No. Do the math. And your premise is flawed. That some practitioners of a religion claim that the religion supports terrorism does not make the entire religion ‘T-relevant’
The issue is that a proportion of every population is nuts. That nuttiness will express itself in a number of ways. Some will beat others to a pulp at a soccer game. Others will think that a comet will take them to space. Still others read a holy work and think it tells them to do bad things. It may not, but as we’ve seen in other situations, people will believe what they choose whether or not it’s supported. This is not the fault of anything other than those who make the erroneous interpretations.
It was not Taxi Driver that made Hinkley a murderer.
What? The pool size isn’t the issue. Two groups of 100 randomly selected from their respective universes: Muslims and the Amish. I reveal to you that one group has a terrorist in it, then offer you a million dollars if you choose the group which contains the terrorist.
To remind you, my stipulation was the opposite: that the religions were T-irrelevant.
I don’t disagree with a word of that, but I don’t know what it has to do with what I’ve been saying. At some point, it becomes farcical to pretend that there is anything more violent among the Amish than a farmer angry at his mule. They reject violence, even in self-defense. They respond to violence, even when it’s perpetrated on them, with humility and forgiveness. These are the teachings of their religion. If you disagree with that, you are simply misinformed. Pretending that there is some statistical reason why you aren’t likely to find a supporter of terrorism among 100 Amish is just so amazingly and pathetically ignorant in its conception that it boggles the mind. You won’t find it in the whole 200,000. That’s why you won’t find any in the 100. On the other hand, it is possible to find 100 among the Muslims or Christian that is 100% in support of terrorism.
We could do the same little parlor trick by selecting random Northern Irish Christians (pick your denomination) and random Saudi Sufis and make the choice go the opposite way.
If you are going to pick and choose which Christians you get to compare against all the Muslims in the entire world, then your choice is irrelevant to the real world.
Wait a minute. We aren’t including the Amish in the general Christian population, are we? If so, that is a mistake. That would be like including the Quakers. They may be Christian in key aspects, but they are not a part of Christendom.
My point proves exactly what I said; that the numbers of people who are loons in any religion are small; calculate the proportion of actual Muslim terrorists to the total population of Muslims and then try to find that proportion among the tiny population of Amish. You won’t because the percentage will come out to less than 1 - so much so that, when extrapolated to the number of Amish, you’ll end up with an eye or a finger, but not a whole person.
Nope. Liberal’s assessment aside for now, your example is not analogous. To be so you would choose an inarguably terror/barbary-free sect of Islam and compare that to all of Christianity. Can it be done? Sure. But the poor, poor tortured argument.
Weasling noted. If it makes no sense to be wary of Muslims because a good portion of them are murderous or barbaric, or support same, then your answer should be to flip a coin. But if you did so, or chose the Quakers, you’d look like an idiot. Why? Because of a little thing called the real world. So, you obfuscate and weasel.
But let’s open this up more. Let’s take groups of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus Hindi(?) and Amish, each 100 strong, randomly selected. One group has a terrorist in it. For a million dollars, pick the group.
Bonus question: Same six groups of 100, randomly selected. It turns out this time that five of the groups have at least one terrorist in them. Rank the groups from that containing the most terrorists to that group containing the least terrorists.
You are only seeking to cloud the issue to avoid what is painfully obvious. The questions isn’t some general sense of nuttiness. The question goes to the terrorism and barbarism that ARE, for some, part and parcel to the religion. To those who practice it or condone it.
Sure, most religions have their “nuts”, but we’re not talking eccentric behavior, we’re talking the intentional killing of innocent women and children. We’re talking burying a woman up to her shoulders and stoning her to death. We’re talking taking a ten year-old girl out to the barn and butchering her. We’re talking a court handing down an order that the sister of a man who was walking with a young woman needs to be raped by the brothers of the young woman, so that the young woman’s family can keep its honor intact.
Yet, you feel the need to protect such a religion from being viewed with wariness. Simply amazing.
Well, when you start out by making silly comparisons, you open the door for even more silly comparisons.
I presume that you are refering to your own dishonesty in hand-picking a specifically pacifist group and comparing it against a world-wide general movement, here? After all, why would you set up such a loaded comparison except to make a false point?
If you wish to assert that we should be wary, and more than wary, of Wahabbists and Salafists, I would have no serious disagreement with you and might even join with you in your concern. It is your refusal to even consider being better informed or more selective that I find silly.
As to comparing other random groups, you are, again, ignoring the balance of power regarding terror vs armies and you are extending what you identify as barbarism to include all peoples who share a faith while explicitly ignoring the differences among the many subsets of that group.
Such selective picking on one side of the equation matched to indiscriminate lumping on the other side makes your argument utterly unpersuasive.
For the doubters/ignorant/nutjobs (that’s you Lib) here are some examples of fucked up shit that Jesus taught:
“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.” Matthew 10: 34-36
“Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.” Luke 12:51-53
“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he can not be my disciple.” Luke 14: 26
“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.” Matthew 10:37
“And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God. And another also said, Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house. And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.” Luke 9: 59-62
“And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.” Mark 11:13-14
“Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.” John 15:14
“But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” Matthew 5:32
“Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.” Luke 16:18
“But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.” Matthew 5:22
“For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” Matthew 15:4
“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Mark 16:16
“He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” John 3:18
“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” John 3:36
“Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6
“Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.” Matthew 18:8, 9
“And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” Matthew 10:28
“But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which AFTER he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.” Luke 12:5
“Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Matthew 22:13
“The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” Matthew 13:41-42
“And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.” Matthew 25:46
“There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.” Luke 16:19-25
“Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it.” Matthew 7:13-14
No, I don’t believe my list to be exhaustive. Yes, I think their numerous enough to not be exceptions. If Mohammed said all this stuff, we’d all think him a cunt, right?
Your continuing to say it doesn’t make it so. And my question to you was far from inane. It demonstrates, amply, that there is a comprehension issue here, and that it’s so pervasive and chronic that it’s likely uncurable. It’s generally pointless to engage the logic-challenged. So I shan’t further.
Some of us would take the trouble to understand what we read in context, rather than taking snippets willy-nilly, slapping them down, and thinking that some sort of case was made.
At least this drivel isn’t masquerading as an actual debate.
well, no one can draw a straight line through the odd collection of beliefs that you scatter across the landscape. One needs to wind back and forth among xenophobia, misinformation, simplistic failures of logic, and sheer paranoid fear to pick up all the pieces to which one must respond.
Because the comparison was, I thought, between the Amish faith and the Islamic faith.
No, your point proves that the proportions are small. And my point was that that very proportion practically eliminates terrorism from the Amish statistically. But my other point was that a statistical analysis is hardly needed. Terrorism just plain isn’t an Amish thing. It’s like trying to determine statistically how many bachelors are married.
All these words you type, yet, still no answer. Rather simple questions, really. But I don’t blame you for obfuscating instead of answering. You know that by answering your position crumbles.
I’m glad you responed to me, even if only to insult me. Let’s have a look at your concerns one by one:
What’s fucked up about that? It is in fact true. Many families have divided over allegiences to Jesus. It is a common occurance that a person who gives his life over to Christ finds himself suddenly the outcast among those he knew best before. And that is to expected of a person who is reborn. Daddy doesn’t recognize his little boy anymore. Sally is afraid because she thinks her brother has lost his mind. Tommy is disowned by the family because they are devout Orthodox Jews. Mr. Smith is ostracized by his church because he won’t play politics anymore.
What Jesus does in that passage is give fair warning to those who would follow Him. They may well have to endure hardships they had not considered. If He had failed to warn of it, you would be complaining about that. “Why, oh why,” you would be lamenting, “did He not warn people of the hassles of faith?”
Ibid.
It’s the drawing of a dichotomy. The man who has come to Him has a new life, and a new wife and father and mother and children. It’s the same dichotomy that Jesus commonly drew. Like the Matthew 6:24; and Luke 16:13 passages about serving two masters. “You cannot serve two masters. You will love one and hate the other,” Jesus said. Like your first concern, that’s just the nature of the thing. What you loved before, you now will hate, or else what has changed?
But though you are to hate what is old, you are to love what is new. Before, your son was the object of a weak and puny love, which was nothing more than paternal. You are now to hate that son, because your new son is the object of perfect love through Christ. He is the same person, but you are not. If you were to love him in the same way you did before, then you would not have been changed.
Ibid.
I really don’t understand why these sorts of passages bother you. I mean, I can understand why they might raise the eyebrows of people who are seeing them for the first time, and without any context. But you claim to be a scholar of the Bible, having read it cover to cover as I recall. Why then do you not know these simple things?
You know or should know that faith in Christ does not come about by a whim. One does not squint and grunt until he has shat out a turd of faith. Rather, faith is brought about by experience. Your criticism of Christ in passages like this is tantamount to criticism of the mother who puts the oxygen mask on her own face before she puts it on her child’s. A man who merely puts a toe into Christ’s kingdom will simply lose a toe. He clings to his former life. In order to be reborn, one must die. You should know this.
There is fear of death, sure. But upon rebirth, all fear subsides.
This one, frankly, surprises me. I never took you for a tree hugger. What bothers you about this? That the tree died?
The passage is a parable about what He needs from His disciples. When it comes time for Him to harvest the fruit He has planted, He does not want to find fruitless trees. The passage really isn’t about trees; it’s about disciples. Thus, “his disciples heard”.
Again, He states the obvious. It takes two to be friends. Jesus has made His own choices with respect to what His life will be all about. How can you expect to be His friend if you are going to take a whole 'nuther path? What sort of friend says, “I don’t care to see you. I don’t care to be around you. I’m going my own way, and frankly I won’t ever be back.”?
Yes, and…? Even the most casual observer of things Christians knows the drill about how we all are sinners. Why does this passage surprise you? And what do you find wrong with it?
Ibid.
Yeah, danger danger everywhere. But you left out the preceding verse that completes the passage. Jesus is saying that you have heard that you should not commit murder, but I’m telling you that you should not even hurt your brother’s feelings. You can murder the spirit with meanness. Kind of like you attempt to do all the time with Polycarp. And that’s much worse than murdering the body. The body is just atoms.
There seems to be a rather banal consistency to the passages you’re citing. They all involve Jesus informing people of the hardships of faith and the fact that the grace they receive is not based on merit, but on love. God loves you not because you deserve it, but because what He does is facilitate goodness. Even in your own imperfect love, you love your son just as much when he fucks up as when he does what you say. He doesn’t have to earn your love.
Ibid.
Well, of course. From the perspective of the believer, the nonbeliever is opposite. I’d be interested in hearing why you thought that people who desire to be with Him and people who desire not to be with Him would somehow be of one accord.
I suspect that what you actually don’t like is the notion of being “condemned”. You want to be uncondemned while also being unfaithful. But you are condemned to nothing more than your own pleasure. You have found Christ to be aesthetically worthless, and therefore forcing you to be with Him in His kingdom would be cruel. The net effect is that, like any spoiled child, you are complaining that you’ve gotten nothing more than what you want.
Ibid.
The bolded part merely follows logically from the previous part. If He indeed is the way, the truth, and the life, then how else to get to the Father? Through obstacles, lies, and death? I don’t think so.
Again, I suspect that what bothers you about this has nothing to do with the logic of what He said, but with the notion that it represents both what you want and what you don’t want. You want both to disown your father and inherit his house. If you are not satisfied with the house you have built yourself and covet His instead, then be His son. Trust Him. Rely on Him. Cling to Him.
Same same as the passages about other people and your old life. Faith is a serious affair. It is easy to stand in front of people, wear a robe, put wafers on their tongues, and count their tithings. But it is quite another to give up everything that prevents you from serving Him. As harsh as the language might sound to modern Western ears, He is saying nothing more than “let nothing obstruct your faith”.
Makes sense to me. If you’re hell-bent on being afraid, at least be afraid of the right thing. This is a point I often make myself around here. The universe isn’t even real. It’s made of atoms, and atoms aren’t even real things. (I can give you a reliable cite for that if you want it.) What is real is spirit, the stuff that God is made of. It behooves a man to set his priorities straight, and this is all that Jesus is saying.
Ibid. (You’re redundant with a lot of these. I suspect you’re just padding your list so it will seem longer. But most people know that many passages in Matthew are echoed in Luke, so you’re really not fooling very many.)
Wow. You left out the entire parable. Jesus quoted what the king hosting a wedding told his servant, but you made it sound like a command Jesus gave about someone standing around Him. That’s pretty dishonest on your part.
The king in the parable had been snubbed by the people he had invited to the wedding. Like you, they wanted to call themselves the king’s friends, but wanted to have nothing to do with the king. So the king ordered his servants to go out into the streets and invite anyone who wanted to come. And when the servants did that, the wedding was filled with people who had longed to be friends with the king. And now they were in his house.
But one pretender had sneaked in. He did not even bother to put on clothing appropriate for the wedding. Again, someone who wanted to usurp the king’s friendship through his own terms, rather than the terms of the king.
But there’s already wailing and gnashing of teeth. You are wailing — crying foul about how God conducts His affairs. And you are gnashing your teeth — dissatisfied with what you’ve made of your life and bitter that you cannot corrupt God into living it with you.
One man’s punishment is another man’s delight. Clearly, those who’ve given up their lives to be in God’s kingdom see what you are doing as punishment. You, on the other hand, revel in it. You’re enjoying yourself. You value chasing Poly all around the boards and pasting these saved lists. You have what you want. Why can’t you be satisfied?
More of the same. See everything above.
Few find it because few look for it. We find what we seek. We get what we want. All of us. You included.
If you don’t mind, out of respect to Zoe and other women on the board, I would prefer to use the word “prick” instead. Anyone who said this stuff without any context and without being able to back it up would be a prick. If you believe that Jesus is a prick, then you have what you want. You have a Jesus that is worthless to you.
But the question is, why can’t you be satisfied with what you have? Why do you feel like you have to shove your worthless Jesus down someone else’s throat? Why do you envy Poly’s joy when it is a joy that you have discarded for yourself? It’s like you keep smacking him but his flesh doesn’t burn enough to suit you. You really need a new hobby.
What bothers you about this? That the tree died?