Religion of Peace...

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I would consider the Old Testament to be a “violence-positive” text, which would put the percentage of Christian Churches in the US which teach and support violent texts at 100.[/quote]

We’ve been through this one before comrade. Let me explain:

  1. The OT has some violent shit in it.

  2. Christians don’t quote the violent bits from the OT and if you ask them about it they cup their hands over their ears and yell ‘Nah! nah! nah! nah! nah! nah! OT God different from NT God! nah! nah! nah! nah!’

in comparison:

The Qaran, the Hadiths and the mainstream esteemed interpreters and Imams selectively pick the sickest shit they can find and tell their congregations that it is their religious duty to murder the sons of pigs and monkeys. This results in daily mass murders of the most fucking egregious kind. Do you understand this yet? Do you understand now why there are no fucking Christian terrorist groups who eat peoples’ fucking livers and pull their intestines out on a daily basis?

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
There is plenty of horrific hands on genocidal divinely decreed violence in the OT. Unlike many claiming the name of Jesus as their own. I will make no pretense otherwise. God sent Joshua on the heathen city states for instance as an unstoppable exterminating juggernaut under the command to kill absolutely everything alive. He did.[/quote]

Joshua for 2012!

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
There is plenty of horrific hands on genocidal divinely decreed violence in the OT. Unlike many claiming the name of Jesus as their own. I will make no pretense otherwise. God sent Joshua on the heathen city states for instance as an unstoppable exterminating juggernaut under the command to kill absolutely everything alive. He did.[/quote]

Joshua for 2012![/quote]Joshua made a fine C.I.C. for Israel. He obeyed God in that capacity. Nothing more, nothing less. We would have no jihadist terror problem today if Joshua were in office to be sure. God hand picked him to lead Israel after Mose’s disobedience. I named one of my sons after him. This pretty cool drawing has him a bit young though lol.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I would consider the Old Testament to be a “violence-positive” text, which would put the percentage of Christian Churches in the US which teach and support violent texts at 100.[/quote]

We’ve been through this one before comrade. Let me explain:

  1. The OT has some violent shit in it.

  2. Christians don’t quote the violent bits from the OT and if you ask them about it they cup their hands over their ears and yell ‘Nah! nah! nah! nah! nah! nah! OT God different from NT God! nah! nah! nah! nah!’

in comparison:

The Qaran, the Hadiths and the mainstream esteemed interpreters and Imams selectively pick the sickest shit they can find and tell their congregations that it is their religious duty to murder the sons of pigs and monkeys. This results in daily mass murders of the most fucking egregious kind. Do you understand this yet? Do you understand now why there are no fucking Christian terrorist groups who eat peoples’ fucking livers and pull their intestines out on a daily basis?[/quote]

I already explained on this very page that I believe Islam to be more violent and more dangerous than Christianity. I also explained exactly why I brought up the Old Testament, and this post had nothing to do with that explanation.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
There is plenty of horrific hands on genocidal divinely decreed violence in the OT. Unlike many claiming the name of Jesus as their own. I will make no pretense otherwise. God sent Joshua on the heathen city states for instance as an unstoppable exterminating juggernaut under the command to kill absolutely everything alive. He did.[/quote]

Joshua for 2012![/quote]Joshua made a fine C.I.C. for Israel. He obeyed God in that capacity. Nothing more, nothing less. We would have no jihadist terror problem today if Joshua were in office to be sure. God hand picked him to lead Israel after Mose’s disobedience. I named one of my sons after him. This pretty cool drawing has him a bit young though lol.
[/quote]

That pic is not quite historically accurate. I’ve scanned some images from Theodore A Dodge’s masterpiece ‘Alexander’ showing Hebrew heavy footmen and pikemen. The early Hebrews were exceedingly good slingers too who had an elite contingent of left-handed slingers considered the world’s best. As early as David’s time the Jews had a massive army able to field one million three hundred thousand men in times of need. A standing conscript army existed in peace time with each of the tribes furnishing 24 thousand men comprising 288 thousand men under arms in peace time.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I already explained on this very page that I believe Islam to be more violent and more dangerous than Christianity.[/quote]

What a profound observation. Deep insight you have indeed comrade.

I do appreciate your post, but Joshua lived several hundred years before David. What’s ironic about Joshua is that God liked to send Him into battle sometimes woefully undermanned so that the men would be crystal clear about who was behind their success.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I do appreciate your post, but Joshua lived several hundred years before David. What’s ironic about Joshua is that God liked to send Him into battle sometimes woefully undermanned so that the men would be crystal clear about who was behind their success. [/quote]

Correct, but at the time of the Exodus and shortly thereafter the tribes didn’t have an army of any sort let alone bronze armour and swords. They were a rag tag band of refugees with a few Egyptian weapons they’d managed to take off the dead and sticks and stones. It was around David’s time that an excellent fighting force was established, bronze smelting works, heavy infantry and pikemen, archers and slingers. Even then only the nobility could afford bronze armour.

I haven’t really read much of the OT so I’m sure you know a great deal more than me about it. I have however read Herodotus who covers some early Hebrew history. It’s mostly a rehash of the Torah and OT though. I have virtually no knowledge of Israeli history either other than what I have gathered from sources to refute revisionist bullshit on internet forums.

Well fair enough. I wasn’t sure what your point was, but yes. David’s army was first rate. The History Channel has these shows about the history of warfare and they had one where all these military experts were analyzing the battle’s of the armies of Israel under King David, who I named my other son after BTW. Pretty interesting.

David knew what is was about from day one: His approach to the Philistine Goliath was awe inspiring and priceless. 1st Samuel 17:41-47

[quote]41-Then the Philistine came on and approached David, with the shield-bearer in front of him. 42-When the Philistine looked and saw David, he disdained him; for he was but a youth, and ruddy, with a handsome appearance. 43-The Philistine said to David, “Am I a dog, that you come to me with sticks?” And the Philistine cursed David by his gods. 44-The Philistine also said to David, “Come to me, and I will give your flesh to the birds of the sky and the beasts of the field.” 45-Then David said to the Philistine, "You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have taunted. 46-“This day the LORD will deliver you up into my hands, and I will strike you down and remove your head from you. And I will give the dead bodies of the army of the Philistines this day to the birds of the sky and the wild beasts of the earth, that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel, 47-and that all this assembly may know that the LORD does not deliver by sword or by spear; for the battle is the LORD’S and He will give you into our hands.”[/quote]Talk about a T-Man (or boy)

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I would consider the Old Testament to be a “violence-positive” text, which would put the percentage of Christian Churches in the US which teach and support violent texts at 100.[/quote]

Really? I’ve sat in a Christian Church ~40 times/year for the last 40 years, and I’ve never heard anyone recomend, encourage or even condone violence. I think you are ignorant as to what the Old Testament says and take individual versus out of context.[/quote]

I am in no way ignorant as to what the Old Testament says. It is literally full of bloodshed. It describes the comings and goings of a violent God and His violent creation.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think the average Christian Church is actually violent. I am simply pointing out the fact that a house of worship may harbor violent texts without necessarily being a establishment which explicitly or actively condones violence itself.[/quote]

Obvious ignorance is obvious.

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I would consider the Old Testament to be a “violence-positive” text, which would put the percentage of Christian Churches in the US which teach and support violent texts at 100.[/quote]

Really? I’ve sat in a Christian Church ~40 times/year for the last 40 years, and I’ve never heard anyone recomend, encourage or even condone violence. I think you are ignorant as to what the Old Testament says and take individual versus out of context.[/quote]

Really?

There is not one clergyman in all of the US that would support a war or those that fight in it?[/quote]

A. I hope you’d agree there is a difference between war and terrorism. Primarily the tagets.
B. I’ve never heard it in my church, but maybe that’s unique to Catholics.
[/quote]

Only Just War, and there hasn’t been one recently. If you’re gonna throw a jab, better be ready for me to bark down your neck. Show proof.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Obvious ignorance is obvious.[/quote]

There is nothing controversial or ignorant in noting the simple, inarguable fact that the Old Testament contains violence–violence done by God and violence done in His name.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I would consider the Old Testament to be a “violence-positive” text, which would put the percentage of Christian Churches in the US which teach and support violent texts at 100.[/quote]

We’ve been through this one before comrade. Let me explain:

  1. The OT has some violent shit in it.

  2. Christians don’t quote the violent bits from the OT and if you ask them about it they cup their hands over their ears and yell ‘Nah! nah! nah! nah! nah! nah! OT God different from NT God! nah! nah! nah! nah!’

in comparison:

The Qaran, the Hadiths and the mainstream esteemed interpreters and Imams selectively pick the sickest shit they can find and tell their congregations that it is their religious duty to murder the sons of pigs and monkeys. This results in daily mass murders of the most fucking egregious kind. Do you understand this yet? Do you understand now why there are no fucking Christian terrorist groups who eat peoples’ fucking livers and pull their intestines out on a daily basis?[/quote]

OT G-d and NT G-d is the same G-d, G-d doesn’t change. If people have a problem with it, they’ll just have to be mature and suck it up.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I already explained on this very page that I believe Islam to be more violent and more dangerous than Christianity.[/quote]

What a profound observation. Deep insight you have indeed comrade.
[/quote]

  1. I say something.
  2. Either willfully or, more likely, in earnest stupidity, you misinterpret what I’ve said.
  3. I simplify my original point.
  4. You note the simplicity of my point.

Well done.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I already explained on this very page that I believe Islam to be more violent and more dangerous than Christianity.[/quote]

What a profound observation. Deep insight you have indeed comrade.
[/quote]

He’d be wrong, Catholics are much more dangerous. We believe we eat flesh and drink blood, we adore the Eucharist, we pray that our enemies are confused (to the Virgin Mary even), we are called the Church Militant for a reason, and after all we are responsible for the deaths during every single religious conflict in the world beginning with usually the Crusades and leading up to WWII or even Operation Desert Storm. And our Father has killed more people than any single man or any group of men put together. Watch out.

Edit: Plus Martyrs have a special place in every Catholic’s heart, plus we still give indulgences for those who die defending the faith on a crusade.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Obvious ignorance is obvious.[/quote]

There is nothing controversial or ignorant in noting the simple, inarguable fact that the Old Testament contains violence–violence done by God and violence done in His name.[/quote]

I was making note of your other comment that Christian religious buildings would be at 100 for violent positive text. Anyway, I agreed Catholics are dangerous. Beware.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Obvious ignorance is obvious.[/quote]

There is nothing controversial or ignorant in noting the simple, inarguable fact that the Old Testament contains violence–violence done by God and violence done in His name.[/quote]

I was making note of your other comment that Christian religious buildings would be at 100 for violent positive text. Anyway, I agreed Catholics are dangerous. Beware.[/quote]

If you agree with me that the Old Testament could be considered violent, which you seem to, then that logic is flawlessly sound.

And by the way: I was using this example to highlight the absurdity of the claim that violence in one of their books necessarily makes every house of worship dangerous…NOT to argue that Christianity itself is dangerous or on par with Islam in the violence department (a point that was unfortunately lost on some of the blunter people around here).

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Edit: Plus Martyrs have a special place in every Catholic’s heart, [/quote]Yeah mine too. Like all my brothers you killed for believing what I believe, but you refuse to kill ME. What’s up with that crap man!!! I’m not good enough to die for the faith once for all delivered to the saints?

Good to see ya here again Chris. Been thinkin about ya as you know.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Obvious ignorance is obvious.[/quote]

There is nothing controversial or ignorant in noting the simple, inarguable fact that the Old Testament contains violence–violence done by God and violence done in His name.[/quote]

I was making note of your other comment that Christian religious buildings would be at 100 for violent positive text. Anyway, I agreed Catholics are dangerous. Beware.[/quote]

If you agree with me that the Old Testament could be considered violent, which you seem to, then that logic is flawlessly sound.[/quote]

No, there is a difference between being violent and being violent positive. The Bible as a whole (which is the way you consider the Bible, not as proof text) is not violent positive.

No, Catholicism is far more dangerous than Islam, like I pointed out earlier we are responsible for every just and unjust war and every just and unjust death since ever since our G-d is the only G-d.

And since Catholicism is a strain of Judaism, not only are we responsible for the past 2000 years we’re responsible for about 5000 years from this point.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Edit: Plus Martyrs have a special place in every Catholic’s heart, [/quote]Yeah mine too. Like all my brothers you killed for believing what I believe, but you refuse to kill ME. What’s up with that crap man!!! I’m not good enough to die for the faith once for all delivered to the saints?

Good to see ya here again Chris. Been thinkin about ya as you know.
[/quote]

You’d be a heretic, and not a martyr. And, the faith wasn’t once and for delivered. And even if it was, you’re still in the wrong Church. I can’t help that, only you can by renouncing your heresy and reconciling yourself to your Catholic baptism.