Jesus Jihad: Could There Be a Christian Bin Laden?
I recently made the controversial claim that I could have been a suicide bomber.
I claimed that my faith was so devout, and my ability for critical thought so crippled, that if someone had shown me an interpretation of Scripture that made it seem like God’s will, I would have killed for the faith. And I was depressed enough to kill myself, because fundamentalism doesn’t offer any real answers.
Of course, Christians will deny a Biblical basis for such actions is possible. But Islamic scholars claim such a reading of the Koran is equally unsustainable, yet suicide bombers exist, and only preposterously politically-correct liberal commentators deny that faith is a motivating factor. So today I’ll show that, in principle, there’s no reason why a Christian suicide bomber couldn’t arise. Here’s what their propaganda leaflets might look like:
A dead, bearded, Middle Eastern man. Do not confuse with Jesus.
Jesus has called us to bring the world to Him. But today, we have let the godless throw Him out. God is blasphemed on television every day. A holocaust of God’s children sees millions of babies murdered in abortion clinics across the world. Muslims, the followers of the devil, immigrate to our country every day and open Mosques in rejection of the One True Lord. They are accorded respect, while Christianity is marginalised and prayer to God in council meetings is banned. Homosexuals are accorded respect by the established church, when God told us they would not inherit his kingdom (1 Corinthians 6:9). We see our God mocked and yet we stand by and do nothing. It is time to take action. Jesus told us this would be necessary:
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
Matthew 10:34-39, see also Luke 12:51-53
We have ignored God’s Word and become unequally yoked with unbelievers (2 Corinthians 6:14), allowing Godless men to run our country. We have become friends of the world, and God has removed His hand of protection.
Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
James 4:4
The results of this are plain to see. Our country has been hit by terrorist attacks and an economic recession as the blessing of God is taken from us. It is time to attack, just as God commanded His children to destroy the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amonites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites:
And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them.
Deuteronomy 7:2
We must not fail in this mission. God commands us to put to death blasphemers, those who ignore the Sabbath, homosexuals, psychics, and children who refuse to obey the LORD’s commands through their parents. Today, we let disobedient children run riot, when Jesus Himself told us disobedient children must die. And the LORD Jesus specifically told us we must keep the commands of the Law.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 5:18-19
In the Book of Revelation, Jesus tells the church at Thyatira that he has “a few things against” the church, because they it tolerates fornication. Let us not be like them, for Jesus tells us He will give us according to our works. We must fulfil the words of God’s prophetic book, and kill the fornicating children of Jezebel.
Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
Revelation 2:20-23
So brothers, let us unleash the promised vengeance of the LORD, knowing the glory of eternal life we will receive as God’s reward.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.
John 12:24-25
What I Am Not Saying
I am not saying that this is a coherent reading of the Bible, or that this is what Christians believe. I am not pretending that a competent theologian (or just someone who’s read the Bible) could not thoroughly rebutt this argument.
What I Am Saying
1) Christians who cherry pick violent verses from the Koran as an attack on Muslims are being hypocritical.
2) If you claim, as fundamentalists do, that the Bible is 100% consistent, equally and in all parts the Word of God, and intended to be taken literally, there is no logical way around this argument.
3) Fundamentalism offers no bulwark against this kind of thing happening, because it disables the one weapon we have against it: logical reasoning.
4) Because fundamentalism teaches that all Scripture is equal, without error, and without contradiction, a credulous fundamentalist could fall for this. Someone making the argument above would have to explain away a few well-known verses about love (etc.), but this could be done by saying that those who have repeatedly rejected God do not deserve this love.
Is This Likely?
It’s not as unlikely as apologists want to think. Alice Miller has argued very strongly that authoritarian parenting and strict corporal punishment helped to form Adolf Hitler’s character. Professor David Berliner further argues that this parenting style is remarkably similar to that advocated by Christian fundamentalists in their books on child-rearing.
There is already evidence in America that fundamentalists see themselves as a persecuted minority. I often discuss with Adam Laats, who takes a much more generous attitude to the Christian Right than me, the way fundamentalist America views itself as marginalised. If they also suffer in an economic depression and view atheists or other religions as receiving preferential treatment (regardless of the accuracy of that perception), a fundamentalist Christian terrorist is not beyond the realms of imagination.
Arguably, instances of Christian terrorism are already occuring. The Army of God explicitly uses the Bible to support bombing abortion clinics and murdering abortionists at their website (warning: contains shocking images). Of course, evangelicals will distance themselves from this, saying these people “aren’t true Christians.” But that defence doesn’t work. If you insist that all Scripture is equally the Word of God, and that the Bible is 100% consistent, then you cannot logically denounce any argument supported by Bible verses. Furthermore, the reading of Scripture I’ve used above does not contradict any of the core tenets of conservative Christian faith.
As I already said, I was a devout, Bible-believing, conservative, fundamentalist Christian and I’m sure that, aged 14, if a charismatic youth leader had tried to persuade me of this, I could have gone for it. And it would have been the belief itself that motivated me primarily.
I am using this extreme example to make a more important point: If you truly believe something, you will act on it. Faith can make good people do evil things. This is why fundamentalism must be fought.
UPDATE: Unsurprisingly, this received a lot of counter-arguments. I respond to the main ones here.
Posted on June 20, 2012, in Christianity, Education, Faith Schools, Fundamentalism and tagged 9/11, atheism, Bible, Christian fundamentalist, fundamentalism, Islam, jihad, Muslim, Muslim fundamentalist, suicide bombers, terrorism. Bookmark the permalink. 92 Comments.
Leaving Fundamentalism 
The scary thing is, I’ve seen rhetoric that makes your hypothetical call to arms look gentle by comparison. Christian terrorism is certainly alive and well; it’s just not usually labelled as terrorism, ’cause that doesn’t fit the current image of who a terrorist is—brown, middle eastern and Muslim.
Thing is, we grew up surrounded by Biblical references, even those of us who weren’t raised Christian, so we’re normalised to Christian rhetoric; it doesn’t seem as extreme, and we’re less likely to believe those spouting it will act on their words.
Got any examples?
I’m actually a bit nervous this could turn into a pitchfork-wielding mob; I have Christian readers on this blog. Well, had them, at any rate.
Not to hand I’m afraid. It’s just stuff I’ve seen in blogs and comments over the years.
FSTD might provide some examples, or trawling anti-abortion blogs and the like. You may want to turn the hot water on first—you’ll certainly feel like a bath afterwards.
I also have Christian readers. The odd thing is that they’re often the first to click the ‘like’ button on my anti-religon posts. (Which gives me some hope that we may be seeing a slight upwelling of liberal Christians: certainly since the North Caroline debacle, and Obama’s little speech, I’ve seen a lot more Christian bloggers speaking in favour of gay rights etc.)
Reblogged this on The Dixie Flatline.
Fascinating post! I agree that Biblical Christianity lends itself well to political/theological violence. Though as you note I try to take a more irenic approach to fundamentalism, we could easily go back through US history to note times when religious rhetoric or beliefs fueled genocide. If we read Mary Rowlandson’s narrative from Metacom’s War in 1675, we find a thorough-going Biblical genocidalist mentality. Rowlandson hoped the English would be able to destroy all the Indians. She justified it Biblically.
My disagreement comes with the tone of your essay. Simply because Biblical Christianity lends itself easily to violence, Biblical Christians can not be accused of having a violent theology. I know you’re aware of Christian fundamentalist antagonism toward Stalinism in the Cold War era. The accusation of fundamentalists–in the USA, anyways–was that Stalin’s (and Mao’s, and Hitler’s) state genocide resulted directly from his atheistic philosophy. Communism per se was labeled genocidal. This argument was not fair to atheism. It was not fair to communism. It did not want to be. It merely wanted to smear both communism and atheism by associating them with the genocidal policies of Stalin’s USSR.
This kind of syllogism–fundamentalism is violent, X is a fundamentalist, therefore X is violent–doesn’t hold water. Historically, all sides have used this argument to discredit their opposition. My work studying the history of conservatism in the USA shows that conservative pundits always tried to use the extremes of communism to push their liberal opponents out of the respectable mainstream. But the conservatives ignored the fact that many liberals often led the charge against communism.
In this case, I think the tendency toward political violence among Biblical Christians is real. But it is not unique. Every ideology and theology could be denounced in this way. But such denunciations ignore the countervailing push that most Biblical Christians exert AGAINST such interpretations of their faith. In other words, some Biblical Christians are violent. But most Biblical Christians abhor that kind of religiously-wrapped violence much more vehemently than those of us outside their belief system.
At the risk of appearing confrontational, Adam, I’d like to point out that your disagreement is at the same time a strawman fallacy and a classic No True Scotsman argument.
The strawman: Please point to where Jonny claims, or even insinuates, that all Biblical Christians, as you call them, hold to a violent theology.
For No True Scotsman, see here.
Adam,
I agree that the vast majority of Biblical Christians can’t be accused of having a violent theology. I hope my original post made that clear; if it didn’t, let your comment and this one stand to correct that.
I agree, too, that Biblical Christians abhor violence (unless it’s wars in foreign countries, at which point things become much more negotiable), but I am concerned by a reluctance from Christians to vigorously criticise the dangerous beliefs of other Christians. There’s a tendency to close ranks, to defend their “brothers and sisters in Christ”, and to assume that, as they are Christians, they must be good people. Then, when someone like the Army of God does something horrific in Christ’s name, the tendency is to deny that they are real Christians, rather than address the roots of the belief that led to this action.
It was my intention to show that the theology itself can be the roots of violence, and I hope that Christians will engage with this rather than seeing it as an attack on all faith.
Thanks very much for coming by; you’ve really added to the discussion.
@Jonny & Daz,
Thanks for the replies. I guess that’s what I get for trying to write coherently before I have a cup of coffee in the morning! 🙂 I agree that Jonny’s original point clearly stated that such beliefs did not represent those of the majority of Christians. And I agree with Daz that many conservative Christians would take refuge in a specious No True Scotsman defense.
I guess my problem is more with folks who might use Jonny’s argument to mount a smear campaign–an argument based on a synecdoche fallacy, to make it sound a little classier. That is, though Jonny specified that such beliefs did not include those of the majority of Christians, other readers might (and have, and do) use this synecdoche as a way to attack all Christians. I like JeremyR’s comment below. I’m going to head over to Karen Armstrong’s site right now.
Great discussion.
I’d never heard of a synecdoche fallacy before. This is why I like having you around, Adam. I learn stuff.
Oddly enough I came across the word ‘synecdoche’ for the first time only a couple of weeks ago, in one of Jasper Fforde’s novels. Which is a nicely apt coincidence, as I’ve always called it the Ford car fallacy; if Ford make cars, then all cars must be Fords.
Fascinating and well done. As an experiment, I would be curious of the reaction I might get from the ‘fundies’ on my FB page if I were to only post the ‘call to action’ you lay out here; thinking about it.
I’d be interested too. I’m sure most of them would condemn it. I’m more curious as to how they would maintain the contradictory “That’s a wrong interpretation!” and “All the Bible is literal truth!” lines at the same time.
What am I talking about. I know how; I used to do it. They’re good at doublethink.
well we do have a form of christian terrosim here in the US, we have had a couple cases of abortion doctors being killed, abortion clinics being bombed.
And i think two years ago, we had some guy kill a judge and try to assassinate a congresswoman. Granted I don’t know by my standards if I would have ever called the guy a terrorist, but still
This is a useful experiment for another reason too: I’m a British humanist who thinks it’s important in our plural world to look for common ground between those with differing religions and beliefs (while still condemning religious privilege and bad things done in the name of religion). Karen Armstrong’s Charter for Compassion project, which won the TED prize a few years ago – http://charterforcompassion.org/ – is aimed at making that happen by focussing on the “Golden Rule” (‘do unto others….’) which is found in virtually all religions and ethical systems.
But I have met fellow atheists/humanists who reject this approach because it simply focusses on the positive aspects of religious teaching and ignores the negatives (like the quotes you have provided, or the call in the Koran to kill infidels and apostates), preferring to have their “religion is at the root of all evil” position vindicated. Unfortunately, while that can be argued intellectually, it’s not going to save anyone’s life.
You’ve shown that the case for Christian fundamentalist terrorism could have about the same degree of selective scriptural support as Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. What the Charter for Compassion does is encourage people of goodwill from all religious traditions (and none) to be selective in the opposite direction, and use the justification they will find in their teachings to drive compassionate thinking and behaviour rather than terrorism.
Encouragement – such as signing up to the Charter – can’t do any harm.
I like it. The tone of this blog is relentlessly negative (for a reason, but still). Thanks for bringing something positive to it.
An awesome post. The king is wearing no clothes… or perhaps just a bomb vest. Abrahamic fundamentalism is dangerous, no matter what clothes it’s wearing.
Reblogged this on myatheistlife and commented:
This re-blogged post is a statement about fundamentalism. Just because a fundie didn’t blow up a train station doesn’t mean they won’t support someone who will.
Read this!! May take some time, but well worth it!!
I assume you are referring to the website linked from your name (above).
I’ve glanced at it. Given that Jesus has been “coming soon” for the last 2000 years (and he said he’d be back before the disciples died), I’m not expecting much.
I’m used to Protestant “coming soon” rapture like screeds, however, I think this is the first RCC one I’ve come across. Anyone know the prevalence of the latter? This one is from some supposed seer called Maria Divine Mercy.
Why do fundy websites always look so damned ghastly? Is it a Commandment? “Thou shalt design websites which make thy reader’s eye water, so that the mote is washed therefrom.”
I believe that Christian terrorism is likely to escalate dramatically in the US with the transition to a secular population (which is not the same as already having a secular government). McVeigh in Oklahoma City, just as Breivik in Oslo, show that there is the potential for killing uninvolved children, just as much as for shooting abortion providers.
“Secular” is a tricky word. It can mean “non-religious”, or – and this is the way it tends to be used here in the UK – “neutral” in the sense that a secular state guarantees freedom of religion and belief but doesn’t favour one religion or belief over others.
In that second sense, I guess formally the US is secular, as is France, while the UK isn’t. In the first sense, the US is far more religious than any other western democracy, not only in terms of the number of people who consider themselves religious, but also in the prevalence of Christian fundamentalism linked to polarised politics.
We haven’t yet seen Christian terrorism – Brevik and McVeigh were supremacists. But agree it looks not only more likely to appear in the US than anywhere else, but more likely to attract a significant number of supporters. (You guys seem to have more than your fair share of crazy people over there!)
For what it’s worth, I think the way to fight it is not to attack religion as such – the growth of fundamentalism is largely driven by fear/sense of threat – but a) to support/work with religious people of goodwill who see a universally-applicable kind and compassionate message as the core of their beliefs – that’s what the Charter for Compassion http://charterforcompassion.org/ is all about b) to make a non-religious ethical life stance a respectable and positive alternative for people to choose if they wish without attracting social stigma.
I was wondering when someone was going to mention Breivik. It’s very clear to me as a US citizen that the Right wing are desperately hoping they can incite a sociopath like him to assassinate my president.
I want to put this into perspective. Note that I am expressing personal opinion, and not claiming to be an authority.
There is some irrationality in all humans. Psychologists document it. In particular, we are all somewhat prone to “group think” where comforming with the group becomes more important than rational judgment. That leads to groups psychology (or mob psychology). We see some of that in soccer hooliganism.
Religious groups, or at least some of them, to seem to play to this “group think”. However, they are not the only ones. The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 grew out of group think.
As a USA citizen, I am inclined to think that home grown Christian terrorism is a potentially greater threat than Islamic terrorism. And that’s because they are insiders to this society.
Also related, is Bob Altemeyer’s work on The Authoritarians.
Thanks Neil. I wasn’t aware of Bob Altemeyer. That’s another thing to add to my unfeasibly long reading list.
The article linking to a supposed Ugandan Born-Again terrorist says no such thing. Perhaps you did not read the article in your haste for an fundy terrorist example but that does not bode well if you expect anyone to take your appalling ‘it’s a possibility’ thesis seriously. Is your lack of reading comprehension the reason you could not understand fundamentalist theology?
You’re right. That was lazy of me and it did weaken my case. I’ve removed it but I’ll leave your comment as testament to my mistake.
That said, which aspects of fundamentalist theology do I not understand?
Is your lack of reading comprehension the reason you could not understand fundamentalist theology?
It saddens me that people consider their own disagreement reason enough to be rude; especially when Jonny has made it so clear that he welcomes different opinions.
That said, which aspects of fundamentalist theology do I not understand? – That even literal parts of the Bible require interpretation, that fundies do not subscribe to scientism, that evangelicals are not fundamentalists and that a ‘Christian terrorist’ is a contradiction by definition. Sarah Nash: Is the following statement rude? – ‘Fundamentalism offers no bulwark against terrorism because it disables logical reasoning’.
I think what Sarah was concerned about was the statement “Is your lack of reading comprehension the reason you could not understand fundamentalist theology?” which I think most people would consider “rude”. ethnicmuse: I’d like to understand the point you’re making. Why is the “it’s a possibility” thesis wrong?.
Yes the statement can be considered ‘rude’ but I think that it is appropriate given the smearing of fundamentalism that preceded my comment, hence I asked if Sarah considered the statement ‘Fundamentalism offers no bulwark against terrorism because it disables logical reasoning’ also rude, which I believe it is. If she doesn’t think it is then I would wonder if she were really objective.
As for possibility, many things are quite possible so that the question ‘Could There Be a Christian Bin Laden?’ can be answered yes if and only if (iff) Christian theology allowed one to be a terrorist which it does not. The answer to his question is that the possibility for this is a resounding no which a former fundy should know on simple theology. I have a better argument by asserting that atheism hasn’t produced terrorists “yet” given that one can be atheistic and a terrorist. I have yet to hear former atheists turned Christians assert anything that silly.
Joshua 6:21. Deuteronomy 3:6
Need I go on? A liberal Christian may disregard these passages. A fundamentalist, who—by definition—believes every jot and tittle of the Bible to be historically accurate and divinely inspired, cannot claim anything but that the acts in passages like those I cited are god-sanctioned use of violence. The implicit threat being, piss off God’s followers, and you will be smited—terror (fear of god) used as a threat.
Or, even more plainly: “Do what I say or be tortured for eternity.” That’s an explicit case of the same thing.
How can a simple true statement be rude? Fundamentalism is diametrically opposed to rational thinking no matter what the source of the fundamentalism is. Plus, since there are Christian terrorists, there must be something found in the theology which allows it. Look to history. The torture and gruesome murder by burning alive which went on for centuries by the Christians was an organized form of terrorism often used to extort wealth and sexual favors from the potential victims. Christian European kingdoms sent the Teutonic Knights into the Baltic countries to commit genocide as a form of trying to wipe out the last remnants of pagan beliefs in Europe. Shall I go on? Fundamentalists are irrational by nature.
I saw a documentary series a few months ago that I was reminded of when I read this article. It’s by Adam Curtis and ran on BBC2 so you should be able to find it online, I believe. It’s called The Power of Nightmares, The Rise of the Politics of Fear and while it has some issues here and there, it is an interesting watch. It particularly addresses and compares neo-conservatism in the US (heavily interwined with the Christian right) with Islamic extremism. I think you would find it interesting.
Additionally, though I did not grow up in a fundamentalist family, I attended a Lutheran school in the US for about a year. We didn’t have texts like ACE and it was taught like regular schools with labs and discussion, but I strongly remember history classes often derailed into the teacher telling us about the evils of Catholics and how Obama was the anti-christ. And biology class, where we did learn micro-evolution but macro-evolution was denounced as lies and told other sexist, homophobic and racist comments. The teacher even once told me I had succumbed to the devil because I had been vaccinated =/ Needless to say, I was pretty eager to get back to public school the following year.
Could you give examples of the sexist and racist comments?
Joshua 6:21. Deuteronomy 3:6 Need I go on? – Yes, the OT moral law is not applicable to Christians unless replicated in the NT (entry level theology).
A fundamentalist, who—by definition—believes every jot and tittle of the Bible to be historically accurate and divinely inspired, cannot claim anything but that the acts in passages like those I cited are god-sanctioned use of violence – 1. This was applicable to OT Hebrews not NT Christians (also entry level theology) 2. Terrorism is not a God sanctioned use of violence 3. This was not terrorism but selective genocide 4. The harlot was saved and her lineage incorporated into Israel because of her righteousness (I am surprised you didn’t want her killed as well a la supposed fundy principles), the issue behind the violence being character, not hate or political gain.
The implicit threat being, piss off God’s followers, and you will be smited—terror (fear of god) used as a threat. – I do recall God stating that once his followers followed other gods he would curse them and their lineage. It has nothing to do with pissing off his followers.
Or, even more plainly: “Do what I say or be tortured for eternity.” That’s an explicit case of the same thing. – even fundies don’t say that, rather it is more ‘Without Christ you will CHOOSE to be tortured for eternity” and of course, not all Christians believe that.
Matthew 5:18 & 19
But if you want to go the “OT doesn’t count any more” route, you lose original sin and the ten commandments along with with it.
I’ll expand my point, re the rest, as my brevity may have caused you to miss my meaning.
If God only gives the choice “obedience or eternal torture” he is acting just like any terrorist. He is using the threat of violence and suffering (ie terror) to attempt to force people to do what he wants them to do. Given that God is supposed to be the supreme example of a morally upright being, it is possible for a Christian to rationalise terrorist behaviour by following that line of reasoning.
Your particular reading of scripture may rule that out, but you cannot presume to speak for all Christians.
Matthew 5:18 & 19 – I don’t know of any Christian sect that interprets this as you do but if you know of any, please state. The “till all be fulfilled” was done at the crucifixion. Again, entry level theology.
But if you want to go the “OT doesn’t count any more” route, you lose original sin and the ten commandments along with with it. – as stated before, the OT moral code doesn’t apply unless RESTATED in the NT
If God only gives the choice “obedience or eternal torture” – this is a simplistic rendering of sin, judgement and punishment. God states he will judge the content of a person’s life so that hell is not an assurance for any arbitrary unbeliever. While SOME fundies hold that to be non-fundy is to be assured of hell, this is NOT the majority view of Christianity
he is acting just like any terrorist – what political gain is God supposedly trying to accomplish? (terrorism: the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims)
He is using the threat of violence and suffering (ie terror) to attempt to force people to do what he wants them to do. – he is warning that a sinful life will be judged and imploring people to change hence his willingness to become human and be put to death on a tree (cross) which again is entry level theology. He allows half a century for a person to change (three score and ten minus 20 [rough age of accountability]), is this how terrorists do it? Does God judge after death or blow up non-believers as judgement?
Given that God is supposed to be the supreme example of a morally upright being, it is possible for a Christian to rationalise terrorist behaviour by following that line of reasoning. – no it is not, God justified genocide is not interpretational terrorism. Fundies are witnessing to make converts, doing humanitarian works, building Bible colleges and trying hard not to sin (given many are porn addicts). They are not secretly plotting world domination or the extermination of dissidents. If history serves me right, that would be people of European ethnicity, the imperial Japanese, the pagan Nazis and many atheistic and so-called democratic governments.
Your particular reading of scripture may rule that out, but you cannot presume to speak for all Christians. – yet you allow Jonny to presume to speak for all fundies a la all fundies are irrational. I also don’t need to speak for all fundies since the burden of proof is on the accuser (you and your ideologues) who need to show where in the NT are Christians allowed to be terrorists. Please proceed to quote scripture and revolutionize all of Christendom.
Actually, there are Christian groups that are plotting world domination. I refer you to Jeff Sharlet’s C Street, The Fundamentalist Threat to American Democracy. Also his first work, The Family. When the groups he discusses could not bulldoze their agendas into law in the US, they turned to Africa where several of their pet countries have recently made such things as homosexuality a capital offense. While you’re reading, try Chris Rodda’s Liars for Jesus which includes the attempt to falsely re-write American history including many of the documents of our Founding Fathers. You seem convinced that all Christians, especially the fundamentalists, are well meaning and good. Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth.
Thank you. Your claim that “the question ‘Could There Be a Christian Bin Laden?’ can be answered yes if and only if (iff) Christian theology allowed one to be a terrorist which it does not” is thus refuted for at least “SOME fundies.”
I’d also suggest that your ‘some’ would seem to be something of an understatement.
If by ‘fundy’ we mean ‘biblical literalist’, then Jonny’s completely correct in this statement. The sheer mountain of evidence one needs to wilfully ignore in order to hold such beliefs is incredible.
Thank you. Your claim that “the question ‘Could There Be a Christian Bin Laden?’ can be answered yes if and only if (iff) Christian theology allowed one to be a terrorist which it does not” is thus refuted for at least “SOME fundies.” – I thought atheists weren’t supposed to be simplistic. Why would fundies then want to be terrorists to hasten what they consider inevitable? and where are these fundy terrorists? Do give examples.
If by ‘fundy’ we mean ‘biblical literalist’, then Jonny’s completely correct in this statement. The sheer mountain of evidence one needs to wilfully ignore in order to hold such beliefs is incredible. – What mountain of evidence would that be? Many biblical literalists hold conflicting views (on homosex marriage for example) and literalist fundies regularly lambast literalist evangelicals on their ‘literalist’ interpretation of theology.
Still awaiting your revolutionizing of Christendom.
“3. This was not terrorism but selective genocide”
In order to perform genocide in whole or part you are committing acts of terrorism.
Article 6 of the International Criminal Court resp. Rome Statute. “Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
“evangelicals are not fundamentalists”
Not according to every Christian, some put them squarely in that camp.
http://doffun.com/
“Christian theology allowed one to be a terrorist which it does not. The answer to his question is that the possibility for this is a resounding no”
So providing just one example of a Christian terrorist demonstrates your assertion to be unsupportable.
“and where are these fundy terrorists? Do give examples.”
Well you have the NLFT, which is an explicitly Christian terrorist organisation which is backed and supported by the Baptist Church in Tripura. They also love some good old forced conversions.
“The NLFT manifesto says that they want to expand what they describe as the kingdom of God and Christ in Tripura.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/south_asia/717775.stm
If we jump back in time we have the Gunpowder Plot.
The attacks on a Hindu Monk by Christian missionaries because he spoke out about their conversion activities.
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/Swami%20Laxmananand%20feared%20for%20his%20life:%20NGO/1/14653.html
Anders Behring Breivik a self described “Christian Crusader”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/norway-attacks-when-christianity-becomes-lethal/2011/07/25/gIQAPRw5YI_blog.html
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/4910/is_norway%E2%80%99s_suspected_murderer_anders_breivik_a_christian_terrorist
or the Ku Klux Klan, I could go on but I only needed one example to show you are wrong in your assertions. Now, just like a Muslim can say that Muslim terrorists are not “real” Muslims and are distorting scripture. You too could say these are not “real” Christians and are likewise distorting scripture. But then it begs the question (apart from the No True Scotsman), on who’s authority are you making those claims?
I have no reason to doubt their sincerity nor do I need too, we have many cases of self described Christians using their faith to terrorise others. Hence Christian scripture and Faith CAN, and does, get used to justify crimes against others.
Selective God approved genocide is not terrorism. It would be terrorism if God (the ultimate moral arbiter) did not approve. Also, this was performed by Hebrews not Christians.
“evangelicals are not fundamentalists”
Not according to every Christian, some put them squarely in that camp.
http://doffun.com/ – Sociology uses the term fundamentalist to describe Christian non-world affirming groups. Evangelicals are seen as world affirming. I am not using what Christians believe or think.
So providing just one example of a Christian terrorist demonstrates your assertion to be unsupportable. – no, you need to show how this is possible using the NT, examples would only show the ‘possibility’ that someone acts incoherently with their supposed beliefs. Psychologists have found for instance that people will act like the herd even when they know that the herd is wrong because they don’t want to seem out of place. The No True Scotsman does not apply because as I said before, by definition, a Christian terrorist is a contradiction.
ethnicmuse:
You have repeatedly defended God-sanctioned genocide in the Bible. If this is your religion, I am disgusted by it. If your morality is “whatever God says is moral”, even if what God says includes the murder or children and forcibly taking virgin women as the spoils of war, then your morality is barbaric and I want no part of it.
Fundamentalism is defined on my blog at this post, here. Your concern that this post conflates fundamentalists and evangelicals is addressed here. Your argument that a Christian terrorist is a contradiction is also discussed there. It’s my blog, so I define the terms of our discussion.
You are now repeating yourself and simply trolling this thread. You have had your say and I will allow your comments to stand. Please refrain from commenting further.
So we’ve gone from “not possible” to the rather more subjective “why would they”? I love watchin’ them goalposts move like that, their little legs a-scurryin’…
So we’ve gone from “not possible” to the rather more subjective “why would they”? I love watchin’ them goalposts move like that, their little legs a-scurryin’… – That’s what I meant by you being simplistic, why assert what cannot be. The goalpost has been moving though it has been by your legs. And while I answer almost all of your points, you are highly selective on what you reply to. For someone among the “brights,” I would hope that you shine more brightly to amaze us irrationals.
Once again, still awaiting your revolutionizing of Christendom.
Historically speaking, over the approximately 2000 years of Christianity, the real revolutionizing of Christendom as you call it would be when it was deprived of civil authority. Now that the churches can no longer use the civil government to push their agendas, they are reduced to being spiritual entities, not worldly ones.
I don’t need to revolutionise Christianity. I just need to get you to stop your rather drawn out No True Scotsman argument, whereby any Christian who’d interpret scripture so as to rationalise terrorism suddenly isn’t a Christian. Two words…
Northern.
Ireland.
I don’t need to revolutionise Christianity. I just need to get you to stop your rather drawn out No True Scotsman argument, whereby any Christian who’d interpret scripture so as to rationalise terrorism suddenly isn’t a Christian. – If you could do that, you would revolutionize Christendom, why do you insist on being simplistic, leave that for the lack of logic fundies. You cannot argue that the Bible allows terrorism and not show where. All you have highlighted is selective genocide in the inapplicable to modern Christians OT. If I say no true square is a circle, the no true scotsman fallacy doesn’t hold because by definition a square is not a circle. Likewise no true Christian is a terrorist by ALL sectarian THEOLOGICAL definitions that I am aware of (and I asked you to provide evidence to the contrary). Now you give the example of Northern Ireland which would hold water iff you could show that to be Christian and terrorist was not contradictory. You haven’t. We don’t know if the violence there is simply being covered in religious talk and the issue is nationalism or simply a clan conflict. Even this link does not list religion alone: http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blfaq_viol_northernireland.htm That said, I doubt you could show where they validate their violence with Christian theology. And what about atheistic China, Russia, Romania and their violent pasts? Are you going to argue for the lack of atheist rationalism too? My ‘lack of logic’ brain doubts that you will.
Let me fix that for you
It doesn’t matter a jot whether the ultimate cause is religious or not. No one, not I nor Jonny, has made the claim that that it has to be. All that’s needed is for it to be rationalised by an appeal to religion.
I grew up with weekly, sometimes daily, news stories of people being attacked and all too often killed for walking down the wrong road in Belfast whilst being guilty of being a ‘proddie’ or a ‘papist’. I’ve since met people who grew up their and had it confirmed first hand. Scottish football hooligans used the same division-line. Those in charge may have been more concerned with non-religious matters, but to the person on the street the dividing line was religion first and foremost.
I’ll second the ‘Northern Ireland’ Christian terrorists answer and up the ante with African witch hunters, gay killers… then reminisce about Luther’s reformation, and the good old days of killing Jews and Muslim’s so it would be safe for the Pope to claim Jerusalem as Catholic amusement park. Despite the penchant for ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy here Hitler was both a Christian and a terrorist in many senses of the word.
Using fear to attempt political gain, even the threat of terror and violence, makes you a terrorist. In that scope there are televangelists who quite possibly qualify by trying to capitalize on the despair and fear wrought of natural disaster by saying it is their god punishing the people because they don’t stone the queers to death.
Of course, you can go read my post about “Christ the Assassin” for a bit more on Christian terror groups.
Christian terrorists have been around for a very long time. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.
Then myatheistlife, who is NOT a fool, the offer goes out to you. Show where in the NT Christians are allowed to be terrorists. Perhaps you will be the atheist to shake Christendom from its folly.
@ethnicmuse, you’re not very good with the whole logical argument thing, are you?
Just because the NT doesn’t say that Christians should be terrorists does not mean that it does not support terrorism. The basis for fear of hell was introduced in the NT for a start. Jesus did not come to wipe away the old law, but to complete it. All those who were condemned to death in the OT are still condemned to death. There is even support for slavery in the NT.
By the way, the NT is meaningless as a story of Jesus fulfilling prophecy if the OT is not also true… well, at least according to the story. Your fav top ten commandments is right there next to Kill the queers, those who eat pork and shellfish, unruly kids, adulterers, and of course how to treat your slaves and from what people you are allowed to take slaves. In the NT Jesus directly supports the OT and all existing Jewish/OT laws. So along with all that we can look at the genocide, infanticide, and the rest and know that it belongs to Christianity.
The NT does not allow for Christians to be child raping, misogynistic, bigoted, charlatans either but that doesn’t seem to stop pastors and priests from having there orgasm in a child’s ass, or stealing money from old people who can’t afford it, or even from beating their daughters when they don’t wear the right clothes.
ethnicmuse, if you don’t have a good argument (and you don’t) what is your goal here. Simply to poke and goad and troll? You are not defending your position in the least and your ‘kind offers’ to show evidence or what not are nothing but endless trolling. The kind of trolling that an eighth grader could do better at than you have shown so far.
Clearly you do not like the idea that religious fundamentalism can lead to terrorism, even among Christians. You claim it is not true and that no true Christian would be a terrorist. Still, you have used nothing but bad and fallacious argument and offered no valid support for your position. If you want to sit at the big person table, you have to be able to use big person arguments, so we’ll see you in a few years when you’ve grown up. Bye bye now.
Just because the NT doesn’t say that Christians should be terrorists does not mean that it does not support terrorism. – I asked for you to show if they CAN not if they SHOULD
The basis for fear of hell was introduced in the NT for a start – incorrect, hell is also in the OT
Jesus did not come to wipe away the old law, but to complete it. All those who were condemned to death in the OT are still condemned to death. There is even support for slavery in the NT. – Bible slavery was voluntary servanthood
By the way, the NT is meaningless as a story of Jesus fulfilling prophecy if the OT is not also true… well, at least according to the story. Your fav top ten commandments is right there next to Kill the queers, those who eat pork and shellfish, unruly kids, adulterers, and of course how to treat your slaves and from what people you are allowed to take slaves. In the NT Jesus directly supports the OT and all existing Jewish/OT laws. So along with all that we can look at the genocide, infanticide, and the rest and know that it belongs to Christianity. – Please direct me to where Jesus supports all existing Jewish/OT laws, I missed it when the Jewish leaders were angry with him for breaking the law (Lk 6)
The NT does not allow for Christians to be child raping, misogynistic, bigoted, charlatans either but that doesn’t seem to stop pastors and priests from having there orgasm in a child’s ass, or stealing money from old people who can’t afford it, or even from beating their daughters when they don’t wear the right clothes. – assuming that their actions are consistent with Christianity you would have a point, so show me how they are
ethnicmuse, if you don’t have a good argument (and you don’t) what is your goal here. Simply to poke and goad and troll? – So how exactly are you going to educate fundies if a fundy isn’t allowed into your blogs? Is questioning logic trolling?
You are not defending your position in the least and your ‘kind offers’ to show evidence or what not are nothing but endless trolling. – well that’s your definition, however you are now accountable for all the supposed non-evidence I have posted (which is one point of being on this blog)
The kind of trolling that an eighth grader could do better at than you have shown so far. Clearly you do not like the idea that religious fundamentalism can lead to terrorism, even among Christians. You claim it is not true and that no true Christian would be a terrorist. Still, you have used nothing but bad and fallacious argument and offered no valid support for your position. If you want to sit at the big person table, you have to be able to use big person arguments, so we’ll see you in a few years when you’ve grown up. Bye bye now. – parental condescendence again, is this acceptable Jonny?
Yet oddly, when presented with a possible Biblically based rationalisation for terrorism, you then asked “why would they?”
Please make your mind up.
Reblogged this on Donald Miller's and commented:
Another brave person takes a stand against the enemies of freedom.
Brave: ready to face and endure danger or pain; showing courage.
Yup, I would imagine that blogging is really brave for atheists.
Blogging is only one means of resisting you people, by any means necessary. I hope I have made myself clear to you.
I want to make it very clear to you that I am speaking for myself, and not Jonny. I do not wish to put words in his mouth, or to imply that his venue is the proper place for an unseemly confrontation. On the other hand, I have my personal blog, and if you want to get into an ugly confrontation, I’m more than willing to either ignore you or to take you on, there. Not here.
No you haven’t Mr. Miller. I would love to hear your other methods as well as how blogging resists the advance of Christianity, religion, terrorism or irrationality. I would also like to understand how blogging could be brave. I do however, like your condescending parental tone (“I hope I have made myself clear to you”), quite in keeping with being “bright.”
I think we’re probably done here. You and I are enemies. I hope we can agree on that.
I want to make it very clear to you that I am speaking for myself, and not Jonny. – I would have assumed so.
I do not wish to put words in his mouth, or to imply that his venue is the proper place for an unseemly confrontation. – why would it be unseemly or confrontational. Are you here to cheer or to discuss? Do you not value other opinions?
On the other hand, I have my personal blog, and if you want to get into an ugly confrontation, I’m more than willing to either ignore you or to take you on, there. Not here. – I don’t care to have an “ugly confrontation” with you or have you ‘take me on.’ That would be bad for you seeing as I am of an irrational people.
Okay. Truce. We seem to be talking past one another. You and I are probably coming here with some wounds that neither of us know anything about. I don’t know what irrational people you’re talking about, but I read on your blog that you are an engineering student. There’s nothing irrational in that. Indeed, it’s quite impressive.
Okay. Truce. We seem to be talking past one another. – Sadly I seem to do alot of that
You and I are probably coming here with some wounds that neither of us know anything about. I don’t know what irrational people you’re talking about, but I read on your blog that you are an engineering student. There’s nothing irrational in that. Indeed, it’s quite impressive. – Thanks but here engineers are slaves to management and underpaid.
If you are an enemy of rational discourse so be it.
ethnicmuse – you put me in a difficult position. On the one hand, you are one of the first people to come to my blog and consistently offer counterarguments to the opinions presented. I have said that I want to encourage discussion and free speech on my blog, so I welcome your dissenting voice.
On the other hand, you are rude. You were rude to me, and you have displayed subsequent rudeness and a sarcastic tone with the other guests on my blog. “If you are an enemy of rational discourse so be it” is rude. “That would be bad for you seeing as I am of an irrational people,” is sarcastic, and uncalled for.
Your defence of your rudeness was that you considered my comments on fundamentalism to be rude. Firstly, even if I had behaved badly, two wrongs would not make a right. Second, I was critical of an idea. You were rude to people. There is a world of difference.
So I have half a mind to ban you. I insist that you remain polite in future, or I will subject you to moderation, and may not allow your comments at all.
Responding in full to your avalanche of objections would take a long time, so I am grateful to my regular commenters (and new ones) who have contributed so much to this discussion.
There are a few points I would like to make, and I will post them as a separate blog entry and link to it here.
ethnicmuse – you put me in a difficult position. On the one hand, you are one of the first people to come to my blog and consistently offer counterarguments to the opinions presented. – That’s a shame
I have said that I want to encourage discussion and free speech on my blog, so I welcome your dissenting voice.
On the other hand, you are rude. You were rude to me, and you have displayed subsequent rudeness and a sarcastic tone with the other guests on my blog. “If you are an enemy of rational discourse so be it” is rude. “That would be bad for you seeing as I am of an irrational people,” is sarcastic, and uncalled for. – Christians aren’t called to be verbal pushovers and accommodators of irrationalism. Neither are atheists.
Your defence of your rudeness was that you considered my comments on fundamentalism to be rude. Firstly, even if I had behaved badly, two wrongs would not make a right. Second, I was critical of an idea. You were rude to people. There is a world of difference. – I strongly disagree, just because you lump the people does not make it an “idea.” You stated that fundamentalism (and thus implicitly fundamentalists) disables logical reasoning. That’s a broadside and worse that any personal rudeness on my part. Indeed there is quite a world of difference.
So I have half a mind to ban you. I insist that you remain polite in future, or I will subject you to moderation, and may not allow your comments at all. – If you still cannot see that you have blatantly and consistently smeared millions of people and not some remote ‘idea,’ I will part ways so you can continue the anti-theistic smearing.
It doesn’t matter a jot whether the ultimate cause is religious or not. No one, not I nor Jonny, has made the claim that that it has to be. All that’s needed is for it to be rationalised by an appeal to religion. – Since no one thinks otherwise, why then only slight Christian fundies for that which anyone can participate? Again, one can similarly slight atheists but have you done so on this blog? Has anyone?
I grew up with weekly, sometimes daily, news stories of people being attacked and all too often killed for walking down the wrong road in Belfast whilst being guilty of being a ‘proddie’ or a ‘papist’. I’ve since met people who grew up their and had it confirmed first hand. Scottish football hooligans used the same division-line. Those in charge may have been more concerned with non-religious matters, but to the person on the street the dividing line was religion first and foremost. – Anyone can abuse religion, the thesis being bandied about however, is that fundy theology facilitates terrorism by its propensity to diminish logic, so once again, kindly point to the codified theological statements from the 17th century (when the conflict started) which validates their terrorism. And just because the man on the Belfast street thinks the major source is religion doesn’t mean the real reason is religion. Logic demands more than an argumentum ad sample-um which you would know because you are NOT an irrational religionist.
The Right, which are by nature given to religious totalitarianism (or at least in using it to their advantage), rely on two principles of discourse with the Left. One is that the Left is by nature, and definition, nonviolent and fair-minded. The other is that they can use these characteristics to our detriment, which is why they use the double-standard of having Rush Limbaugh and the Fox News Propaganda Network as their front, while expecting us to be civilized. They take this to be a sign of weakness.
I sincerely hope that you do not let them soften your brave and accurate portrayal of the dangers they present to democracy in the US and globally.
I had entered a much larger post, it has gone for some reason? The shorter version is, a single case of Christian terrorism falsifies the claims of ethicmuse.
One. The Gunpowder Plot
Two. The NLFT who has an explicit “manifesto says that they want to expand what they describe as the kingdom of God and Christ in Tripura”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/717775.stm
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10576100701611288#preview
That’s one more than needed, but lets chuck in the Ku Klux Klan and Anders Behring Breivik for good measure.
I have weighed in again here: https://leavingfundamentalism.wordpress.com/2012/06/23/jesus-jihad-part-2/
Thank you so much to everyone who has contributed such an intelligent level to the debate. I’m proud to have this standard of comment on my blog.
I apologise to everyone for not insisting that ethnicmuse improve his manners sooner. I hope you won’t be discouraged from commenting.
Thanks to Daz for a stimulating conversation. May truth find those who thirst for it.
By the way, ethnicmuse. When quoting someone:
<blockquote>Quoted text goes here</blockquote>
This is interesting. As a Christian I understood everything ethnicmuse was saying, and I can understand how frustrating it must have been that no matter how many times he tried to explain, it was not understood. I have found that people who see the Bible as only a history book, or a book simply written by men, never understand the purpose of the Old Testament and how it relates to the New Testament. I have explained it before until I was blue in the face and only got the same results as ethnicmuse. The only people who seem to get it are people interested inbecoming a Christian, and then for some reason they suddenly get it! And if they are not Christian, they never seem to get it. Interesting perplexity.
Thanks for commenting.
Personally, I was an passionate, faith-filled Christian until I was 20, and it all “made sense” to me then, too. Then, once I started examining them, I realised that all my defences of my faith were internally inconsistent, illogical, or based on evidence that wasn’t true.
I’m not saying there are no good defences of faith. You might well know something I didn’t. But I haven’t encountered a good one yet. I would say, at risk of sounding patronising, that ethnicmuse’s arguments allowed faith to get in the way of clear thinking.
Here is an example of what I mean. Can you explain to me how the God of the O.T., with all the people he sentenced to die, is the same God of the N.T. of which it is said, God is love? They are the same God and both is true. Can you explain it? If you can, then you understand. If you can’t I will attempt to explain as concise as I can “if you want me too”. If you’re not interested I’ll just go away.
I’m kind of interested, but I suspect that there are many essential presuppositions that you hold and I have already rejected. I’m curious to know how you rationalise it, and I will read it with an open mind, but I think it’s unlikely we’re going to come to an agreement.
That has been my experience, but I don’t mind trying. First, I suppose we both agree we cannot “prove” if there is, or is not, a God, or fallen angel called Satan. Since we cannot prove either way, we both understand that a Christian is someone who does believe in those two beings. That being understood, if there is a God we understand that he created all things not only with physical laws, such as gravity, but also spiritual laws. Now to keep this short, God WILL NOT violate spiritual law. If he does he has SINNED and Satan has just won! Therefore, since righteous law MUST be upheld, God becomes the judge. One of the purposes of the O.T. is to show us that God will judge without hesitation and without mercy. There is no GRACE in the 10 Commandments. He shows us over and over again that he will uphold righteous law. A lot of the Children of Israel died the very day Moses first brought those laws down out of the mountain. The O.T. is all about righteous judgement that God will uphold, for he will not be led into sin. What most people interpret to be a cruel and vengeful God, is simply a holy Creator upholding righteous judgement, and the O.T. proves he will judge beyond any shadow of a doubt.
However, that same God was willing to lay down his life for us, when he took on flesh as the Christ. God created a “LEGAL” way for man to be saved. It MUST satisfy righteous law. That is one reason there are not “many” ways to God. It must be spiritually LEGAL, and God paid a very high price to make that way. The Bible says there is no greater love than that a man will lay down his life to save someone. So..O.T. judgement without Christ, or N.T. grace in Christ. They both support each other perfectly. They are both true. They are both the same God. The only difference is which path we have personally chosen. It is the same God, but two paths, or two very different “conditions” that we come to him in. God does love us, but he will uphold righteous law. That is what being a holy God does.
If God sinned, I suppose the whole universe might begin to unravel. So…that is how the O.T. God and N.T. God of love is one and the same. Assuming there is a God to begin with. I never said I could prove that, I only said I could explain how the two very different perspectives of God actually makes perfect sense, and are one and the same.
The wages of sin is death. That is a spiritual LAW. If God disregards that law, he is in sin. Our sins MUST be paid for. Some people think Budha has the way, or whoever, but if that way does not meet the standard of righteous law, God will have no choice but to give righteous judgement. The wages of sin is death.
I’m not asking you to agree with the teaching, but do you see how, (if the Bible is true), then it is perfectly logical and in complete agreement with itself? It is as logical as math. We became a negative. God provided a positive in Christ to bring us back to a zero state, clean slate, that we might be righteous again, in Christ.
The O.T. is actually supposed to “convince us” of our need for the N.T. They work as a team to get us where we need to be, so we are ready when we die.
Hope I’m not sounding like I’m trying to be a know-it-all, because that is not what I intend. It’s just that so many people wrestle with those two versions of God, but they are one, and they perfectly support each other. No contradiction.
Believe it or not, I’m headed to bed now, so I won’t be able to respond more until tomorrow. If you have no further questions, I will say no more. Thanks for giving me a chance to explain. And, oh, by the way! I’ve only heard one of your songs, but I did enjoy it. You got talent.
Thanks cowboy. You explained that well.
That’s exactly what I used to believe. And now I don’t. I won’t try to convert you.
I can respect that. Honesty is still the best policy. I have enjoyed my visit to your site.
Better yet and much simpler, what on your prior fundamentalism is:
1. A ‘testament’ and its theological applicability &
2. The reason for the partition of the OT & NT and who are each applicable to & why?
To be blunt, basically you’re saying that it only seems true when you want to believe it is true, when you stop looking at the facts and asking questions, then it make sense.
No, I’m saying what he said did make sense and you do not see it.
“Make sense” is a statement about logic. For logic to mean anything about the universe we actually inhabit, it needs to have evidential grounding.
It all depends on the culture, regardless of what kind of scripture they follow, it’s something that is deeply ingrained in their psyche to want to go as far as taking lives through use of explosives, or a hatchet to the neck or dropping rocks on each other’s heads…ofcourse, you place a scriptural book that is choc-full of ambiguity under a volatile thinking person’s nose then one is asking for trouble.
st paul writes as inspired in the holy spirit, “as far as it is possible with u try to be at peace with all mankind” in any version the meaning to this verse in st pauls epistles mean the same so don’t argue what this verse means.
we say JESUS Christ is of peace, and for the most part he is; he said to forgive 70 x7 = 490 times what is one to do at the 491st time not that any rational person would count up to 490 times of forgiveness.
No matter what culture one comes from, jesus and st paul should mean the same thing. so culture has nil effect on the outcome of jesus and pauls teachings vs the different versions of scriptures one follows.
Pingback: Weekly Roundup #2 | Skeptical Monsters
Pingback: Links 6/26/12 | Mike the Mad Biologist
Pingback: War and Culture War « I Love You but You're Going to Hell
Pingback: Perfect Hypocrisy : Know Your Scripture, Wench! « Darc Xed : Louder Than Noise
Pingback: religion: the art of language? « power of language blog: partnering with reality by JR Fibonacci