Hindus Fleeing the Taliban

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
You know, there are many instances in The Bible where genocide of nonbelievers, other races, and transgressors is encouraged just as vehemently.

If you are trying to assert that all real Muslims are violent and biggoted, then you better not be calling yourself a Christian either, because if you apply your definition of “real Muslim” to Christianity, you’re either just as bad as those Muslims you are criticizing, or you aren’t a “real Christian”.[/quote]

Wow, Stronghold, no one’s ever made that point before. That would certainly explain the Christians from here to Outer Mongolia blowing themselves up in crowded marketplaces whilst yelling, “YHWH Akbar!” wouldn’t it? After all, Jesus clearly mandates warfare against unbelievers.

Hmmmm…high time I put down my keyboard and found myself some explosives. Thanks!

42

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
You know, there are many instances in The Bible where genocide of nonbelievers, other races, and transgressors is encouraged just as vehemently.

If you are trying to assert that all real Muslims are violent and biggoted, then you better not be calling yourself a Christian either, because if you apply your definition of “real Muslim” to Christianity, you’re either just as bad as those Muslims you are criticizing, or you aren’t a “real Christian”.

Wow, Stronghold, no one’s ever made that point before. That would certainly explain the Christians from here to Outer Mongolia blowing themselves up in crowded marketplaces whilst yelling, “YHWH Akbar!” wouldn’t it? After all, Jesus clearly mandates warfare against unbelievers.

Hmmmm…high time I put down my keyboard and found myself some explosives. Thanks![/quote]

You could talk about the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, forced conversion of Native Americans, abortion clinic firebombings, or racial violence. But that wasn’t my point.

My point was that if you are going to use the writings in a holy book implicate all believers in the crimes of radicals, then you should at least be consistent between religions.

Of course this is logic and rational thinking, and that is a bastion of liberal corruption…right, PRC?

43

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
You know, there are many instances in The Bible where genocide of nonbelievers, other races, and transgressors is encouraged just as vehemently.

If you are trying to assert that all real Muslims are violent and biggoted, then you better not be calling yourself a Christian either, because if you apply your definition of “real Muslim” to Christianity, you’re either just as bad as those Muslims you are criticizing, or you aren’t a “real Christian”.

Wow, Stronghold, no one’s ever made that point before. That would certainly explain the Christians from here to Outer Mongolia blowing themselves up in crowded marketplaces whilst yelling, “YHWH Akbar!” wouldn’t it? After all, Jesus clearly mandates warfare against unbelievers.

Hmmmm…high time I put down my keyboard and found myself some explosives. Thanks!

You could talk about the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, forced conversion of Native Americans, abortion clinic firebombings, or racial violence. But that wasn’t my point.

My point was that if you are going to use the writings in a holy book implicate all believers in the crimes of radicals, then you should at least be consistent between religions.

Of course this is logic and rational thinking, and that is a bastion of liberal corruption…right, PRC?[/quote]

I’m not quite sure. Which of Jesus’ military expeditions were you referring to?

44

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
You know, there are many instances in The Bible where genocide of nonbelievers, other races, and transgressors is encouraged just as vehemently.

If you are trying to assert that all real Muslims are violent and biggoted, then you better not be calling yourself a Christian either, because if you apply your definition of “real Muslim” to Christianity, you’re either just as bad as those Muslims you are criticizing, or you aren’t a “real Christian”.

Wow, Stronghold, no one’s ever made that point before. That would certainly explain the Christians from here to Outer Mongolia blowing themselves up in crowded marketplaces whilst yelling, “YHWH Akbar!” wouldn’t it? After all, Jesus clearly mandates warfare against unbelievers.

Hmmmm…high time I put down my keyboard and found myself some explosives. Thanks!

You could talk about the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, forced conversion of Native Americans, abortion clinic firebombings, or racial violence. But that wasn’t my point.

My point was that if you are going to use the writings in a holy book implicate all believers in the crimes of radicals, then you should at least be consistent between religions.

Of course this is logic and rational thinking, and that is a bastion of liberal corruption…right, PRC?

I’m not quite sure. Which of Jesus’ military expeditions were you referring to? [/quote]

I’m talking about the first half of the Christian holy book. You’re not suggesting that we can ignore certain directives in the first half of The Bible as we see fit, are you?

According to your definition earlier in this thread, that would make you a “Fake Christian”.

45

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
I’m talking about the first half of the Christian holy book. You’re not suggesting that we can ignore certain directives in the first half of The Bible as we see fit, are you?

According to your definition earlier in this thread, that would make you a “Fake Christian”.[/quote]

Perhaps you mean me? I stand by what you imply. There is no directive in the New Testament where God decrees we can jettison the barbarism in the Old Testament once we’ve found “civilization”.

I refrained from mentioning Christianity in this thread because it is about Muslim violence.

There should be no doubt that I would ever denounce one religion over any other, but Islam in particular is a religion that nurtures a culture of 14th century barbarism. Christianity and its atrocities has had its teeth and claws filed down by Western reason, Islam continues to hold on to Bronze Age myths as fact.

46

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
I can’t tell much difference between the ones who held our people hostage in an embassy, the ones who used a suicide bombers to kill Marines in Lebanon, the ones who used suicide bombers to kill Kenyans and the ones who…to take down the twin towers.
[/quote]

Well they do not know either whether their children die to catch Bin Laden, Hussein, end the poppy trade or to spread freedom and democracy.

Unlike them, you had a choice though.

And before you respond they were Saudis, you are in Iraq and Afghanistan.

47

If they didn’t want us to attack Afghanistan, they should not have had terrorist bases set up there. They should not have attacked America. Bin Laden’s own son knows this much.

Would you suggest we attack Saudi Arabia and turn all the muslims into Jihadists and create a massive holy war, or just stop supporting the Monarchy so the same kind of radicals in we have in Pakistan can take root on the pennsula?

48

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
I’m talking about the first half of the Christian holy book. You’re not suggesting that we can ignore certain directives in the first half of The Bible as we see fit, are you?

According to your definition earlier in this thread, that would make you a “Fake Christian”.

Perhaps you mean me? I stand by what you imply. There is no directive in the New Testament where God decrees we can jettison the barbarism in the Old Testament once we’ve found “civilization”.

I refrained from mentioning Christianity in this thread because it is about Muslim violence.

There should be no doubt that I would ever denounce one religion over any other, but Islam in particular is a religion that nurtures a culture of 14th century barbarism. Christianity and its atrocities has had its teeth and claws filed down by Western reason, Islam continues to hold on to Bronze Age myths as fact.[/quote]

I was just using that as an example since religiously sanctioned violence is not exclusive to Islam.

Many Western Muslims are like the modern Christians in that the barbarism of their faith has been tamed by modern civilization.

Remember though, 400 years ago, Christians were burning young women at the stake for being suspected of witchcraft, so in the year 2400, we can expect there to be Islamic televangelists and dancing singing vegetable Qur’an cartoons. :wink:

49

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
If they didn’t want us to attack Afghanistan, they should not have had terrorist bases set up there. They should not have attacked America. Bin Laden’s own son knows this much.

Would you suggest we attack Saudi Arabia and turn all the muslims into Jihadists and create a massive holy war, or just stop supporting the Monarchy so the same kind of radicals in we have in Pakistan can take root on the pennsula?[/quote]

“They” did not attack America and “they” did not harbor terrorists.

Some Pashtun tribesmen did and they were allied to the US. They would have handed them over.

Given your reasoning the 3000 killed in NY were more than legitimate targets because they had way more ways to influence their governments and they actual financed aggression against the Afghanians whereas 99,9999% of Afghanians did no such thing.

And that is Afghanistan. Why the Iraqis died is beyond me and most likely also beyond them.

They know who did it though and if they come for you in 10 or 20 years it will not be because they hate your freedom but because their whole family was killed to spread “freedom and democracy”.

Dont point out their BS while yours is used to build kill, maim and torture innocent people.

50

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
You know, there are many instances in The Bible where genocide of nonbelievers, other races, and transgressors is encouraged just as vehemently.

If you are trying to assert that all real Muslims are violent and biggoted, then you better not be calling yourself a Christian either, because if you apply your definition of “real Muslim” to Christianity, you’re either just as bad as those Muslims you are criticizing, or you aren’t a “real Christian”.

Wow, Stronghold, no one’s ever made that point before. That would certainly explain the Christians from here to Outer Mongolia blowing themselves up in crowded marketplaces whilst yelling, “YHWH Akbar!” wouldn’t it? After all, Jesus clearly mandates warfare against unbelievers.

Hmmmm…high time I put down my keyboard and found myself some explosives. Thanks!

You could talk about the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, forced conversion of Native Americans, abortion clinic firebombings, or racial violence. But that wasn’t my point.

My point was that if you are going to use the writings in a holy book implicate all believers in the crimes of radicals, then you should at least be consistent between religions.

Of course this is logic and rational thinking, and that is a bastion of liberal corruption…right, PRC?

I’m not quite sure. Which of Jesus’ military expeditions were you referring to?

I’m talking about the first half of the Christian holy book. You’re not suggesting that we can ignore certain directives in the first half of The Bible as we see fit, are you?

According to your definition earlier in this thread, that would make you a “Fake Christian”.[/quote]

No, we can’t ignore them. But we also have the 2nd Half, which Christians have traditionally viewed as the fulfillment of the 1st Half. For example, Christians don’t slaughter goats, lambs, and fatted calves at the Temple Mount any more because we believe Jesus was the fulfillment of those temple sacrifices. We don’t engage in holy war as Joshua did because we believe the conquest of Canaan was a type of the day of judgment. And we’re not Israelites.

But your point about all of the Catholics’ bad behavior is well taken, though. Even they have been relatively well-behaved over the past few centuries. I also don’t think Cortes and Charlemagne and all those other guys who did forcible conversions were using Christian religious texts to justify their actions. It was an effort to consolidate political power. I just can’t find where Jesus offers anyone the choice between conversion and death. He also didn’t lead an army. As he put it, “Am I leading a revolution, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me?” (Mark 14:48), or John 18:36, where Jesus says to Pontius Pilate, the Roman Procurator, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest. But my kingdom is from another place.”

That does not mean that Christians will not behave badly. They will. It’s just that the fact that Jesus was a peaceful person and said, “Love your neighbor, pray for those who persecute you,” takes a lot of wind out of the sails of Christians trying to say, “Let’s go kill those guys over there, Jesus would want it!” Ultimately, the claims in various religious texts can and do influence the behavior of those who subscribe to them. For example, we don’t see Richard Dawkins, an atheistic naturalist, running around promoting creationism or looking to the Bible for moral commands. We don’t see Hindus and Jews worshiping Jesus. No, we see Hindus doing Hindu stuff often based on their religious beliefs, Jews doing Jewy stuff based on the Torah and Talmud, Muslims acting based on the Qur’an and Sunnah, etc.

Some might argue that these texts can be made to say anything. Well, why can’t we say that about any text? Is, say, “Moby Dick” about Ahab and a white whale or is it about something completely different? If you say, “something completely different,” most people will demand textual evidence that that is the case, as “Moby Dick” is understood by the overwhelming majority of people to be about Ahab and a white whale. The same is true of religious texts. They have a consensus surrounding their meaning and a history of interpretation dating back for thousands of years, in some cases. This is true of the texts of every major religion I can think of.

51

[quote]There is no directive in the New Testament where God decrees we can jettison the barbarism in the Old Testament once we’ve found “civilization”.
[/quote]

That’s actually not quite true. Well, we certainly can’t jettison it because we’ve “found civilization,” but because of Jesus. More on that later.

52

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
There is no directive in the New Testament where God decrees we can jettison the barbarism in the Old Testament once we’ve found “civilization”.

That’s actually not quite true. Well, we certainly can’t jettison it because we’ve “found civilization,” but because of Jesus. More on that later. [/quote]

Mal 3:6 For I [am] the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

So what is he, unchanging or a liar?

And if he changes not, what happened to the genocidal maniac of the OT?

Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I am driving out from before you the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite. Take heed to yourself, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land where you are going, lest it be a snare in your midst. But you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images (For you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.)

Exodus, Chapter 34, verses 11-14

You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you. For I will look on you favorably and make you fruitful, multiply you and confirm My covenant with you. You shall eat the old harvest, and clear out the old because of the new.

Leviticus, Chapter 26, verses 7-9

53

[quote]orion wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
There is no directive in the New Testament where God decrees we can jettison the barbarism in the Old Testament once we’ve found “civilization”.

That’s actually not quite true. Well, we certainly can’t jettison it because we’ve “found civilization,” but because of Jesus. More on that later.

Mal 3:6 For I [am] the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

So what is he, unchanging or a liar?

And if he changes not, what happened to the genocidal maniac of the OT?

Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I am driving out from before you the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite. Take heed to yourself, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land where you are going, lest it be a snare in your midst. But you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images (For you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.)

Exodus, Chapter 34, verses 11-14

You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you. For I will look on you favorably and make you fruitful, multiply you and confirm My covenant with you. You shall eat the old harvest, and clear out the old because of the new.

Leviticus, Chapter 26, verses 7-9[/quote]

You quoted the answer.

54

With all due respect, I’ve had this conversation with you before, or with other people and you’ve left the thread. If you want to leave the New Testament out of the conversation, there’s not any discussion I can have with you. I’m getting the distinct feeling that you’re going to keep up this game of quoting Exodus and Leviticus no matter how much I bring in from the New Testament, because I already addressed those points. Maybe I didn’t make everything as explicit as you’d like, but I did address them. For example, the same God that’s promised to judge all of humanity through Jesus at the last day can’t exactly be called different than the God who judged only the Canaanites during the Israelite period of redemptive history (or, for example, all of humanity during the Flood). Or the Sodomites. Or the Egyptians. Jesus spent a lot of time talking about Hell and judgment. In fact, he talked about Hell more than pretty much everything else. So I see only continuity where you see a disconnect. But I think you’re just having this conversation with yourself, so perhaps I should just let you go on.

Anyways, we’re talking about the mandates towards physical warfare, which are only found in the Old Testament, and there only in the Israel narratives for the most part. Like I said, though, Christians don’t see themselves as Old Testament Israelites. I don’t know of any who keep Old Testament dietary laws or whom slaughter animals for sins and all that.

55

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
So what is he, unchanging or a liar?

With all due respect, I’ve had this conversation with you before, or with other people and you’ve left the thread. If you want to leave the New Testament out of the conversation, there’s not any discussion I can have with you. I’m getting the distinct feeling that you’re going to keep up this game of quoting Exodus and Leviticus no matter how much I bring in from the New Testament, because I already addressed those points. Maybe I didn’t make everything as explicit as you’d like, but I did address them. For example, the same God that’s promised to judge all of humanity through Jesus at the last day can’t exactly be called different than the God who judged only the Canaanites during the Israelite period of redemptive history (or, for example, all of humanity during the Flood). Or the Sodomites. Or the Egyptians. Jesus spent a lot of time talking about Hell and judgment. In fact, he talked about Hell more than pretty much everything else. So I see only continuity where you see a disconnect. But I think you’re just having this conversation with yourself, so perhaps I should just let you go on.

Anyways, we’re talking about the mandates towards physical warfare, which are only found in the Old Testament, and there only in the Israel narratives for the most part. Like I said, though, Christians don’t see themselves as Old Testament Israelites. I don’t know of any who keep Old Testament dietary laws or whom slaughter animals for sins and all that. [/quote]

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 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. 19 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. 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Mt 5:17-20

Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. 18 He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.

James 1:17

Both NT.

56

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
There is no directive in the New Testament where God decrees we can jettison the barbarism in the Old Testament once we’ve found “civilization”.

That’s actually not quite true. Well, we certainly can’t jettison it because we’ve “found civilization,” but because of Jesus. More on that later.

Mal 3:6 For I [am] the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

So what is he, unchanging or a liar?

And if he changes not, what happened to the genocidal maniac of the OT?

Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I am driving out from before you the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite. Take heed to yourself, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land where you are going, lest it be a snare in your midst. But you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images (For you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.)

Exodus, Chapter 34, verses 11-14

You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you. For I will look on you favorably and make you fruitful, multiply you and confirm My covenant with you. You shall eat the old harvest, and clear out the old because of the new.

Leviticus, Chapter 26, verses 7-9

You quoted the answer.[/quote]

Well that is so comforting!

He just used to be a genocidal maniac but fatherhood has changed him.

I feel so much better now, until he changes his mind again .

edited

57

Here’s the problem Orion, neither one of us probably has the energy anymore to answer the same question we know has been answered. At some point, you realize the questioner isn’t looking for an answer. So, here’s some words. You can figure out how their relationships on your own, or not.

Isrealites, old covenants, man breaking covenants first, starting a nation, brutal time period, not all revealed (so no idea if a change of mind has occured anyways)…

Christians, new covenant, fullfilled, etc., etc.,

An Israelite might be best for the answer you want. I’m just not one.

Edit: No need in telling me I didn’t even try. I know already.

58

[quote]orion wrote:

Some Pashtun tribesmen did and they were allied to the US. They would have handed them over.
[/quote]

this is bs, the Taliban were not our allies. Our allies were what was to become the Northern Alliance. The Taliban were Afghan refugees from Pakistan who returned to Afghanistan in 1996.

But you did not reply to my main point: What should we do about the Saudis and spread of Wahabism? Attack Saudi Arabia and create a bigger problem, or let the fanatics who oppose the Monarchy take over and create a bigger problem?

59

[quote]orion wrote:

. . .

Mal 3:6 For I [am] the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

. . .

Exodus, Chapter 34, verses 11-14

. . .

Leviticus, Chapter 26, verses 7-9[/quote]

. . .

The real trick here is pulling genocidal text from THE NEW TESTAMENT! You know the part of the book that forged Christianity. When did Jesus, or Paul for that matter speak of genocide of non-believers? They might have said the non-believers would be punished in the afterlife, but never in this world as a result of the acts of their followers.

If history shows this is not the case, which it does, is it the fault of the text or a fault of mankind?

If it’s a fault of the text, show us a quote.

60

[quote]Sloth wrote:

You quoted the answer.[/quote]

Not really.

So God wants his followers to kill Cannanites? And which followers, Jews, Christians? Who was the audience for the quotes above?