"Luce and about 300 BattleCry acolytes (almost entirely youths) rallied in front of Philadelphia's Constitution Hall”the location having been chosen because Luce wants to 'restore' the Founding Fathers vision of a religious society"

"And lest you think this is idle paranoia, BattleCry founder Ron Luce told the crowds the next morning (May 13) that he plans to launch a blitzkrieg in the communities, schools, malls, etc. against those who dont share his theocratic vision of society."

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060513_battlecry_philadelphia/

[MarcUK]

http://rogouski.com/albums/battlecry-1/26_G.jpg

[MarcUK]

http://rogouski.com/albums/battlecry-1/29_G.jpg
thats luce in the striped shirt

YOU ACTUALLY APROVE THIS CUILLA and are defending it????

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by MarcUK
http://rogouski.com/albums/battlecry-1/29_G.jpg
thats luce in the striped shirt

YOU ACTUALLY APROVE THIS CUILLA and are defending it????
[Chris Cuilla]:no: Where did I say I was defending it? Don't put words into my mouth. All I'm saying is they have every right to say and do anything they like as far as turning America into a theocratic state.[/Chris Cuilla]

[Chris Cuilla]

Still waiting seg:


P.S. Where does Luce call for the killing of gays"?

P.P.S. Where do you find that Battle Cry "aims to install a theocratic society based on a literal interpretation of the BIble"? Or is that simply your own interpretation of its aims?

P.P.P.S. How is Gary DeMar (the source of the comment about executing gays) connected to "Battle Cry"?


tick tock tick tock

[Frank777]

First of all, this isn't new. ATF has held teen conferences in the Toronto/Hamilton area every year for the past decade or so, and they're actually a lot of fun. Lots of video, pyrotechnics and music for the kids.

Second, using "war imagery" to signify the Christian struggle against sin isn't new either. Unless Segovius and Marc now wish to outlaw the Salvation Army.

Third, the idea that the group "aims to install a theocratic society based on a literal interpretation of the BIble" is sheer Segovian nonsense. It's a group advocating that teens live according to the Bible. If the whole country embraces it, then yes, the whole country would be Christian. As I've asked the many times you've brought up this "theocracy" nonsense before: Where is it exactly that they advocate replacing the democratic system?

Fourth, no Christian with half a brain is going to "disavow" parts of the Old Testament.
The injunctions against sin are there for good reasons that we've gone over a million times before. The New Testament application of grace through the death and resurrection of Christ doesn't mean we tear out and throw away the first two thirds of the Bible.

Finally Sego, I find it sad that you have to resort time and again to tired, inflammatory rhetoric against a particular Christian message that you obviously can't debate with clear reasoned arguments. (Marc I understand - he's never had clear and reasoned arguments.)

Having to fall back on "ooh, they're using soldiers on stage" is actually quite pathetic.

[BR]

Originally posted by Frank777
First of all, this isn't new. ATF has held teen conferences in the Toronto/Hamilton area every year for the past decade or so, and they're actually a lot of fun. Lots of video, pyrotechnics and music for the kids.

Second, using "war imagery" to signify the Christian struggle against sin isn't new either. Unless Segovius and Marc now wish to outlaw the Salvation Army.

Third, the idea that the group "aims to install a theocratic society based on a literal interpretation of the BIble" is sheer Segovian nonsense. It's a group advocating that teens live according to the Bible. If the whole country embraces it, then yes, the whole country would be Christian. As I've asked the many times you've brought up this "theocracy" nonsense before: Where is it exactly that they advocate replacing the democratic system?

Fourth, no Christian with half a brain is going to "disavow" parts of the Old Testament.
The injunctions against sin are there for good reasons that we've gone over a million times before. The New Testament application of grace through the death and resurrection of Christ doesn't mean we tear out and throw away the first two thirds of the Bible.

Finally Sego, I find it sad that you have to resort time and again to tired, inflammatory rhetoric against a particular Christian message that you obviously can't debate with clear reasoned arguments. (Marc I understand - he's never had clear and reasoned arguments.)

You disavow the parts of the old testament that are inconvenient for you (like keeping kosher) with the explanation that Jesus brought forth new laws to follow. Then of course when it is convenient (like bashing gays) the old testament rocks!

Having to fall back on "ooh, they're using soldiers on stage" is actually quite pathetic.
I find having the soldiers on stage trying to promote what should be a peaceful religion pathetic.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Frank777
Fourth, no Christian with half a brain is going to "disavow" parts of the Old Testament. Hmm, I can't believe this. Do you obey the Torah? Really? Can I give you a little test on that?

[Frank777]

Originally posted by BR
You disavow the parts of the old testament that are inconvenient for you (like keeping kosher) with the explanation that Jesus brought forth new laws to follow. Then of course when it is convenient (like bashing gays) the old testament rocks!

Originally posted by BRussell
Hmm, I can't believe this. Do you obey the Torah? Really? Can I give you a little test on that?

"Disavow" is different from "understand in its proper context". :D

There are good theological reasons for the laws set out in the Old Testament, and I affirm that they were right for their time. However, the New Testament sets out a better, more permanent way for Man to walk with God, a way that was promised from the earliest time of the Fall of Man.

Keeping kosher isn't particularly hard for anyone devoted to their God, and there are plenty of people who do it on a daily basis. The idea that I reject the Old Testament because I favour a ham sandwich is laughable.

The "bashing gays" idea is equally silly. The prohibitions against homosexuality are repeated in the New Testament and are easy to understand when the basis of Christian living is viewed in the proper context.

Originally posted by BR
I find having the soldiers on stage trying to promote what should be a peaceful religion pathetic.

While I hesitate to repeat the same phrase, it is all about context.

I'm sure that looking at a photo of soldiers with guns on the platform instantly conveys to some on this board that these "right-wing Christians" are trying to drum up support for "Bush's War".

That's nonsense, and the more reasonable explanation - from someone who's actually been to a Teen Mania event - is that the idea of following Christ in the modern world is akin to a war on one's sinful ways.

There are many examples of the use of war in this way. I myself have used images of army personnel to illustrate the "Armour of God" (Ephesians Chapter 6).

The Salvation Army dresses in uniform and recognizes Majors and other ranks.

Sego and others have pointed out that the Muslim reference Jihad" is not always a real war, but identifies a personal struggle against sin. (It is a pity he does not afford the same understanding to Christians.)

I have yet to hear any solid evidence that Teen Mania is promoting anything but traditional Evangelical Christianity, albeit in a more modern, dramatic teen-focused fashion than regular presentations - which is their style.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by Frank777
from someone who's actually been to a Teen Mania event

Ooooh, interested party.

[segovius]

Teen mania sounds a bit seventies porno doesn't it?

[BR]

Originally posted by Frank777
"Disavow" is different from "understand in its proper context". :D
Just sounds like picking and choosing what you want to do to me.

[segovius]

Originally posted by BR
Just sounds like picking and choosing what you want to do to me.

That's the whole problem right there: the fundies and common or garden Christians need to come down on one side of the fence or the other.

EITHER it is ok to pick and choose (and I say it is) in which case we have no problem in any religion because we pick the good bits and throw out the bad....

OR

It is not ok and one must be an absolute literalist who lurks in cornfields on the Sabbath in case anyone might need swiftly dispatching to the hereafter.

You can't have both. And you especially can't have both while you are saying you are following one while doing the other and simultaneously blocking up your ears and convening a star chamber complete with auto de fe for anyone who draws attention to it.

One more thing: the 'military metaphor' and 'jihad' equivalence is the lamest unmitigated piece of manure I have yet had the misfortune to be subjected to in this purgatory.

Try seeing if that flies if an Imam gets a suicide bomber in full rig-out and bomb-belt on the stage while he screams about jihad.......

Chill, it's only a metaphor for spiritual struggle....

NO! These literalists wouldn't no a metaphor if one tried to shag their grandmother....[b]THAT'S WHY THEY'RE FUNDIES FFS[/B......... it's not a friggin metaphor. It's a load of crazed right-wing Christian loons with guns who are targeting innocent kids to start a quasi-militia.

[southside grabowski]

Oh those fundies, What will they do next? :D

[Chris Cuilla]

Speaking of "picking and choosing" seg...you seem to be the one guilty of that in this thread. Still no answers:


P.S. Where does Luce call for the killing of gays"?

P.P.S. Where do you find that Battle Cry "aims to install a theocratic society based on a literal interpretation of the BIble"? Or is that simply your own interpretation of its aims?

P.P.P.S. How is Gary DeMar (the source of the comment about executing gays) connected to "Battle Cry"?


Maybe you should let us know when you want to have a serious, adult conversation about these issues (whatever exactly the "issues" are...you still haven't made that clear). At this point you don't. You'd rather pick (and choose) some random snippets, conjecture and editorialized "reporting" and weave them together into a narrative of fear ("Be afraid.") about "extreme" "militaristic" Christian fundamentalists intent on installing a theocracy all with the tacit (or explicit) support of the current President.

When confronted with any challenge or reasonable interpretation of what you've posted you use smoke and mirrors to make this thread about anything but what you ridiculously opened it up with. You dimiss the use of context as if it is some radical, fundamentalist tool used only by people intent on twisting the meaning of things and yet this is all you have done (because of the lack of context).

OK, you found one nutjob (and yes, there are probably more) who says he'd execute gays. Whatever. Why don't you come visit my church and I'll introduce you to a couple of hundred people that would be appalled by the thought. If you even asked them I suspect they'd look at you like you're from another planet.

Sorry to break this to you, but there isn't a "bogey man" behind every Bible.

[BRussell]

segovius, you just don't understand us here in the States. This kind of thing is pretty common here.

You see a religious revival with guys dressed up in military camo waving assault rifles, complete with pyrotechnics, speaking in tongues, and a motivational speaker getting his lines out of Leviticus, and you call it a gathering of right wing fundie loons. In America, we call that a "weekend."

[southside grabowski]

Originally posted by BRussell
segovius, you just don't understand us here in the States. This kind of thing is pretty common here.

You see a religious revival with guys dressed up in military camo waving assault rifles, complete with pyrotechnics, speaking in tongues, and a motivational speaker getting his lines out of Leviticus, and you call it a gathering of right wing fundie loons. In America, we call that a "weekend."

Horse feathers. These people do not represent mainstream America. We don't get too exited about them because we know that.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by Frank777
First of all, this isn't new. ATF has held teen conferences in the Toronto/Hamilton area every year for the past decade or so, and they're actually a lot of fun. Lots of video, pyrotechnics and music for the kids.

And what the hell has that got to do with Jesus' message? What is really going on here is that you are pumping them full of adrenaline, wowing them with spectacular sensory spectacles, and grandly displaying power and wealth to impress them, all the while pumping out constant "Gods army" messages. If the context was not to convert them to Jesus, it would correctly be labelled as brainwashing. Exacly the same as Hitler Youth.


Third, the idea that the group "aims to install a theocratic society based on a literal interpretation of the BIble" is sheer Segovian nonsense. It's a group advocating that teens live according to the Bible. If the whole country embraces it, then yes, the whole country would be Christian. As I've asked the many times you've brought up this "theocracy" nonsense before: Where is it exactly that they advocate replacing the democratic system?

Its their whole reason to be. But this isn't happy hippie Christianity, which I might not have issue with, this is a fundamentalist army, who strictly take the worst parts of the bible, and make a virtue out of it. Bigotry, hatred, division, ignorance, hubris, arrogance and deceit. Everything Jesus supposedly stood against.


Fourth, no Christian with half a brain is going to "disavow" parts of the Old Testament.
The injunctions against sin are there for good reasons that we've gone over a million times before. The New Testament application of grace through the death and resurrection of Christ doesn't mean we tear out and throw away the first two thirds of the Bible.

Anyone with half a functioning brain cell will disavow the parts of the OT that the teachings of Jesus replaced. Jesus didn't teach Bigotry, hatred, division, ignorance, hubris, arrogance and deceit. Infact belief in Jesus - by default means you have to disavow the parts he superseeded.


Finally Sego, I find it sad that you have to resort time and again to tired, inflammatory rhetoric against a particular Christian message that you obviously can't debate with clear reasoned arguments. (Marc I understand - he's never had clear and reasoned arguments.)

Then you'd better understand that I am 110% with Segovius on this one.


Having to fall back on "ooh, they're using soldiers on stage" is actually quite pathetic.

Unless Jesus really was part of an armed struggle or a terrorist against the Romans - If 'Jesus ben Pandira' or 'ben Stada' really WAS the historical Jesus - in which case the entire gospel account of Jesus of the Bible would be worthless, using a grandiose display of military bravado is more than pathetic

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Speaking of "picking and choosing" seg...you seem to be the one guilty of that in this thread. Still no answers:

Shall I remind you, that you still havn't answered my questions of why over $2 bil a quarter is not excessive, despite the fact that you asked what the number is. - And IIRC you still havn't told me why polyploidism doesn't count as an increase in information, or wether those Salamanders count as an examle of evolution. Such a silly game to play, if you yourself do not play by the same rule. Opens you up to all kinds of accusations - like "2 faced hypocrite" for example.


OK, you found one nutjob (and yes, there are probably more) who says he'd execute gays. Whatever. Why don't you come visit my church and I'll introduce you to a couple of hundred people that would be appalled by the thought. If you even asked them I suspect they'd look at you like you're from another planet.

Sorry to break this to you, but there isn't a "bogey man" behind every Bible.

perhaps you could tell my why it is that on their own every Christian always points the finger at everyone else when critism of their religion draws attention, yet when you get all these 'whiter than white' people together, they represent ssomething nasty?

So, if your church is so great, and its vision of Christianity so wonderful, why are you not condemming the extremist militaristic practises of these perverts? Surely they do the reputation of Christ a great disservice.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by Frank777

(Marc I understand - he's never had clear and reasoned arguments.)

A rather strange thing to say really, perhaps it didn't occur to me what you were getting at the first time I read it.

If you're implying that I have been talking to you (or anyone else for that matter) about Segovius or his quality of arguments - I can only say that to persue such a tactic is utterly disgusting and depraved.

[Frank777]

Originally posted by MarcUK
A rather strange thing to say really, perhaps it didn't occur to me what you were getting at the first time I read it.

If you're implying that I have been talking to you (or anyone else for that matter) about Segovius or his quality of arguments - I can only say that to persue such a tactic is utterly disgusting and depraved.

No, I was saying that YOU have never had clear and reasoned arguments.

Though truthfully, it has been awhile since you went on your "Sun God" rant.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by Frank777
No, I was saying that YOU have never had clear and reasoned arguments.

Though truthfully, it has been awhile since you went on your "Sun God" rant.

Thats OK then :) please accept my apologies.

[segovius]

Originally posted by MarcUK
Thats OK then :) please accept my apologies.

I thought Frank meant that he could only understand unclear and illogical arguments......

;)

[Fellowship]

I am no fan of organized religion. When these tactics (shown in this thread) are used for any belief system it is cause for concern in my opinion.

I am a Christian and I trust that I do not need to be pumped up by misdirected people using smoke, mirrors and military garb all for some sort of purpose as to hate "the sin of others" all the while instilling some sort of self-righteousness into people.

Jesus said iirc:

-Love your neighbor
-Love your enemy
-Blessed are the peacemakers


My belief is that I need to deal with my own sin, not that of others. No need to place myself on a pedestal as we are all indeed sinners. Sin is sin and none of us are really any less of a sinner than the next guy.

These are just my opinions.

Fellows

[segovius]

Originally posted by Fellowship
I am no fan of organized religion. When these tactics (shown in this thread) are used for any belief system it is cause for concern in my opinion.

I am a Christian and I trust that I do not need to be pumped up by misdirected people using smoke, mirrors and military garb all for some sort of purpose as to hate "the sin of others" all the while instilling some sort of self-righteousness into people.

Jesus said iirc:

-Love your neighbor
-Love your enemy
-Blessed are the peacemakers


My belief is that I need to deal with my own sin, not that of others. No need to place myself on a pedestal as we are all indeed sinners. Sin is sin and none of us are really any less of a sinner than the next guy.

These are just my opinions.

Fellows

Yes, these are the qualities of a Christian and I do believe you manage to live this from what I see - obviously I don't know you but that's how it comes across.

I would also like to say that although I am not a Christian I agree with all you say and one should not judge others but there is a 'but' and it is why I feel that threads like this are not bashing Christianity or any particular person's beliefs.

The 'but' is this: when religion - any religion (or shall we rather say spirituality) strays into the political arena then it ceases to function as a spiritual walk.

We all have our own political and this is good. But they should be informed by whatever beliefs and principles we hold - not the other way round. If politics start to inform belief then we have a political system - when that happens I feel it can - and should - be up there to be shot at.

If Jesus had wanted to take political power he could have done so. Or he could have left clear instructions that his followers in the future should do so. He didn't do that, he said "render unto Caesar...."

Just because something appears in religious formulation doesn't make it right - some of these things - the IRA and Taleban would be classic examples - absolutely SHOULD be opposed. In those case it is not a question of belief or 'sin', it becomes a question of a threat to society and is out of the spiritual arena. Caesar's realm......

Btw, I am not equating this movement under discussion with the IRA or Taleban. Yet. They are just getting going. Bit what if? Why can't we look at it?

They may be harmless - though I would argue they have already done much damage - but maybe not. Why do we always have to rely on hindsight and platitudes such as 'Never Again' used only in retrospect?

How about "It might be happening again now"? for a slogan if we have to have one?

It's called foresight and if there was more of it then there would be less of a lot of other unpleasant things. I'm sure we can all think of our own analogies.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
when religion - any religion (or shall we rather say spirituality) strays into the political arena then it ceases to function as a spiritual walk.

This really depends on what you mean. A person's religious beliefs become part of who they are and how they think. Let's use the term "world view" instead. Everyone has a "world view"...a way they see how things work (or should). This informs everything they do. Political positions included. To exclude some group from political participation because you don't like (or are afraid of) their particular world view is simply wrong.

Originally posted by segovius
Btw, I am not equating this movement under discussion with the IRA or Taleban.

Hmmm...

Originally posted by segovius
Yet. They are just getting going. Bit what if?

Yet, you appear to be (quite strongly) implying it.

Originally posted by segovius
Why can't we look at it?

We can and should. But with reason, fairness, context, etc. None of this has been applied so far.

Originally posted by segovius
They may be harmless - though I would argue they have already done much damage

But you haven't. So until you do, perhaps you should stop saying things like that.

P.S. You still have not answered my questions.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
P.S. You still have not answered my questions.

Why is that though?

I think it is because there is nothing that I could possibly say - up to and including a video of Luce personally executing hapless sinners with a machete - that you would take on board.

It's a bit like when Bush asks for evidence and co-operation from countries he intends to bomb. It's not meant to find the truth - it serves only to:

1) show the sheep that he is reasonable and doing things 'properly'
2) find a possible pretext for aggression
3) dismiss any counter-arguments that exist and flush out ones that haven't come to light yet
4) stall for time while he gets the military machine rolling

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
Why is that though?

Because the answers you can (honestly) present would undermine your sensationalistic fear-mongering. That is why.

Originally posted by segovius
I think it is because there is nothing that I could possibly say

You should have just stopped there. You have it exactly right.

Originally posted by segovius
- up to and including a video of Luce personally executing hapless sinners with a machete - that you would take on board.

There you go again. :rolleyes:

So, in brief, your answers are:

P.S. Where does Luce call for the killing of gays"?

No where.

P.P.S. Where do you find that Battle Cry "aims to install a theocratic society based on a literal interpretation of the BIble"? Or is that simply your own interpretation of its aims?

No where. Yes.

P.P.P.S. How is Gary DeMar (the source of the comment about executing gays) connected to "Battle Cry"?

He is not.

[segovius]

So, to sum up: it doesn't matter what Christians call for the execution of gays as long as you can point to one who hasn't yet in public.

Ok

:no:

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
So, to sum up: it doesn't matter what Christians call for the execution of gays as long as you can point to one who hasn't yet in public.

Ok

:no:

Don't be obstuse (and quit playing games). That is not what I said. You seem to be a master at twisting things. The point was that you deliberately tried to connect the statements on one nutjob calling for the execution of gays with a completely separate organization/group/person/event/activity for the purposes of leaving the impression that Battle Cry is an extremist, militaristic organization bent on executing gays (among other things).

You chose some unrelated bits to weave together an untrue narrative. Why don't you just admit this and stop lying.

Furthermore, it does matter if someone calls for the exection of gays...but surely you are not stupid enough to assume that one person doing so a) constitutes the whole of Christianity and all that subscribe to the faith and beliefs of Christianity, and b) means that all (or even most or even a lot of) Christians hold that same belief (executing gays).

Quit playing games.

[dmz]

segovious, this thread really does underscore how you aren't connecting the dots of Christianity in America. I'd go back to shilling for Islam, you're much better at it.:p

De Mar is a serious reconstructionist -- the ATF group is something that the evangelical community had spawned. These are very different branches of The Faith -- they barely respect each other. One is very strict -- death penalty for homosexual acts, adultery, rape, etc. -- the other gave us "Christian Rap," swooning Britney Spiritual-laced praise/worship, and other delightful culturally vacuous feints at relevance. One has too little relevance, the other arguably has designs on too much.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by dmz
One is very strict -- death penalty for homosexual acts, adultery, rape, etc. --

Yeah but, but, but, CC is saying that's not true? ZOMG.. whom should we believe? :lol: :embarrass

[segovius]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Quit playing games.

Good ideal.

So, I'm a liar - who isn't? Let God sort me out in the hereafter.

Meanwhile, having got that out of the way, back down here, are you prepared to take your turn in the big chair?

Your question is:

Is Christianity to be interpreted literally or metaphorically in your opinion?

If it is the latter which bits are metaphor? Presumably someone - you? - could believe that some of it is metaphor and still think Gays should be executed.

What's the position on that, I think it needs clearing up because, in case you haven't noticed, we are at war with religious intolerance and extremism - I know some people view this as only applicable to Islam but that is because they are intolerant and extremist.

Where do you stand - after all those posts we still don't know.

Unsettling.

[Northgate]

Complete and utterly blatant discrimination against a minority group in our country has and continues to be considered "acceptable" because of two sentences in the good little book we all love to quote.

Otherwise, there'd be absolutely no excuse for this disgusting behavior.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
So, I'm a liar

Glad we settled that then.

Originally posted by segovius
Is Christianity to be interpreted literally or metaphorically in your opinion?

What do you mean by "Christianity"? Please be specific.

Originally posted by segovius
Where do you stand

On what specific point?

[segovius]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Glad we settled that then.



What do you mean by "Christianity"? Please be specific.



On what specific point?

:lol:

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
:lol:

You don't wish for answers...or is it that you think your vague questions are sufficient? Which is it?

EDIT: Nevermind. You don't want to be an adult. I'm not playing any longer.

[Frank777]

Originally posted by Northgate
Complete and utterly blatant discrimination against a minority group in our country has and continues to be considered "acceptable" because of two sentences in the good little book we all love to quote.

Otherwise, there'd be absolutely no excuse for this disgusting behavior.

"Two sentences in the good little book" :D Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

Christianity is founded upon beliefs that call for complete and total "discrimination" against SIN. Period. The whole framework of the Old and New Testament points to the basis of moral law. Christians oppose homosexuality on the grounds of the whole body of scripture, not "two sentences". Similarly, we don't need a specific prohibition against abortion to know that killing one's child is wrong.

While conceptual "re-definitions" (of marriage, sin, salvation etc) are again in vogue with contemporary society, it didn't work with the Romans, or any society since. It won't work now.

The Bible labels homosexuality as a sin. Since the left likes to dwell on this side of things, I'd also point out that the same Bible also labels adultery and fornication sins as well.

Anyone who thinks Christians somehow give a free pass to heterosexual sin while condemning only homosexual practices are advised to contact one William Jefferson Clinton... ;)

Christians have always challenged sin, since it blocks man's fellowship with his God and ultimately leads people to an eternity without God.

And Christians do not allow that to happen to anyone unchallenged.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Frank777
Christians have always challenged sin

Except when it is a Christian sinning by calling for the death of someone who has a sexuality they disagree with.

[Frank777]

Originally posted by segovius
Except when it is a Christian sinning by calling for the death of someone who has a sexuality they disagree with.

1. There are plenty of Christians who would tell Mr. Demar he's wrong. The very fact that he has little public following in a predominantly Christian country (and is only cited as a source by people like yourself) attests to this.

2. Most Christians would almost instinctively cite Jesus' refusal to sign off on the stoning of the woman caught in adultery ( in John Chapter 8.) Note that this does not imply that Jesus approved of adultery. Likewise, saying that gays should not be given the death penalty does not mean that one has to approve of homosexual behaviour.

3. The main issue is that the Bible claims it's a sexuality that God disagrees with. No amount of re-definition is going to hide that fact.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Frank777
Most Christians would almost instinctively cite Jesus' refusal to sign off on the stoning of the woman caught in adultery ( in John Chapter 8.)

Actually, as you know, Jesus was a tad more clever than simply "refusing to sign off". Essentially raising the bar above what the law called for previously. Basically saying..."sure, fine, go ahead...ummm, but wait...new standard here...only those without sin can do this..." (sound of crickets...everyone humbly and sheepishly walking away)

So the response to Mr. De Mar is..."sure, fine, go ahead...ummm, but only if you are also without sin."

[southside grabowski]

The last time I looked it wasn't the Christians who were slicing peoples heads off. I am so sick of hearing about evil Christians killing off gays, foreigners and infidels. Get a freaking clue. If the "fundie"Christians wanted your head on a stick, they would have it. Man , I'm sick of this drivel.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
The last time I looked it wasn't the Christians who were slicing peoples heads off. I am so sick of hearing about evil Christians killing off gays, foreigners and infidels. Get a freaking clue. If the "fundie"Christians wanted your head on a stick, they would have it. Man , I'm sick of this drivel.

yeah, I think they must have gotten bored with that after their 1000 year rampage.

Fortunately, "Fundie" Christianity is still a minority despite the fact that because they are the most vocal, they get the most attention. Lets face it, no-one really has anything to say about happy-hippy Xianity, because they're actually living the life that Christ taught.

Unfortunately, because of Fundamentalisms Nazi tactics, their doom mongering, contempt for life and insane belief (that goes all the way to the Prez) that they are Gods 'chosen' few, or his 'army' (exactly the kind of thing that preceeded the dark age) - those of us that are 'awake' to this kind of thing (those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it), see all too clearly, that once they have reached critical mass, it wont be long before it is all too easy for them to have 'our heads' on sticks.

[segovius]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
The last time I looked it wasn't the Christians who were slicing peoples heads off. I am so sick of hearing about evil Christians killing off gays, foreigners and infidels. Get a freaking clue. If the "fundie"Christians wanted your head on a stick, they would have it. Man , I'm sick of this drivel.

Bye.....

[segovius]

A fundie preacher is calling for execution of people based on the sexual preferences.

The response from fellow Christians is:

So the response to Mr. De Mar is..."sure, fine, go ahead...

Chilling.

:no:

[BRussell]

Wow segovius, you really are being quite dishonest in this thread.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by BRussell
Wow segovius, you really are being quite dishonest in this thread.

Yeah, how dare you criticize Christian leaders that support the execution of people due solely to their sexual orientation?

[segovius]

Originally posted by BRussell
Wow segovius, you really are being quite dishonest in this thread.

How so?

If you mean leaving out the 'without sin' bit well it isn't me that's being dishonest, I am illustrating some rampant dishonesty.

NO-ONE is without sin. so why add the rider 'sure if...' and why not just outright condemn it?

You don't get more dishonest - and offensive - than that.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by segovius
How so?

If you mean leaving out the 'without sin' bit well it isn't me that's being dishonest, I am illustrating some rampant dishonesty.

NO-ONE is without sin. so why add the rider 'sure if...' and why not just outright condemn it?

You don't get more dishonest - and offensive - than that. First, attributing this "kill the gays" statement to Battlecry when, as far as I can tell, there was no link, and second, yes the "throw the first stone" issue. C-C's statement was outright condemning it.

I've studied that story recently, and it's one of the best Jesus stories, really. It shows him being trapped by those who knew he had been criticizing the pharisees and the torah laws. If he had said "no" don't stone her, he would have been directly disobeying the law, but if he said "yes" he would have contradicted his earlier teachings of compassion. So he found this clever way out, not outright condemning it while at the same time completely disobeying it.

As an addendum, that story does not appear in the earliest biblical manuscripts. It was added later. Either it isn't really Jesus, or it is from some other tradition or source that no longer exists. Oh well, it's a good story. :lol:

For a reference on that, I couldn't find a good source on the internet, but you can go to this book (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060738170/ref=sib_rdr_dp/103-2458359-3175004?%5Fencoding=UTF8&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&no=283155&st=books&n=283155) and "search inside" for "The woman taken in adultery." It's on page 63.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
A fundie preacher is calling for execution of people based on the sexual preferences.

The response from fellow Christians is:

So the response to Mr. De Mar is..."sure, fine, go ahead...

Chilling.

:no:

I really cannot believe how blatantly dishonest you are being here. I have seen intelligent, honest, well-written posts from you in the past. This thread contain no examples of them.

The full statement (which was a paraphrase of Jesus' own statement on a similar issue) was:

So the response to Mr. De Mar is..."sure, fine, go ahead...ummm, but only if you are also without sin."

[segovius]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I really cannot believe how blatantly dishonest you are being here. I have seen intelligent, honest, well-written posts from you in the past. This thread contain no examples of them.

The full statement (which was a paraphrase of Jesus' own statement on a similar issue) was:

So the response to Mr. De Mar is..."sure, fine, go ahead...ummm, but only if you are also without sin."

But you believe no-one is without sin. So what is your point? How about 'don't go ahead?' and if not why not?

[segovius]

Originally posted by BRussell
First, attributing this "kill the gays" statement to Battlecry when, as far as I can tell, there was no link, and second, yes the "throw the first stone" issue. C-C's statement was outright condemning it.

They are both literalist Christians. The position 'kill the gays' must be believed by all who believe the Bible to be the literal word of God as it explicitly states this.

BattleCry also claim to be literalist Christians.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
But you believe no-one is without sin.

Correct. (As does Jesus.)

Originally posted by segovius
So what is your point?

That only those free of sin are free to dole out the punishments of sin. (As he also implied.)

Originally posted by segovius
How about 'don't go ahead?

That is what is being said. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by segovius
and if not why not?

I think we've covered that.

Are you being deliberately obtuse on this question or do you truly not understand?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Yeah, how dare you criticize Christian leaders that support the execution of people due solely to their sexual orientation? We know which religion executes gays, and it isn't Christianity.

[southside grabowski]

Originally posted by BRussell
We know which religion executes gays, and it isn't Christianity.

Yep, we do.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
They are both literalist Christians. The position 'kill the gays' must be believed by all who believe the Bible to be the literal word of God as it explicitly states this.

BattleCry also claim to be literalist Christians.

First, show us where (http://battlecry.com/).

Second, stop your fallacious and dishonest argumentation.

Third, on this whole business of "literalist"...must you again be so simplistic about this?

The question "Do you interpret the Bible literally?" is the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question of the anti-religious folks of the world. Most Christians would/should explain to you that:

a) there are parts of the Bible that are meant to (and should) be read literally, and other parts should not, and some parts which are unclear, (Anticipatory answer: No I am not going to enumerate all of them for you. If you are truly, sincerely, interested, I recommend this book (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0310246040/sr=8-1/qid=1147908238/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-7497781-6128667?%5Fencoding=UTF8) for you to read.)

b) context in reading scripture (as with all things) is vitally important for both proper exegesis and hermeneutics, and

c) on this topic (and others), the reader (Christian or otherwise) needs to reconcile what Jesus said in relation to things written in the Old Testament.

You want things to be like this:

a) All or nothing. Someone either reads everything literally or not.

b) Screw context...that is only a tool for "picking and choosing".

c) You want to pick one piece and ignore the other (speaking of "picking and choosing").

[dmz]

Also, segovious, is there any way you could explain why someone like yourself --- who has deliberately and persistently misrepresented Christian positions for effect --- even deserves an answer? How could anyone take seriously your notion of insisting absolutely that you don't/won't function in a world of absolutes: which allows you to use every dirty trick in the book to be viciously critical of this same Truth?

There's no way to win -- even if you lose on the 'death to gays' thing, you can easily retreat on principle and regurgitate the usual tried & true fundie bashing points --- whether it be guilt by association with Islamic fundies, or the dreaded Spanish Inquisition critique.

You're starting to sound like a broken record.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by BRussell
We know which religion executes gays, and it isn't Christianity.

Do we? Maybe you 'know', but I don't. Care to enlighten us how the religion executes gays, as opposed to, say, people with weapons in their hands, otherwise known as, the legal authorities?

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
The question "Do you interpret the Bible literally?" is the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question of the anti-religious folks of the world. Most Christians would/should explain to you that:

a) there are parts of the Bible that are meant to (and should) be read literally, and other parts should not, and some parts which are unclear, (Anticipatory answer: No I am not going to enumerate all of them for you. If you are truly, sincerely, interested, I recommend this book (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0310246040/sr=8-1/qid=1147908238/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-7497781-6128667?%5Fencoding=UTF8) for you to read.)

b) context in reading scripture (as with all things) is vitally important for both proper exegesis and hermeneutics, and

c) on this topic (and others), the reader (Christian or otherwise) needs to reconcile what Jesus said in relation to things written in the Old Testament.

The only problem with this argument is that there's no authority to decide what should be taken literally - and what shouldn't. Likewise, there exists no authority to consider and decide what should be read in context with other things, and what should be read simply on its own merit.

The fact that there are Bibles out there that are different from one another doesn't help either. The Christians may take things literally - and they may not, but nobody knows (or even decides) what should be taken literally and what not. Therefore the argument could always be "Yeah, but, we don't take that literally!" - because nobody knows what Christians take literally and what they don't. It's in constant flux, depending on the argument made.

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by segovius
Yes, these are the qualities of a Christian and I do believe you manage to live this from what I see - obviously I don't know you but that's how it comes across.

I would also like to say that although I am not a Christian I agree with all you say and one should not judge others but there is a 'but' and it is why I feel that threads like this are not bashing Christianity or any particular person's beliefs.

The 'but' is this: when religion - any religion (or shall we rather say spirituality) strays into the political arena then it ceases to function as a spiritual walk.

We all have our own political and this is good. But they should be informed by whatever beliefs and principles we hold - not the other way round. If politics start to inform belief then we have a political system - when that happens I feel it can - and should - be up there to be shot at.

If Jesus had wanted to take political power he could have done so. Or he could have left clear instructions that his followers in the future should do so. He didn't do that, he said "render unto Caesar...."

Just because something appears in religious formulation doesn't make it right - some of these things - the IRA and Taleban would be classic examples - absolutely SHOULD be opposed. In those case it is not a question of belief or 'sin', it becomes a question of a threat to society and is out of the spiritual arena. Caesar's realm......

Btw, I am not equating this movement under discussion with the IRA or Taleban. Yet. They are just getting going. Bit what if? Why can't we look at it?

They may be harmless - though I would argue they have already done much damage - but maybe not. Why do we always have to rely on hindsight and platitudes such as 'Never Again' used only in retrospect?

How about "It might be happening again now"? for a slogan if we have to have one?

It's called foresight and if there was more of it then there would be less of a lot of other unpleasant things. I'm sure we can all think of our own analogies.

Agreed

Fellows

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Do we? Maybe you 'know', but I don't. Care to enlighten us how the religion executes gays, as opposed to, say, people with weapons in their hands, otherwise known as, the legal authorities? Legal authorities in an explicitly theocratic government who execute gays explicitly based on religious law.

[dmz]

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth. (http://www.slate.com/id/2141276/)

[BR]

Originally posted by Frank777
"Two sentences in the good little book" :D Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

Christianity is founded upon beliefs that call for complete and total "discrimination" against SIN. Period. The whole framework of the Old and New Testament points to the basis of moral law. Christians oppose homosexuality on the grounds of the whole body of scripture, not "two sentences". Similarly, we don't need a specific prohibition against abortion to know that killing one's child is wrong.

While conceptual "re-definitions" (of marriage, sin, salvation etc) are again in vogue with contemporary society, it didn't work with the Romans, or any society since. It won't work now.

The Bible labels homosexuality as a sin. Since the left likes to dwell on this side of things, I'd also point out that the same Bible also labels adultery and fornication sins as well.

Anyone who thinks Christians somehow give a free pass to heterosexual sin while condemning only homosexual practices are advised to contact one William Jefferson Clinton... ;)

Christians have always challenged sin, since it blocks man's fellowship with his God and ultimately leads people to an eternity without God.

And Christians do not allow that to happen to anyone unchallenged.

I think you missed the entire fucking point of Christianity. It's not up to you to judge. It's up to the grey bearded old white man who lives in the sky. It's not your god damn job to challenge sin. It's your job to live your life respecting those around you, possibly urging them to "live a better life" but certainly NOT judging them and discriminating against them. You make baby Jesus cry.

[BR]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
First, show us where (http://battlecry.com/).

Second, stop your fallacious and dishonest argumentation.

Third, on this whole business of "literalist"...must you again be so simplistic about this?

The question "Do you interpret the Bible literally?" is the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question of the anti-religious folks of the world. Most Christians would/should explain to you that:

a) there are parts of the Bible that are meant to (and should) be read literally, and other parts should not, and some parts which are unclear, (Anticipatory answer: No I am not going to enumerate all of them for you. If you are truly, sincerely, interested, I recommend this book (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0310246040/sr=8-1/qid=1147908238/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-7497781-6128667?%5Fencoding=UTF8) for you to read.)

b) context in reading scripture (as with all things) is vitally important for both proper exegesis and hermeneutics, and

c) on this topic (and others), the reader (Christian or otherwise) needs to reconcile what Jesus said in relation to things written in the Old Testament.

You want things to be like this:

a) All or nothing. Someone either reads everything literally or not.

b) Screw context...that is only a tool for "picking and choosing".

c) You want to pick one piece and ignore the other (speaking of "picking and choosing").

The issue is HOW you pick and choose. From over on this side of the fence it seems like the picking and choosing is solely for the purposes of convenience and easy bigotry.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by BRussell
Legal authorities in an explicitly theocratic government who execute gays explicitly based on religious law.

Show me the religious law that says 'execute gays'.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by dmz
Meanwhile, back on planet Earth. (http://www.slate.com/id/2141276/)

She's a lying, deceitful, shameless self-promoter that pushed her way all the way to the parliament while demonizing one specific religious group in the country that was generous enough to offer her the right to stand for, and win, public office.

She herself admitted to lying to immigration authorities and she herself decided to move out of The Netherlands. Nobody forced her out. She and her minions have no-one else to blame but her. Perhaps next time when immigration authorities ask her questions, she decided to answer them truthfully.

[BR]

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Show me the religious law that says 'execute gays'.
Leviticus 20:13
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

Of course Leviticus says a lot of other horseshit too:

Lev 20:2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever [he be] of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth [any] of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.


Lev 20:3 And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.

[Frank777]

Originally posted by BR
Leviticus 20:13
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

Of course Leviticus says a lot of other horseshit too:

Lev 20:2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever [he be] of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth [any] of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.


Lev 20:3 And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.

I don't understand. You're defending the sacrificing of children to the god Molech? :err:

[segovius]

Originally posted by dmz
Also, segovious, is there any way you could explain why someone like yourself --- who has deliberately and persistently misrepresented Christian positions for effect --- even deserves an answer? How could anyone take seriously your notion of insisting absolutely that you don't/won't function in a world of absolutes: which allows you to use every dirty trick in the book to be viciously critical of this same Truth?

There's no way to win -- even if you lose on the 'death to gays' thing, you can easily retreat on principle and regurgitate the usual tried & true fundie bashing points --- whether it be guilt by association with Islamic fundies, or the dreaded Spanish Inquisition critique.

You're starting to sound like a broken record.

BS - I have consistently supported real Christianity and the teachings of Jesus.

Unfortunately some people exist who claim to be Christians who are perverting that teaching into hate. I am merely pointing that out.

If you focus on my comments on the haters and fake-Christians and see the need to defend them then all that says is that you feel the hate-Christianity is the real deal.

I will continue pointing out and continue supporting the teaching of Christ.

And you and Cuilla can continue defending the distortion.

[segovius]

Originally posted by dmz
Meanwhile, back on planet Earth. (http://www.slate.com/id/2141276/)

Thank you. I haven't read the link because I never do with yours but let's assume it is something about Islamic extremists.

That gives me the chance to say this:

The nutter fundie Islamic literalists discussed in that post are pushing a sick perversion of Islam contrary to the teachings of Muhammad and the spirit of spirituality.

I take it there will be no argument from you.

Now let me CONTINUE to say this:

The nutter fundie Christian literalists discussed in this thread are portraying a sick perversion of Christianity contrary to the teachings of Jesus and the spirit of spirituality.

Now tell me why you are supporting them.

[BR]

Originally posted by segovius
Now tell me why you are supporting them.
Because They Took Our Jobs! Tookerjerrbbs! (oops, wrong thread)

[Frank777]

Originally posted by segovius
Now tell me why you are supporting them.

Nobody in this thread is supporting the killing of homosexuals, and everyone has recognized your dishonesty.

The difference is that most clear thinking people (Christians and others) realize that Demar has no hope of carrying out his wishes, and it makes no sense to raise his profile by taking him seriously.

Of course, your agenda in the thread has always been to use him to slander a group of Evangelical Christians you disagree with.

Give it up already.

[BR]

Originally posted by Frank777
I don't understand. You're defending the sacrificing of children to the god Molech? :err:
I possibly misinterpreted the word seed (I have a dirty mind). Anyway, here's more examples of Leviticus's horseshit:

Lev 20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood [shall be] upon him.


Lev 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man's wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.


And, god dammit, you can't forget this gem:

Lev 24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, [and] all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name [of the LORD], shall be put to death.

Now you gotta stone me!

[segovius]

Originally posted by Frank777
Nobody in this thread is supporting the killing of homosexuals, and everyone has recognized your dishonesty.

The difference is that most clear thinking people (Christians and others) realize that Demar has no hope of carrying out his wishes, and it makes no sense to raise his profile by taking him seriously.

Of course, your agenda in the thread has always been to use him to slander a group of Evangelical Christians you disagree with.

Give it up already.

No. My purpose is to oppose extremism.

All the Christians posting here - with one honourable and notable exception - feel the need to avoid condemning the extremists and see an attack on Christian extremism as an attack on their own beliefs.

Most probably because they are their own beliefs.

[Frank777]

And of course, an extremist is defined as anyone who disagrees with you.

[BR]

Originally posted by Frank777
And of course, an extremist is defined as anyone who disagrees with you.
This is the definition of irony here.

[Frank777]

Originally posted by BR
This is the definition of irony here.

I don't see how. I participate in threads advocating positions according to my world view.

But I try to debate the ideas. I don't start threads so I can make myself feel better by calling people names.

How many of Sego's threads contain the words "Fundie" and "Extremist" or both?

[BR]

Originally posted by Frank777
I don't see how. I participate in threads advocating positions according to my world view.

But I try to debate the ideas. I don't start threads so I can make myself feel better by calling people names.

How many of Sego's threads contain the words "Fundie" and "Extremist" or both?
I was referring to your oversimplistic generalization of what Sego considers a fundie.

[BR]

double post

[segovius]

Originally posted by Frank777
How many of Sego's threads contain the words "Fundie" and "Extremist" or both?

Got to be over 70%. So what?

What's your point? Some people have a 90% rating on 'tablet mac'.

Are you saying that there is no such thing as an extremist? Or perhaps you think there is no threat from extremism? Maybe, even, you don;t consider it a topic worthy of discussion if your measure is a word-count.

Seems strange to me - this is a Political forum (of sorts) and global politics has been redefined in the light of extremism to the extent some people call it an ongoing war - and you think it is somehow a topic that can be talked about to excess?

Only you don't mean that do you? Another glaring example of someone else here being dishonest.

Admit it - you mean something quite different than the quantity of posts about this issue.

[Nightcrawler]

Originally posted by MarcUK
"Besen pointed out that one of the speakers at the "Reclaiming America" conference is Gary DeMar, whom Besen described as a recognized leader in the Reconstructionist movement. "DeMar once said of homosexuality: ‘The Bible doesn’t say that homosexuals should be executed. What it says is this: If two men lie together like a man and a woman lie together, they are to be put to death.’"

http://www.exgaywatch.com/blog/archives/exgay_organizations/exodus/

Then gays will be pretty secure, since they don't lie together like a man and a woman, they are usually not facing each other while doing it...

Nightcrawler

[Nightcrawler]

Originally posted by BRussell
First, attributing this "kill the gays" statement to Battlecry when, as far as I can tell, there was no link, and second, yes the "throw the first stone" issue. C-C's statement was outright condemning it.

I've studied that story recently, and it's one of the best Jesus stories, really.

Problem is only, exactly that story seems not to be part of early scriptures of the gospels..

Edit: Sorry, should have read your whole posting before hitting the reply-button, since you have mentioned it already yourself.

Nightcrawler

[segovius]

The homophobic aspect of the Bible seems a peculiarly Old Testament fixation and the psychological reasons behind it are quite interesting. They are still present today in the right-wing Christian paradigm (we need a not here don't we: NOT the only, or even genuine, Christian manifestation - just the most simplistic) and invariably - as with all prejudice - have a symbiotic relationship with war, punishment, xenophobia and iterations of revenge.

Conversely, the New Testament is very different in tone and a lot of people see a homo-erotic element in it in numerous places - although the OT has its moments in this regard.

Certainly Jesus himself made precisely zero comments on the issue - imagine today's anti-gay Christians (those that are I mean jeesh) actually buttoning up on this issue. Surely if he was as rabid as they are he would have let something slip?

And what about this little gem:

"Some men are born eunuchs from their mother's womb, and some have been made eunuchs by men, and some have become eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven."

Matthew 19:12

And of course there is the infamous incident in the Garden of Gethsemane just prior to Jesus' arrest:

"With Jesus was a certain young man wearing a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him. And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked."

Mark 14:51-52

This is from the traditional Gospel of Mark (ie a heavily edited amalgam of several earlier separate versions) however we now possess some of these versions and referenced quotes to them by the Church Fathers. One such which expands the theme and fill in missing (ie removed) text is from a letter of Clement of Alexandria:

"The young man looked at Jesus, loved him, and began to beg him to be with him....Six days later. Jesus gave him an order; and when evening had come, the young man went to him, dressed only in a linen cloth. He spent the night with him, because Jesus taught him the mystery of God's domain.

.......The sister of the young man whom Jesus loved was there, along with his mother and Salome, but Jesus refused to see them."

This 'disciple Jesus loved' also features in the orthodox New Testament as not all references have been fully excised by the Church in all versions.

[Nightcrawler]

Originally posted by segovius
The homophobic aspect of the Bible seems a peculiarly Old Testament fixation and the psychological reasons behind it are quite interesting. They are still present today in the right-wing Christian paradigm (we need a not here don't we: NOT the only, or even genuine, Christian manifestation - just the most simplistic) and invariably - as with all prejudice - have a symbiotic relationship with war, punishment, xenophobia and iterations of revenge.

Conversely, the New Testament is very different in tone and a lot of people see a homo-erotic element in it in numerous places - although the OT has its moments in this regard.

Certainly Jesus himself made precisely zero comments on the issue - imagine today's anti-gay Christians (those that are I mean jeesh) actually buttoning up on this issue. Surely if he was as rabid as they are he would have let something slip?

And what about this little gem:



And of course there is the infamous incident in the Garden of Gethsemane just prior to Jesus' arrest:



This is from the traditional Gospel of Mark (ie a heavily edited amalgam of several earlier separate versions) however we now possess some of these versions and referenced quotes to them by the Church Fathers. One such which expands the theme and fill in missing (ie removed) text is from a letter of Clement of Alexandria:



This 'disciple Jesus loved' also features in the orthodox New Testament as not all references have been fully excised by the Church in all versions.

Problem is only, only to our modern ears and brain is love associated with sexuality. Jesus loved him,just like David loved his companion, didn't mean what we today understand under that terms, but merely spiritual love like between brothers.

There is another term that is used in the old texts to hint at sexual activity, and that is something like "he knew her".

Nightcrawler

[segovius]

Originally posted by Nightcrawler
Problem is only, only to our modern ears and brain is love associated with sexuality. Jesus loved him,just like David loved his companion, didn't mean what we today understand under that terms, but merely spiritual love like between brothers.

There is another term that is used in the old texts to hint at sexual activity, and that is something like "he knew her".

Nightcrawler

I agree - all I'm saying is that different interpretations can be put on anything depending on time, place, personality etc.

We are all free to believe whichever we choose but we should respect others belief even if it conflicts or we believe it is wrong.

The only thing we can't do - or let's say, the thing I personally would try to actively prevent - is to force our own personal view onto others. That's what this thread is about. People who do that.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
The only thing we can't do - or let's say, the thing I personally would try to actively prevent - is to force our own personal view onto others. That's what this thread is about. People who do that.

Correction. It is about people that you think are doing that.

[Nightcrawler]

Originally posted by segovius
I agree - all I'm saying is that different interpretations can be put on anything depending on time, place, personality etc.

We are all free to believe whichever we choose but we should respect others belief even if it conflicts or we believe it is wrong.

The only thing we can't do - or let's say, the thing I personally would try to actively prevent - is to force our own personal view onto others. That's what this thread is about. People who do that.

I don't agree. I think with a thorough and elaborate exegesis, one can establish the meaning of the old texts.

Literalists though don't do that thorough exegesis, they take a verse out of its scriptural and historic context and take it at face-value.

The contrary would be the approch you prefer, any interpretation and any reading would be equally legit.

Nightcrawler

[southside grabowski]

Originally posted by segovius
No. My purpose is to oppose extremism.

All the Christians posting here - with one honourable and notable exception - feel the need to avoid condemning the extremists and see an attack on Christian extremism as an attack on their own beliefs.

Most probably because they are their own beliefs.

No one here is supporting extremist views. Those here challenging you are not doing so in support of decapitating gays and lesbians. We are opposing your reaching for straws and creating a totally made up "the evil fundies are coming" view of the world. Christians had their violent times in history and there is nothing wrong with maintaining vigilance and not allowing those days to be revisited. You, however, have become fully consumed by this issue and it has eroded your credibility.

[dmz]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
...it has eroded your credibility.
I can't stress that enough, phrases like...

"New Testament...a lot of people see a homo-erotic element in it in numerous places"

...make you sound as though you're either intellectually disoriented on a very basic level, or just throwing mud.

If there were one mainline denomination, one catechism, one commentary, one theologian that you could point to, that would be one thing, but you are painting yourself as some sort of "let's pretend" historian.

Seriously, all the statements of faith by every major denonimation are in public domian, you should take some time to familiarize yourself with them before you throwing out passages willy-nilly.

(Love you, sweetie. :p)

[segovius]

Originally posted by dmz
I can't stress that enough, phrases like...

"New Testament...a lot of people see a homo-erotic element in it in numerous places"

A lot of people do see that. So what - I'm not one of them but I can report those who do without having to push my own opinion.

Can you? No....oh....that's what we're talking about. Or rather what I'm talking about and you are intellectually incapable of grasping.

Trying to love you too (not like that) - but only because God said so....

:D :devil:

[BRussell]

Originally posted by segovius
The homophobic aspect of the Bible seems a peculiarly Old Testament fixation and the psychological reasons behind it are quite interesting. They are still present today in the right-wing Christian paradigm (we need a not here don't we: NOT the only, or even genuine, Christian manifestation - just the most simplistic) and invariably - as with all prejudice - have a symbiotic relationship with war, punishment, xenophobia and iterations of revenge.

Conversely, the New Testament is very different in tone and a lot of people see a homo-erotic element in it in numerous places - although the OT has its moments in this regard. Paul pretty clearly condemns homosexuality in the New Testament. He had quite the social conservative views, actually, regarding women especially.

[southside grabowski]

Originally posted by segovius
A lot of people do see that. So what - I'm not one of them but I can report those who do without having to push my own opinion.

Can you? No....oh....that's what we're talking about. Or rather what I'm talking about and you are intellectually incapable of grasping.

Trying to love you too (not like that) - but only because God said so....

:D :devil:

I think I'm on ignore Seg, so I am probably talking to myself. So be it.

Your deep intellectualism is not beyond our grasp. The problem is that you are obsessed with this. I am open to legitimate criticisms of Christianity and Christians. Pointing out every whacko that claims to speak for Christianity is neither intellectual nor productive. These whackos are not taking over Christianity. They are not inspiring young Christians to explode themselves in gay bars. These people are irrelevant whackos and that is why I don't care about them. Yes, that is my opinion. I am not intellectual enough to post without opinion, like you do. Right..

[segovius]

Originally posted by BRussell
Paul pretty clearly condemns homosexuality in the New Testament. He had quite the social conservative views, actually, regarding women especially.

Paul was in many ways hijacked Christ's teaching though didn't he? Certainly he was in disagreement with the disciples over key issues - he had a bit of a chip on his shoulder about them actually.

[dmz]

One more thing, and then I'll shut up.

When you talk about guys like De Mar, who essentially want to bring back the structural economy of old Israel, you need to recognize that without the supporting institutions (a priesthood, a certain family structure, a total lack of law enforcement officials, two or three eye witnesses for any conviction, close-knit agrarian society, bla, bla, bla...) you have nothing:

"Oh yea, stone the incorrigible children...."
"....yes, but the parents had to carry out the execution in front of the community."

hmmmmmm....

to quote a conversation from The Hunt for Red October:

"....Could you fire an ICBM horizontally?"
"...sure, why would you want to?"

...so for guys like De Mar, it's in for a penny, in for a pound, which is at best, profoundly short-sighted and anachronistic.

As strict as the Puritans got, even they knew that the OT law was..... (from the uber-strict The Westminster Confession, Chapter 19):

1. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it; and endued him with power and ability to keep it.

2. This law, after his Fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness, and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God, and the other six out duty to man.

3. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a Church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits, and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated under the New Testament.

4. To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other, now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

5. The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it. Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen, this obligation.

...abrogated, at least as CCing the structure and economy of Israel was concerned.

But -- going back to my original point -- trying to argue this "kill the gays" things with people who cringe at even putting serial killers to death, or are nursing a personal vendetta against Christianity. is crazy especially if grist they're grinding is a continual stream of red herrings and speculation on pure conjecture. (!)

:grumble:

[segovius]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
I think I'm on ignore Seg, so I am probably talking to myself. So be it.

Your deep intellectualism is not beyond our grasp. The problem is that you are obsessed with this. I am open to legitimate criticisms of Christianity and Christians. Pointing out every whacko that claims to speak for Christianity is neither intellectual nor productive. These whackos are not taking over Christianity. They are not inspiring young Christians to explode themselves in gay bars. These people are irrelevant whackos and that is why I don't care about them. Yes, that is my opinion. I am not intellectual enough to post without opinion, like you do. Right..

You are not on ignore. I'm not sure what it would take but it's not something I utilize.

Re your points:

1) Obsession: I would not consider myself obsessed - but then I wouldn't if I was so I guess it's possible - but rather it is an issue with which i have a long-time passionate interest.

Nothing wrong with that and even if I was obsessed so what? Is that a crime? No.

2) Legitimate criticism of Christianity: I cannot do this as I agree with Christ's teaching. Thus there is nothing to criticize.

If someone can show me that Christ taught hate and militarism say then I might start to attempt a legitimate criticism but as it is I will legitimately criticize the people who have hijacked the teaching. You see - that's what makes it legitimate to criticize, the fact it is not true to the original.

Al the posters here have to do to disprove this is to show where it is the same. Go for it - but they aren't even trying and nor are you. Poor.

3) These people may be irrelevant whackos to you - by the way, that undermines your argument: you claim I was criticizing Christianity, now you claim I am criticizing irrelevant whackos. Which is it? Or are both the same to you? - but to me they are not. What makes your view better than mine?

Nothing.

[segovius]

Originally posted by dmz
One more thing, and then I'll shut up.

When you talk about guys like De Mar, who essentially want to bring back the structural economy of old Israel, you need to recognize that without the supporting institutions (a priesthood, a certain family structure, a total lack of law enforcement officials, two or three eye witnesses for any conviction, close-knit agrarian society, bla, bla, bla...) you have nothing:

"Oh yea, stone the incorrigible children...."
"....yes, but the parents had to carry out the execution in front of the community."

hmmmmmm....

to quote a conversation from The Hunt for Red October:

"....Could you fire an ICBM horizontally?"
"...sure, why would you want to?"

...so for guys like De Mar, it's in for a penny, in for a pound, which is at best, profoundly short-sighted and anachronistic.

As strict as the Puritans got, even they knew that the OT law was..... (from the uber-strict The Westminster Confession, Chapter 19):



...abrogated, at least as CCing the structure and economy of Israel was concerned.

But -- going back to my original point -- trying to argue this "kill the gays" things with people who cringe at even putting serial killers to death, or are nursing a personal vendetta against Christianity. is crazy especially if grist they're grinding is a continual stream of red herrings and speculation on pure conjecture. (!)

:grumble:

Look, let's put it like this: If you have a car that you like a lot and you continually hear strange and ominous rattling sounds from the engine accompanied by plumes of acrid smoke. Do you:

a) Tell yourself that this is a design feature and one that makes the car 'special'.

b) Start a campaign telling everyone it has always been like this and shouldn't be tampered with by people who want to 'wreck your car'.

c) Ignore it.

d) Take it to the garage to be checked.

Let's say that by some miraculous and circuitous bizarre conflation of events you choose d) and find yourself in your local garage facing your friendly covered in grease mechanic. He proceeds to tell you that there is a problem. Do you:

a) Start foaming at the mouth and accuse him of having a secret agenda to sabotage your beautiful car.

b) Start foaming at the mouth and accuse him of having a secret agenda to sabotage your beautiful car.

c) Start foaming at the mouth and accuse him of having a secret agenda to sabotage your beautiful car.

And on......

[dmz]

I wouldn't confuse normal road noise with "plumes of acrid smoke" ???
:wow:

[southside grabowski]

I agree that these people are hijacking the teachings of Christ. What they say and what I believe Christ to have taught are very different. I consider them irrelevant whackos because I don't see them as a force to be reckoned with. In the US, we are accustomed to seeing the things we hold dearly abused and misrepresented to the point that we start to ignore all but the most vial of threats.

You have interesting views and you have added a lot to these discussions over the years. It is just my opinion that you are so hung up in this "fundie" issue that it prevents you from exploring other directions.

FYI I interpreted you previous "bye" as an ignore.

[segovius]

Originally posted by dmz
I wouldn't confuse normal road noise with "plumes of acrid smoke" ???
:wow:

Depends whether you call shouting for executions of gays, storming around pulpits with assault rifles and generally spreading chaos 'normal road noise'.

I suppose in some circles (theirs) it is. My point is whether these factors were in the original design blueprint.

Some vehicles are beyond repair and need to be taken off the road. The safety of the public is paramount.

[segovius]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
I agree that these people are hijacking the teachings of Christ. What they say and what I believe Christ to have taught are very different. I consider them irrelevant whackos because I don't see them as a force to be reckoned with. In the US, we are accustomed to seeing the things we hold dearly abused and misrepresented to the point that we start to ignore all but the most vial of threats.

You have interesting views and you have added a lot to these discussions over the years. It is just my opinion that you are so hung up in this "fundie" issue that it prevents you from exploring other directions.

FYI I interpreted you previous "bye" as an ignore.

Oh, I thought you were leaving so I was being polite.

Let me ask you something: do you think that these people we are talking either have or desire, political power?

In my understanding they have a great deal of political power and are placed to gain more - if it wasn't for this factor then I probably would share your views about their irrelevance.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
And you and Cuilla can continue defending the distortion.

Stop lying.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Stop lying.

Stop telling me what to do.

You know how I feel about people try to impose their values on others.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
Stop telling me what to do.

You know how I feel about people try to impose their values on others.

OK. Keep lying then.

:rolleyes:

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
Let me ask you something: do you think that these people we are talking either have or desire, political power?

In my understanding they have a great deal of political power and are placed to gain more

Which "these people" are you talking about?
What leads to your "understanding" that "they have a great deal of political power and are placed to gain more"?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
and generally spreading chaos

Who is doing that exactly?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by segovius
Paul was in many ways hijacked Christ's teaching though didn't he? Certainly he was in disagreement with the disciples over key issues - he had a bit of a chip on his shoulder about them actually. I think that case could be made, and it's definitely true that he converted not because of Jesus (whom he never knew), but because of his own personal experience. It's a bit odd that he's often considered the "first Christian," given that.

[southside grabowski]

Originally posted by segovius
Oh, I thought you were leaving so I was being polite.

Let me ask you something: do you think that these people we are talking either have or desire, political power?

In my understanding they have a great deal of political power and are placed to gain more - if it wasn't for this factor then I probably would share your views about their irrelevance.

Yes, I think that they do seek political power and I'm sure that they have some political power within their element. However, I don't see enough Americans identifing with their message for them to ever aquire significant power. Maybe I give the people too much credit.

[Frank777]

Originally posted by segovius
Certainly Jesus himself made precisely zero comments on the issue - imagine today's anti-gay Christians (those that are I mean jeesh) actually buttoning up on this issue. Surely if he was as rabid as they are he would have let something slip?

As I have stated on many, many occasions, Jesus grew up in Nazareth and attended temple like everybody else. He knew what the penalty for practices regarded as deviant (like homosexuality) was, he knew why the Jews despised the Romans, he certainly knew why those who joined the Romans in those practices fared quite badly in Jewish society.

While His message of grace and mercy comes across loud and clear in the New Testament, it is also clear that Jesus never even considered for a moment that adultery and homosexuality were valid lifestyle choices.

Paul did not make anything up. It takes quite a bit of dishonesty to claim that the the teachings of Jesus are somehow at odds with the church's position on sexual sin.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by Frank777
As I have stated on many, many occasions, Jesus grew up in Nazareth and attended temple like everybody else. He knew what the penalty for practices regarded as deviant (like homosexuality) was, he knew why the Jews despised the Romans, he certainly knew why those who joined the Romans in those practices fared quite badly in Jewish society.

While His message of grace and mercy comes across loud and clear in the New Testament, it is also clear that Jesus never even considered for a moment that adultery and homosexuality were valid lifestyle choices.

Paul did not make anything up. It takes quite a bit of dishonesty to claim that the the teachings of Jesus are somehow at odds with the church's position on sexual sin.

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Portraits/ApolloniusTyana2.jpg

ah, isn't he lovely?

[Frank777]

Jesus is, but he didn't look anything like that.

Nice try. It's funny how you and Sego resort to such tactics, because you clearly can't debate the arguments.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by Frank777
Jesus is, but he didn't look anything like that.

Nice try. It's funny how you and Sego resort to such tactics, because you clearly can't debate the arguments.

well that aint Jesus. It's Paul.

This is Jesus
http://visca.com/karma/Exposicions/Ateneu/Sol.jpg

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by Frank777

Nice try. It's funny how you and Sego resort to such tactics, because you clearly can't debate the arguments.

well, and this is something perhaps Segovius and myself don't agree on - Its utterly ridiculous to discuss all the nuances of Jesus teaching in the rigid context you present them, if the cold hard fact of the matter is that he didn't ever exist in the first place.

If you want to show that I, (or perhaps we) are wrong in our interpretation, you should prove that Jesus did infact exist in the flesh, in history as you say he did. Until that is established (and lets be honest, no-one has been able to do that in 2000 years, except by coercion by torture - so I doubt you'll be the first), then all you are doing is trying to prop-up your own bigotries, hatreds and ignorances with an emotional appeal to authority.

Well, for what its worth - Screw your fake authority, screw your bigotry and screw your ignorance. And screw Jesus too.

Infact, you might wonder why perhaps Segovius and myself get along at all - considering that Sego accepts Jesus' teaching and I utterly reject it. Yet there is a reason, and its something you will never understand.

[Gene Clean]

Originally posted by Frank777
Paul did not make anything up. It takes quite a bit of dishonesty to claim that the the teachings of Jesus are somehow at odds with the church's position on sexual sin.

And what evidence do you have to support this? I'm not claiming Paul made anything up, but you so strongly declare that Paul did not make anything up, that one cannot help but wonder if you have some strong evidence to show that.

So, got any?

[BRussell]

It's hard to say what it even means to refer to Paul making stuff up. He is basically the founder of the religion of Christianity, and wrote a good portion of the New Testament, but he didn't know Jesus. So if by "making stuff up," it is meant that he didn't have approval from Jesus for his ideas, well that goes without saying. Furthermore he also seems to have had disagreements with those who did know Jesus.

As an aside, the disagreements with Paul were on the basis that Paul wasn't "Jewish" enough and Jesus wouldn't have approved of his disavowing the old laws. So it's too simplistic to say that Jesus and his followers were the "liberals" and Paul was the "conservative."

[sammi jo]

Interview with Gary DeMar (http://people.tribe.net/polybi/blog/3777f1b5-3a0a-4411-978f-ccfa133f98ce)

This guy is pretty out there. In the interview (link above, quote below):

DeMar is a leading promoter of an extremist theology called Christian Reconstructionism, also known as Theocratic Dominionism, which, according to journalist and author Frederick Clarkson, "argues that the Bible is to be the governing text for all areas of life -- such as government, education, law, and the arts, not merely 'social' or 'moral' issues like pornography, homosexuality, and abortion."

In his essay, "Theocratic Dominionism Gains Influence," Clarkson stated that under a Christian Reconstructionist government, "[w]omen would be generally relegated to hearth and home. Insufficiently Christian men would be denied citizenship, perhaps executed. So severe is this theocracy that it would extend capital punishment beyond such crimes as kidnapping, rape, and murder to include, among oth