There is NO SUCH THING as a "Christian Terrorist"

[This_person]

What are our drone strikes doing? What did we did in our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and now Syria? We can call ourselves just all we like and some still do in rather amazing leaps of logic and reasoning, and that does not change, one bit, how they see it.

We are, in fact, killing those who oppose Christianity. They are devout believers but I took your point to mean those who do not worship Christ. We'd be a damn sight better off if we could come to grips with this and understand the simple and obvious.

I couldn't possibly disagree in stronger terms.

Are we not killing those who oppose the Jewish faith? How about the Buddhist faith? Atheism? Why, yes, yes we are. That means we are NOT killing those who oppose Christianity, but, rather, we are killing those for trying to kill us - faith notwithstanding.

This is the height of intentional misrepresentation, to say we're killing people for opposing Christianity. It's a blatant falsehood, and what's worse is you know that.

 

[Larry Gude]

I couldn't possibly disagree in stronger terms.

Are we not killing those who oppose the Jewish faith? How about the Buddhist faith? Atheism? Why, yes, yes we are. That means we are NOT killing those who oppose Christianity, but, rather, we are killing those for trying to kill us - faith notwithstanding.

This is the height of intentional misrepresentation, to say we're killing people for opposing Christianity. It's a blatant falsehood, and what's worse is you know that.

Well, it does make it easier to understand how we're in the shape we're in; we simply don't get it. I wonder how much longer we can go on pretending this isn't about faith?

 

[This_person]

lets be clear, the arguement you and i are having is over what the book says. The bible has lots of passages about killing unbeleivers, you want to dismiss them, just like liberal muslims dismiss similar teachings in their book. I am asking you to show your work in dismissing them. I am not seeing anything from jesus in the NT that says its ok to worship other gods and nothing that directly refutes deuteronomy. Your interpretation may be different, but the book says what it says.

You're looking for "and so sayeth Jesus, 'I refute Deuteronomy'" and nothing less will suffice. The fact is you've been shown repeatedly many of the places where the NT shows it is a new covenant with God, and the OT shows the Christ coming will be a new covenant with God, which all is explicit in that the old covenant is not enforceable in the same way. Indeed, in your mentioning of Deuteronomy there is a directive to kill an enemy, and Jesus specifically says that killing of enemies is no longer acceptable - and then does acts to demonstrate how one should act.

You are 100% correct that Jesus did not go through the OT with a checklist and say, "this does and this does not still apply". It takes the ability to put words and actions and understanding and faith against a checklist mentality. You have the checklist mentality, and you will not be swayed even when standing in a flood of evidence to the contrary of your position. Everyone concedes that Jesus never said, "this chapter and verse no longer applies" in that specific and explicit a way. You have to be smart enough to put it together all on your own.

I had great faith in you as a seemingly smart human you could do that. You have broken my faith.

Further, on the issue of "is there such thing as a christian terrorist" the answer must be yes considering many do commit acts in the name of jesus. The crazy PP guy most certainly fits the bill. If he were muttering things about allah you wouldn't have any questions about it.....

There's a good reason for that - the book he would be muttering about allah from allows him to do that. The book he would be citing to do such acts in the name of Jesus specifically, explicitly, repeatedly does not allow such acts in Jesus' name.

That makes a difference to most intellectually honest people.

 

[Larry Gude]

I couldn't possibly disagree in stronger terms.

Are we not killing those who oppose the Jewish faith? How about the Buddhist faith? Atheism? Why, yes, yes we are. That means we are NOT killing those who oppose Christianity, but, rather, we are killing those for trying to kill us - faith notwithstanding.

This is the height of intentional misrepresentation, to say we're killing people for opposing Christianity. It's a blatant falsehood, and what's worse is you know that.

So, just to extend the benefit of the doubt, I said we're killing those who oppose Christianity, a readily observable fact. They see us, and it is said all the time, as being on a Crusade against them in their lands. bin Laden spelled it out in detail in his fatwa.

Following your reasoning, we're not killing Jews or Buddhists or atheists. They don't oppose us. I mean, really, you don't understand this is an existential battle?

 

[This_person]

if they are very well documented, show me. thats what i have been asking for. Instead you get a lot of different INTERPRETATIONS.


this isn't about christians not being perfect, my point is about how christians pick and choose which parts of the OT to apply and which to ignore. You can interpret any part you want to apply, or any part to not apply. Christians most certainly do not live their daily lives by what you referenced in matthew and thats because thats not how they interpret that passage. They do not interpret that section to apply to their daily lives. In fact on most issues in that passage christians want to reach back to something resembling the OT rules.

You are asking for a line or two that meet your definition.

It would take a whole book to answer that. Here's one that does that: http://www.amazon.com/New-Covenant-Michael-Penny/dp/1902859324/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1450118346&sr=8-3-fkmr1&keywords=how+the+new+testament+is+a+new+covenant+with+God

Here's another: http://www.amazon.com/difference-explained-exposition-principal-concernments/dp/1171263937/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1450118489&sr=8-1-fkmr1&keywords=what+is+the+difference+between+the+old+and+new+testaments

And another: http://www.amazon.com/Covenants-Understanding-difference-between-Testaments/dp/1495369382/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1450118489&sr=8-2-fkmr1&keywords=what+is+the+difference+between+the+old+and+new+testaments

Just because you refuse to read these books, refuse to understand what is told to you, refuse to accept the words as described to you, and generally have a holier-than-thou attitude on the entire subject does not mean that you are right. Arrogance does not equal accuracy. I offer this to you not as an admonition, but rather as a piece of useful knowledge for you to consider and potentially change your ways.

 

[Midnightrider]

You're looking for "and so sayeth Jesus, 'I refute Deuteronomy'" and nothing less will suffice. The fact is you've been shown repeatedly many of the places where the NT shows it is a new covenant with God, and the OT shows the Christ coming will be a new covenant with God, which all is explicit in that the old covenant is not enforceable in the same way. Indeed, in your mentioning of Deuteronomy there is a directive to kill an enemy, and Jesus specifically says that killing of enemies is no longer acceptable - and then does acts to demonstrate how one should act.

You are 100% correct that Jesus did not go through the OT with a checklist and say, "this does and this does not still apply". It takes the ability to put words and actions and understanding and faith against a checklist mentality. You have the checklist mentality, and you will not be swayed even when standing in a flood of evidence to the contrary of your position. Everyone concedes that Jesus never said, "this chapter and verse no longer applies" in that specific and explicit a way. You have to be smart enough to put it together all on your own.

I had great faith in you as a seemingly smart human you could do that. You have broken my faith.There's a good reason for that - the book he would be muttering about allah from allows him to do that. The book he would be citing to do such acts in the name of Jesus specifically, explicitly, repeatedly does not allow such acts in Jesus' name.

That makes a difference to most intellectually honest people.

 

[This_person]

Well, it does make it easier to understand how we're in the shape we're in; we simply don't get it. I wonder how much longer we can go on pretending this isn't about faith?

As Frank has said - it's about their faith they attack us, it is not about our faith that we respond.

Thus, it IS about faith, but it is not us killing people who oppose Christianity in any way, shape, or form.

I get that their faith makes them want to kill us. I do not accept the notion that our faith allows us to respond - based on faith - to that killing of us. For the United States it is a purely secular response of a government not allowed to introduce religion into decisions or actions.

 

[This_person]

Did you have a substantive response forthcoming, or is giggling at the truth the best you can muster up?

 

[Midnightrider]

As Frank has said - it's about their faith they attack us, it is not about our faith that we respond.

Thus, it IS about faith, but it is not us killing people who oppose Christianity in any way, shape, or form.

I get that their faith makes them want to kill us. I do not accept the notion that our faith allows us to respond - based on faith - to that killing of us. For the United States it is a purely secular response of a government not allowed to introduce religion into decisions or actions.

 

[This_person]

Did you have a substantive response forthcoming, or is giggling at the truth the best you can muster up?

 

[Midnightrider]

Did you have a substantive response forthcoming, or is giggling at the truth the best you can muster up?

you think you speak truth




So chrisitans, from the president on down to the boots on the ground, are directed by their god to not respond to any attack, but they do it anyway, for the sake of country?


ridiculous.

 

[Larry Gude]

As Frank has said - it's about their faith they attack us, it is not about our faith that we respond.

Thus, it IS about faith, but it is not us killing people who oppose Christianity in any way, shape, or form.

I get that their faith makes them want to kill us. I do not accept the notion that our faith allows us to respond - based on faith - to that killing of us. For the United States it is a purely secular response of a government not allowed to introduce religion into decisions or actions.

Their faith doesn't make them want to kill us. There faith makes them want to kill is when we threaten them. Absent our military involvement in their lands, we're not having this discussion as they'd be too busy fighting one another over who is the proper heir to their prophet. As it is, to them, Western and very Christian armies invaded their lands, in earnest, in 1991 and support corrupt monarchies and dictators, all of which presents an existential threat to their fundamental way of life. They didn't just decide to go to war with us because we're Christian.

We never left the region and didn't do much with our invasions other than destabilize the entire region. Into that void pours the most devout, the fundamentalists, who have an easy time of pointing at us as the bad guys and why. That you're able to disconnect us being a Western and Christian nation from all of this, to me, simply explains why we're doing so bad at this.

I'm trying to think of a good analogy for this but it's too simple for that. or should be. We're Christian and they're Muslim. We're the ones who sent the army to their lands. And it's not a secular thing to them no matter how much we wish it otherwise.

 

[This_person]

you think you speak truth




So chrisitans, from the president on down to the boots on the ground, are directed by their god to not respond to any attack, but they do it anyway, for the sake of country?


ridiculous.

Do you think Private Mahmood Hussein, or LT Levi Abramson are responding out of their Christian faiths?

You can laugh, but I'd recommend you try thinking instead.

 

[Midnightrider]

Do you think Private Mahmood Hussein, or LT Levi Abramson are responding out of their Christian faiths?

You can laugh, but I'd recommend you try thinking instead.

I thought about it and i am still laughing.

your claim is that jesus demands that christians dont kill, and that they turn the other cheek and love their enemies. You use this to 'prove' that the OT is not part of christianity. However the vast majority of our political and war machine are christians. And they kill their enimies just fine, just like in the OT, if they had handgrenades and drones in the OT that is........


yep, still laughing

 

[This_person]

Their faith doesn't make them want to kill us. Their faith makes them want to kill us when we threaten them. Absent our military involvement in their lands, we're not having this discussion as they'd be too busy fighting one another over who is the proper heir to their prophet. As it is, to them, Western and very Christian armies invaded their lands, in earnest, in 1991 and support corrupt monarchies and dictators, all of which presents an existential threat to their fundamental way of life. They didn't just decide to go to war with us because we're Christian.

We never left the region and didn't do much with our invasions other than destabilize the entire region. Into that void pours the most devout, the fundamentalists, who have an easy time of pointing at us as the bad guys and why. That you're able to disconnect us being a Western and Christian nation from all of this, to me, simply explains why we're doing so bad at this.

I'm trying to think of a good analogy for this but it's too simple for that. or should be. We're Christian and they're Muslim. We're the ones who sent the army to their lands. And it's not a secular thing to them no matter how much we wish it otherwise.

I agree it's not a secular thing to them. I agree it is about their faith being threatened. None of that changes the fact that the United States is not there for religious reasons. To claim otherwise is patently dishonest. Just because it is religious to them does NOT mean it is religious to us.

We've argued whether 1979 had such a military presence to justify their religion feeling threatened and therefore taking of American hostages. We've discussed the Barbary pirates taking double-digit percentages of the federal budget in extortion money from the United States prior to anything other than an economic interest in their area. You dismiss these things, and - for today's terrorists - you may be right to do so. I don't believe you are, but you may be. None of that changes the fact that this is religious for them, not us.

 

[This_person]

I thought about it

Let's read on and see if this is true.

and i am still laughing.

Not looking good so far, but I'll give you the BOD for a little bit

your claim is that jesus demands that christians dont kill, and that they turn the other cheek and love their enemies. You use this to 'prove' that the OT is not part of Christianity.

Nope, it is clear that you didn't think about it because I've shown you that the OT is indeed a part of Christianity. So, you proved you've not really thought about it.

However the vast majority of our political and war machine are christians. And they kill their enimies just fine, just like in the OT, if they had handgrenades and drones in the OT that is........

And, every Christian is perfect? Every Christian has a firm grasp of Christianity, and uses it the same way? Every Christian puts God above country 100% of the time?

Sorry, just more proof that you didn't really think about it.

yep, still laughing

Simple minds are easily entertained - and you seem to be entertaining yourself well.

 

[Larry Gude]

I agree it's not a secular thing to them. I agree it is about their faith being threatened. None of that changes the fact that the United States is not there for religious reasons. To claim otherwise is patently dishonest. Just because it is religious to them does NOT mean it is religious to us.

We've argued whether 1979 had such a military presence to justify their religion feeling threatened and therefore taking of American hostages. We've discussed the Barbary pirates taking double-digit percentages of the federal budget in extortion money from the United States prior to anything other than an economic interest in their area. You dismiss these things, and - for today's terrorists - you may be right to do so. I don't believe you are, but you may be. None of that changes the fact that this is religious for them, not us.

Then how do you explain why we ARE there? We were invited by Kuwait and Saudi rulers, the people they consider corrupted by us? It's laughable to say it has been in our national interest when the costs have been so devastatingly high in blood and treasure.

You can avoid coming to grips with the very religious core nature of this if you like but it's not working very well. We KNOW that our continued presence IS a religious thing to them and it is, in fact, one for us as well but we insist on making into something else. Radicals. Extremism. Terrorists. If anything is patently dishonest it is insisting this is not, at core, about religion. This IS Holy War.

 

[Larry Gude]

We've argued whether 1979 had such a military presence to justify their religion feeling threatened and therefore taking of American hostages. We've discussed the Barbary pirates taking double-digit percentages of the federal budget in extortion money from the United States prior to anything other than an economic interest in their area. You dismiss these things, and - for today's terrorists - you may be right to do so. I don't believe you are, but you may be. None of that changes the fact that this is religious for them, not us.

You and I haven't argued about 1979. If we had, we'd be arguing about their desire to overthrow the Shah, our puppet, not US military presence.

*When I say 'they' I mean Muslims, in general and fundamentalists in particular.

As for Tripoli, I don't recall an invasion and occupation and it's a bit off topic, isn't it, to mix piracy with religion.

It's not uncommon for one side in a fight to misunderstand the motives or to refuse to acknowledge them. King George thought of our founders as terrorists. It's also not uncommon to lose a fight because you don't understand, or refuse to, the nature of it. Kinda like trying to treat a malady with a misdiagnosis; the heart's not getting better because we insist it is a sprained ankle.

 

[This_person]

Then how do you explain why we ARE there? We were invited by Kuwait and Saudi rulers, the people they consider corrupted by us? It's laughable to say it has been in our national interest when the costs have been so devastatingly high in blood and treasure.

You can avoid coming to grips with the very religious core nature of this if you like but it's not working very well. We KNOW that our continued presence IS a religious thing to them and it is, in fact, one for us as well but we insist on making into something else. Radicals. Extremism. Terrorists. If anything is patently dishonest it is insisting this is not, at core, about religion. This IS Holy War.

How far back do you want to go for why we're there?

I suspect Kuwait appreciates us. I suspect the oil-rich nations appreciate us pumping oil out and buying it at abusively-high prices (yes, even at $35/barrel). I suspect Israel appreciates us there. I suspect that overall, Turkey appreciates us there. The Saud's don't seem to have a problem with us.

So, are you suggesting that we are there as Christians for the point of hurting non-Christians, and we're just covering it up with national-interest reasons? Do you believe Cheney hired Haliburton to blow up the WTC as an excuse to out Hussein, so that we could have a reason to kill Muslims in the name of Jesus?

 

[This_person]

You and I haven't argued about 1979. If we had, we'd be arguing about their desire to overthrow the Shah, our puppet, not US military presence.

*When I say 'they' I mean Muslims, in general and fundamentalists in particular.

As for Tripoli, I don't recall an invasion and occupation and it's a bit off topic, isn't it, to mix piracy with religion.

It's not uncommon for one side in a fight to misunderstand the motives or to refuse to acknowledge them. King George thought of our founders as terrorists. It's also not uncommon to lose a fight because you don't understand, or refuse to, the nature of it. Kinda like trying to treat a malady with a misdiagnosis; the heart's not getting better because we insist it is a sprained ankle.

I don't think Tripoli is off topic at all. The reason it was done was expressly in the name of Allah.

If it's about military presence, but not about military presence in the past, what is it really about? It can't be both about and not about military presence.