God's Terrorism?

[Andy Bowden]

I was wondering the other day, about the various plagues and punishments God struck the Egyptians with - the one that stuck out was his killing of every first-born Egyptian male.

How is it Christians can condemn Islamic terrorism when they believe in and support this action in the Old Testament? Has the Catholic church renounced any of the old testament BTW?

[Ownthink]

Holy shit, every religious argument I've had in the past 2 weeks is showing up on this board. But alas, on to the argument...

Yes, "God" (that asshole) destroyed entire cities (Sodom and Gemhorra), just because they fucked in a different way than white Christians. Yeah, really sounds like a guy (entity) I want to admire. Not.

"God struck the Egyptians with - the one that stuck out was his killing of every first-born Egyptian male."

Yes, it (God, as it exists in the mind of Christians, is not a person... it is an it.) is an asshole.

Edited for HTML errors. I don&#39;t think this board supports <STRIKE> xxx </STRIKE>

[TheKingOfMercy]

Well that was intellectual Ownthink...


Yes, "God" (that asshole) destroyed entire cities (Sodom and Gemhorra), just because they fucked in a different way than white Christians. Yeah, really sounds like a guy (entity) I want to admire. Not.

I was under the impression that all early christians were from the middle-eastern area of the world, unless I&#39;ve got my ancient history wrong. There are outdated bits in the bible yes, but you must remember that these reflected things about when they were written, not how &#39;god&#39; is an &#39;asshole&#39; as you so eloquently put it.



How is it Christians can condemn Islamic terrorism when they believe in and support this action in the Old Testament? Has the Catholic church renounced any of the old testament BTW?

A lot of religious types ignore most of the less hand-wringingly liberal parts of the bible, as they don&#39;t suit current social trends. Christians, and anyone with half a braincell, condems islamic terrorism, not because of Islam, but because it is a really poor way of getting things done.

[redstar2000]

As I understand it, the "general principle" in Christian theology is that the Old Testament prevails except where the New Testament directly contradicts/repudiates it.

Execution by stoning to death, for example, is endorsed by the OT...but Christians specifically reject it on the basis of the "woman taken in adultery" incident in the NT.

There is nothing in the NT that repudiates the destruction of entire cities -- as portrayed in the OT -- therefore the use of nuclear weapons against non-Christians is perfectly acceptable.

Likewise, the bio-terrorism of the "Lord" against the Egyptians is never criticized in the NT -- and thus is acceptable to Christians, if used against non-Christians.

Weaponry that go completely unmentioned in either the OT or the NT are problematic. When the crossbow was invented, contemporary popes denounced it as "a weapon of the devil"...but endorsed its use against heathens.

Christians try very hard to portray their faith as one of "love" and a distinct improvement over the "harsh" Mosaic "Law".

But that&#39;s not really true.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[violencia.Proletariat]

this is interesting for use in an arguement. since i never went to church or cared to look it up, what is the biological warfare that god used?

[CrazyModerate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 05:24 PM
As I understand it, the "general principle" in Christian theology is that the Old Testament prevails except where the New Testament directly contradicts/repudiates it.

Execution by stoning to death, for example, is endorsed by the OT...but Christians specifically reject it on the basis of the "woman taken in adultery" incident in the NT.

There is nothing in the NT that repudiates the destruction of entire cities -- as portrayed in the OT -- therefore the use of nuclear weapons against non-Christians is perfectly acceptable.

Likewise, the bio-terrorism of the "Lord" against the Egyptians is never criticized in the NT -- and thus is acceptable to Christians, if used against non-Christians.

Weaponry that go completely unmentioned in either the OT or the NT are problematic. When the crossbow was invented, contemporary popes denounced it as "a weapon of the devil"...but endorsed its use against heathens.

Christians try very hard to portray their faith as one of "love" and a distinct improvement over the "harsh" Mosaic "Law".

But that&#39;s not really true.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif
Your as big headed as Hitler and Stalin. A person&#39;s religion or intrepretation of religion isn&#39;t based on what you think it is. A person is capable of forcefully rejecting the harsh aspects of christianity and only accepting the positive aspects. But you are a pig headed "redTSAR" and cannot see that.

[chaval]

There is nothing in the NT that repudiates the destruction of entire cities -- as portrayed in the OT -- therefore the use of nuclear weapons against non-Christians is perfectly acceptable.



Likewise, the bio-terrorism of the "Lord" against the Egyptians is never criticized in the NT -- and thus is acceptable to Christians, if used against non-Christians.

wahhh?&#33;?&#33;?&#33; cancelled. absolutely wrong. the new testament was basically about jesus. and waht did jesus say? love thy neighbour, respect, do not kill etc etc. if you remove all the religious things he said about praying etc i dont see how anyone could argue agaisnt what he said, after all its all about being nice to others. so if you must be a really freat guy and make peace not war, wouldnt taht entirely contradict destroying cities.

as far as the whole moses deal goes, firslty iof we accept the story to be true, i think the egyptians basically got what they deserved. they had the isrealites as there slaves (and no one likes to be a slave) then they kept getting warnings and being told to let them go but alas they ignored them. then god started to punish them by like causeing an eclipse and sending swarms of locusts etc etc but they still want to keep their slaves so god says and i quote "fuck this shit man, i&#39;m gonna fuck these mutherfuckers" and he smote them well by killing their sons. but still the egyptians chased after the jews as they made their daring escape across the red sea then they all got just punishment for it so fair is fair.

so humans cant use bioterrorism cause its a sin against someone else. God wasn&#39;t really unjust in the story and goddamit sometimes the bad guys need to get their ass smote once in a while. also the new testament doesnt specifically have to reject the old testament. it doesnt need to say "DON&#39;T destroy cities like it says in the OT" it assumes that people are smart enough to deduce that on their own.

[Ownthink]

Oh, I&#39;m sorry. They fucked in a different way than their dark-skinned peers. Doesn&#39;t make it okay, "God" is still a fuckjob.


A person is capable of forcefully rejecting the harsh aspects of christianity and only accepting the positive aspects.
I liked the part of Mein Kampf that said under Nazi rule things would be better, but I hated that whole "kill the Jews" thing. Gee, ain&#39;t picking and choosing great?

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 01:40 PM
Your as big headed as Hitler and Stalin. A person&#39;s religion or intrepretation of religion isn&#39;t based on what you think it is.
Sure, RS is making generalizations but the title "Christian," IS a self-imposed generalization.

As far as contemporary people claiming this title, what RS has said is generally true. Though people do regularly pick and chose; not for any altruistic reason but simply for the convenience of ideological justification.


A person is capable of forcefully rejecting the harsh aspects of Christianity and only accepting the positive aspects. But you are a pig headed "redTSAR" and cannot see that.

I can understand your frustration with RS&#39; attitude but for the most part here, he is right.

This seems like the only reasonable way to interpret these texts together, if you are looking at the Christian worldview.

Picking beliefs is a widely accepted practice but is there any logic in this practice or is it completely inane? What if I chose to believe I am invincible or THE son of god?

[chaval]

oh and islamic terrorism goes against the quran. the quran specifically says to respect "the people of the book" meaning jews and christians because "their God and our God is one". these are real quote by the way. jews and christians are the "Ahl al-kitab" and ahould be respected by muslims because they are all decendents of abraham like muslims.

UNITY UNITY UNITY

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 03:01 PM
oh and islamic terrorism goes against the quran. the quran specifically says to respect "the people of the book" meaning jews and christians because "their God and our God is one". these are real quote by the way. jews and christians are the "Ahl al-kitab" and ahould be respected by muslims because they are all decendents of abraham like muslims.

UNITY UNITY UNITY
So just kill the heathens? By the reasoning of the Abrahamic religions, we are ALL children of god but I suppose some dude named Abraham has great significance compared to god.

So the message is: unite with people of Abraham because our bloodline originates from him just as EVERYONE is originated from god?

Any reason for this inane distinction or just an an ideological excuse to attack "the heathens?"

[chaval]

what are you talking about, who the hell is talking about attacking the heathens? i didnt say that at all. you totally took my post on a tangent. i was talking about how intereligious wars are against the teachings of their books
who the hell said anything about "the heathens" as you say? and as far as that goes, i dont know enough about islam to say what they say on that but i know christianity says killing "heathens" is not muy bueno

[redstar2000]

A most amusing collection of "foaming at the mouth" posts...


Originally posted by CrazyModerate+--> (CrazyModerate)A person is capable of forcefully rejecting the harsh aspects of Christianity and only accepting the positive aspects.[/b]

Yes, it&#39;s called "cherry-picking".

But serious Christians believe that you will "burn in Hell" for it.

And they&#39;ll burn you here on earth if they ever think they can get away with it again.


Originally posted by [email protected]
So if you must be a really great guy and make peace not war, wouldn&#39;t that entirely contradict destroying cities.

No, because "Jesus" never explicitly said "don&#39;t destroy cities". As I explained in my previous post, anything in the OT that is not explicitly repudiated in the NT is "ok"...that&#39;s standard Christian doctrine.

When Harry Truman dropped nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, did his Christian church kick him out for being a sinner and an enemy of "Jesus"?

Of course not.


I think the Egyptians basically got what they deserved.

Scratch a Christian and find a bloody-minded murderer...that "love" stuff is very thin.

Egypt, you will recall, was an absolute despotism -- it was Pharaoh who decided these matters...not the average Egyptian.

But the "Lord" killed the first-born son of every Egyptian.

And the story actually gets worse the more you look into it. You see, it wasn&#39;t simply a matter of Pharaoh being a "hard-hearted bastard"...Exodus says explicitly that "the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh".

Pharaoh&#39;s "free will" was taken from him in order to set up the conditions that would "justify" bio-terrorism by the "Lord".

The whole story is mythological, of course -- the Hebrews were never "slaves in Egypt", Moses did not exist, etc.

But what hideous mythology&#33;

And one that pious Jews still celebrate and pious Christians consider the literal truth and "an act of righteousness".

(Please note that not even the most rabid critics of Joesph Stalin have ever accused him of murdering the first-born sons of all the Russians.)


chaval
Oh and Islamic terrorism goes against the Quran.

No it doesn&#39;t. Islam really began as a "warrior religion" and that attitude is found throughout the Quran.

Along with considerable yap about "peace and love", of course.

Actual behavior suggests that Muslims are probably just as willing and eager to slaughter the unbelievers as Christians...although we&#39;re still waiting for the Muslims to use a nuke.

------------------------------

And now a sincere reply to all those of you who preferred insulting me to rational argument...

http://www.morethanwords.it/studenti/calshop/devil41.gif

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 05:01 PM
what are you talking about, who the hell is talking about attacking the heathens?
Sorry; I suppose I should have connected the dots more.

You said respect those of the Abrahamic religion and unite with them; so my question is: what of everyone else?


i didnt say that at all. you totally took my post on a tangent. i was talking about how intereligious wars are against the teachings of their books

I did partially but I was trying to build off of your sentiment and spur discussion.
My point is that the wars against non-Abrahamic people also occur and you left them out; why? By leaving them out; you imply that they shouldn&#39;t be respected and that leaves them open to attack...


who the hell said anything about "the heathens" as you say?

I think I have explained that in this post now but sorry to confuse you.


and as far as that goes, i dont know enough about islam to say what they say on that but i know christianity says killing "heathens" is not muy bueno

I think the Koran as well as the Old Testament has many accounts of "God&#39;s people" killing those assumed to be not "God&#39;s people." The New Testament may not but I don&#39;t know for certain.

[chaval]

to 313c7 iVi4RX, yes the OT contains writings about killing "non-believers" but the new testament does not and puts that aside to embrace an attitude of peace. it must be understood that much of this writing (OT, Quran) was written by people who lived in a time where war was basically a necessity. if someone raises a swrod agaisnt you raise it back sort of thing (i only know of the NT that rejects this for example jesus says to peter he who lives by the sword dies by the sword

redstaris right about the cherrypicking and the church explicilty warns against this religion of "reletavism" and it says you cant just do whatever you find most adaptable to you ie you cant do everything catholics do but decide to exempt yourself from the abortion rule because its more convenient for you to do so:you cant do things have assed)

enough with the "burn in hell". any learned catholic will tell you that god alone can judge and we dont know how he judges. i once heard a sermon from the archbishop where he said that you basically have to try to go to hell to end up there because people tend to be good natured and in the end, the good outweighs the bad. the modern church is not the church of the medieval inquisition.

redstar to your second point, what christian church has that doctrine? love thy neighbour is a direct contradiction of blow up the neighbour. i already adresssed the fact taht it these things can clearly be deduced from the NT.

about the egyptian thing, i think its kinda pointless to argue about it. the OT says lots of wierd shit. i have yet to read anything in the NT that is fucked up and to me , thats what counts im in a huge rush now though so ciao

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by chaval+--> (chaval)The modern church is not the church of the medieval inquisition.[/b]

Because they&#39;ve "reformed"...or because they can&#39;t get away with it in present circumstances?

What would they do if they could get away with it?

Ustashe (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Ustashe)

That&#39;s only a little more than 50 years ago...not exactly "medieval", eh?


I have yet to read anything in the NT that is fucked up and to me, that&#39;s what counts...

Always happy to oblige...


Revelations
19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

19:12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

19:14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

As you know, Revelations is quite fashionable these days. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Ownthink]

^ Thanks much for those quotes, Comrade, as it does show how flawed and stupid that book really is. Thanks much.

[praxis1966]

Thanks for the link, RS. Highly informative. A couple of my favorite parts:

For the whole duration of the war, the Vatican kept up full diplomatic relations with the Ustaša state, with its papal nuncio in the capital Zagreb. The nuncio was briefed on the efforts of religious conversions to Catholicism, without recognizing the fact these conversions were often forced and part of the pogrom.
It is also claimed that the Ustaša regime had kept 350 million Swiss Francs in gold which it had plundered from Serbian and Jewish property owners during WW II. About 150 million was seized by British troops, however the remaining 200 million reached the Vatican and is allegedly still being kept in the Vatican Bank. The issue was the theme of a class action lawsuit in a California court of law which declined the case claiming a lack of jurisdiction, although some point to pressures from the Vatican.
What I find rather amusing is that the Christians responding here will defend the Church until their blue in the face, yet deny the ultimate irony of that article. The man who headed the Church during that time period was Pope Benedict XV. The current pope is a former member of the Hitler Youth who chose the papal name Benedict XVI. :lol:

[chaval]

In fact, the allegations are directly contradicted by the overwhelming historical evidence that has come to light since the collapse of Yugoslavia. The wealth of information that has emerged from the newly discovered archives in Moscow, Belgrade and Zagreb has been especially damaging to Tito’s communist regime. This is particularly true about Stepinac and the numerous lies propagated against him. Stepinac—along with many other Croats—did initially welcome the creation of the NDH. Yet Stepinac’s reasons were similar to those of many of his fellow countrymen: It was not a fascist state that he welcomed, but the end of Croatia’s subjugation under Serb-dominated Yugoslavia. http://www.lijepanasadomovinahrvatska.com/...ceng_100505.htm (http://www.lijepanasadomovinahrvatska.com/folder/arapoviceng_100505.htm)

he is quoted as saying:
“Each nation and each race has the right to life and treatment worthy of man,” he said. “This is why the Catholic Church has always condemned, and is today condemning the injustice and acts of violence committed in the name of theories of class, race and nation.”

hmmm sounds to me like things are twisted. about this, i do know that its all mostly propaganda by tito cause the bishop was his #1 enemy and the church has never supported the totalitarian communist states. i do not doubt that terrible things were done by clergy members but cruel and evil people will always exist everywhere and anywhere. it is a sad fact i.e. the child molestation scandals too

as to the quotes of REVELATIONS: the book of revelations (as the title implies) are the revelations given to john in which he sees the end of the world. the antichrist comes, great evil armies converge from the modern islamic states around israel and surround jerusalem. thats when god&#39;s army decends and destroys the antichrist&#39;s army to restore peace once and for all....sounds pretty good to me. why shouldnt the armies of satan be defeated? this imagery of christian warriors you create redstar is skewed. this warrior is coming to destroy the antichrist...i support that...why wouldnt you?

also the book is one of the hardest ones to understand because of its ridiculously heavy metaphors and symbols. these things are always easy to misinterpret.

a final question to redstar: i understand hwo you can be against the church, but are you against the overall teachings of jesus?

praxis you obviously have no f-ing clue why he chose the same name.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 06:15 PM
to 313c7 iVi4RX, yes the OT contains writings about killing "non-believers" but the new testament does not and puts that aside to embrace an attitude of peace.
So you are saying the writing in the OT doesn&#39;t count?


it must be understood that much of this writing (OT, Quran) was written by people who lived in a time where war was basically a necessity. if someone raises a swrod agaisnt you raise it back sort of thing

That isn&#39;t war; self defense isn&#39;t war. They may overlap but it isn&#39;t that simple.
What has changed? Are we now supposed to turn the other cheek to the sword?


(i only know of the NT that rejects this for example jesus says to peter he who lives by the sword dies by the sword

There you go: "living by the sword" is very different then defending oneself.


redstaris right about the cherrypicking and the church explicilty warns against this religion of "reletavism" and it says you cant just do whatever you find most adaptable to you

The church? A specific church? The church of man? Can you give an example of a church that doesn&#39;t pick and chose? Not just what they claim but what they practice.


ie you cant do everything catholics do but decide to exempt yourself from the abortion rule because its more convenient for you to do so:you cant do things have assed)

So you are saying people must adhere to a specific set of dogmas? Catholic dogmas have changed drastically you know.


enough with the "burn in hell". any learned catholic will tell you that god alone can judge and we dont know how he judges.

I could tell you that, back when I was a theist or now: "judge not lest ye be judged."
One of the lines I like to throw at self-righteous hypocritical Christians.


i once heard a sermon from the archbishop where he said that you basically have to try to go to hell to end up there because people tend to be good natured and in the end, the good outweighs the bad. the modern church is not the church of the medieval inquisition.

So where is the evidence for that? The idea is that only god knows about judgment, so that is in conflict.

[chaval]

in answer to above

1) in this case, probably not

2) hmmm its all relative so yes and no. sometimes the marytre way of jesus is best. but other times when everyone else is in line to get fucked its best to fight back

3)catholic, dont know about the other ones

4) i know but it changes because all the leaders get together and say hmm maybe we had it wrong lets fix it (i.e. cooperate with other churches, not make war on them) reletavism is when people make up their own religions using this and that and neglecting that and this while still claiming to be part of whatever religion theyve bastardized

5) true, we can only ponder but if we are to believe that god is rightous and just as jesus and the prophets taught, then it wouldnt make sense for everyone except a select few (ie only catholics) to get into heaven. and no the church does not say you will go to hell if you arent part of their religion. i dont think there is anything that pisses me off more than when people say that cause they haveent done their research. argh&#33;

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by chavel
...but are you against the overall teachings of Jesus?

Totally&#33; :angry:

He was an obnoxious asshole.


And no, the church does not say you will go to hell if you aren&#39;t part of their religion.


Q.509. Are all bound to belong to the Church?

A. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it cannot be saved.

Baltimore Catechism -- Part III, Lesson 11 (http://www.catholic.net/teaching_the_faith/template_article.phtml?channel_id=14&article_id=794)

To be fair, there is a small "escape clause"...


Q.510. Is it ever possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to be the true Church?

A. It is possible for one to be saved who does not know the Catholic Church to
be the true Church, provided that person:

1. (1) Has been validly baptized;

2. (2) Firmly believes the religion he professes and practices to be the true religion, and

3. (3) Dies without the guilt of mortal sin on his soul.

This would allow for other Christians -- and any other religion that practices baptism -- to possibly make it into "Heaven".

Everyone else is "going to Hell".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[praxis1966]

praxis you obviously have no f-ing clue why he chose the same name.
I know exactly why he chose that name, because he&#39;s a jack-booted Nazi bastard in a funny hat just like Benedict XV. In any case, here&#39;s why the Catholic Church is so great. This is your beloved Pope in all his glory.