“If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you … Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.” – Dt.13:6-10
I’d love to see the verse that supports coincidentals with message boards.
I’m not trying to be contentious, but I’ve never seen that before. The Rastas prefer Jah, but I’m assuming you’re not one.
I don’t. But I’ll say that I’m even more confident that “proper exegesis” means a lot of different things to different people. I think you know very well that even if it’s nowhere close to your interpretation, people have managed to justify all sorts of things through interpretation of the Bible.
I don’t think stpauler was saying the shooter was a religious fanatic.
A good scripture to go on to determine if it’s God or not is 1 John 4:8
As for who commits the cruel acts, I would point to 2 Sam 24:1 compared to 1 Chronicles 21:2
The same act, one scripture attributing it to God, the other scripture scripture attributing it to Satan. Without 1 John 4:8 it would be hard to tell who committed the act, and who willingly accepted the blame and later died on a cross for it.
In the woman caught in the act of adultery John 8:3-11 you can see God’s view of love and forgiveness and actually no accusations, compared to those who follow the Law who wanted to kill this woman.
The Pharisees accusing the woman, were they following God as described in 1 John 4:8?
I’m sorry, it’s right there in the quote. So nevermind. David42, I’m thinking you are making a distinction that the shooter (and most people) would not make.
You’re mistaken, mon. If they pronounced it “yah,” it would probably be spelled that way. But the Rastafarians do a lot of fascinating language stuff that I enjoy from an aesthetetic point of view - like “I and I” and pronouncing the “I” in “Haile Selassie I” as thought it were a personal pronoun instead of a Roman numeral.
I’m confused what you mean regarding a distinction.
You don’t mean to say that you don’t think most American christians woud say “That’s not christian behavior?” I certainly think most would. Not that numbers make a proper doctrine though.
Your comments appeared to be drawing a distinction between the Christian God (or Yah or whatever) and the Old Testament figure Yahweh. Most people don’t make that distinction.
I see a huge difference between being a secret muslim and someone who entices me to serve other gods. If Obama’s been saying, now let us all praise Allah, I haven’t heard, and if he has and the shooter knows, it’s not much of a secret. I’m afraid, if the shooter had this as his justification, I’d think him functionally illiterate.
Nor is it a command to the individual; it is a statute, and if someone is accused, they should be brought before the Sanhedrin for judgment.
We’d call it murder too if a vigilante executed someone by lethal injection, even though we have laws that make it ok if the proper authority carries it out.
You’d have to refer to the phenomenon as other than coincidence because that in itself makes it impossible to be caused by Yah. It could reasonably be constructed out of the scripture. Not saying I’m up for it though, but Kanicbird might go for it.
I’d begin that there’s no need for a supposition that Yah doesn’t talk to people.
Oh, I didn’t mean that at all. If I speak of Yah I speak of the same Yah who is in both OT and NT.
Yahweh is the name that is translated Lord in most English Bibles.
Elohim is the title usually translated God in most English Bibles.
In English, both are titles, and I’d be a bit more serious about calling on His name than to foolishly replace his name with his title. People who know better ought to call on His name as He said His name is. Not a very popular idea, but I’m not a so-called “namer” either, who thinks this is crucial to salvation. It’s not.
Quite possibly, but I don’t recall a citation of the specific law they accused him under. It seems there are others the accusation could fall under as well, though I’m not certain.
I have heard people say that Jesus committed blasphemy as the reason, though I do not know the ‘law’ that was specifically violated.
I have also heard that the law that Jesus violated was not a scriptural law, but a law added by man, not in scriptures, because of too many people claiming to be messiah.
Yes they are an interesting bunch indeed. I think, though I’m not necessarily recalling perfectly, that there’s been a federal court ruling that they can legally smoke marijuana under the freedom of religion act (or whatever it was called). The same act that relegalized peyote use for members of the Native American Church, whatever that was. I’m recalling this vaguely, but mon, what a wild religion.
Being a white man who would never wear dreadlocks wilfully, I doubt I could get taken seriously as a ratafarian.
So basically, if somebody does something you like and credits Yah/Daddy, you take that on full faith and credit and everything is peaches and cream. But if somebody does something you don’t like and credits Yah/Daddy, it’s doesn’t count because of some No True Scotsman argument.
The no true scottsman argument does not apply to a being that looks directly at the heart, you are either acting in the spirit of love or you are not. That is the determining factor.
Out of curiousity I reviewed this issue. It is indeed legal for a rastafarian to possess marijuana for the purposes of his religion if he is in a federal territory, D.C., or other federal property, such as a National park or Forest.