[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Wont Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

OKeefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} Ive heard people refer to the 7 Deadly Sins, but I havent been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: Why Do We Need Elections?

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Romes Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, Youve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Religion
See other Religion Articles

Title: The Problem Isnt Islam Its ALL Religious Fundamentalism
Source: washingtonsblog
URL Source: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014 ... amentalists-just-muslisms.html
Published: Aug 26, 2014
Author: washingtonsblog
Post Date: 2015-01-20 15:49:51 by Gatlin
Keywords: None
Views: 23298
Comments: 78

While the Koran Calls for Violence, The Bible Is Even Worse … Calling for Genocide

Christians and Jews rightly point out that the Koran is a violent text which calls on Muslims to attack “unbelievers”.

But they fail to see that the Bible is at least as violent.

Click to Read the rest.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Gatlin, Y'ALL (#0)

Most Muslims condemn Islamic terrorism, just as most Christians condemn terrorism by fundamentalist Christians and most Jews condemn terrorism by fundamentalist Jews.

As Christian writer and psychiatrist M. Scott Peck – who served as the United States Army’s Assistant Chief Psychiatry and Neurology Consultant to the Surgeon General of the Army, and held the rank of Lieutenant Colonel – explained, there are different stages of spiritual maturity. Fundamentalism – whether it be Muslim, Christian, Jewish or Hindu fundamentalism – is an immature stage of development.

Indeed, a Christian fundamentalist who kills others in the name of religion is much more similar to a Muslim – or Jewish, Hindu or Buddhist – fundamentalist who kills others in the name of his religion than to a Christian who peacefully fights for justice and truth, helps the poor, or serves to bring hope to the downtrodden.

Postscript: Sadly, the U.S. and our allies are making matters worse by backing the most barbaric, crazed, fundamentalist Muslims … and overthrowing the moderate Arabs.

"Most Muslims condemn Islamic terrorism?"

Doesn't gatlin find that debatable?

tpaine  posted on  2015-01-20   17:28:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: tpaine (#1)

Indeed, a Christian fundamentalist who kills others in the name of religion

Care to give us a few thousand examples of Christians killing for Christ? I can think of none.

Putting Born Again Christians in the same league with muslims is so incorrect as to be sickening. If US Christians decided to do to muslims in the US what muslims in the muslim word do to unarmed Christians in their land, there would have been a zero muslim count at the last census, but since we haven't, your premise is proved asinine.

BobCeleste  posted on  2015-01-20   17:32:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Gatlin (#0) (Edited)

Once again, Comrade, your penchant for taking things out of context is dead on:

1 Samuel 15 New International Version (NIV)

"1. Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2. This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

The God described in the Bible was always considered vengeful, but never without some reason for vengeance. To be fair, the Bible also says that God committed near total annihilation of the world just because He was sick of it at the moment...

Also, Saul's time (1050 BC) was well before Mohammed's time (570 AD), and can be considered part of the Islamic, Jewish, and Christian shared history. The God in the story (or historical account, depending on your stance) is the same, and the actions and results could also be considered shared. This alone discounts the assertion that Christianity's version of God and faith is bloodier and crueler than Islam's when using this reference.

Unless I am mistaken, most of the blood shed by Christians happened after the birth of Islam, and it can hardly be considered a one-way street.

.

.

.

I bet ol' Gats has a metric sh*te-tonne of research that will back up the good professor Philip Jenkins claims that Christians are mush bloodier than Muslims. Why, just look and the Middle East right now. So much "peace" that you cannot even walk a straight line for 10 miles without bumping into one of the ISIS "emissaries of peace"!!!

TheFireBert  posted on  2015-01-20   17:39:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: BobCeleste (#2)

You've got me confused with gatlin, who posted this opinion piece. --- I'm with you in criticizing it.

tpaine  posted on  2015-01-20   17:41:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: tpaine (#4)

Doesn't gatlin find that debatable?

Not dripping with enough sarcasm for the Pastor to detect...

TheFireBert  posted on  2015-01-20   17:53:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Gatlin (#0)

I banned your rtwb account. You're not allowed to have more then one account. You have been warned.

Moderator X  posted on  2015-01-20   17:54:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Moderator X (#6)

When can I expext the privilege of more than 5 posts a day?

DirtyHarold  posted on  2015-01-20   18:05:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: tpaine (#1)

"Most Muslims condemn Islamic terrorism?"

Doesn't gatlin find that debatable?

Thank you for asking.

I am busy right now.

However, you hold onto the thought.

I'll try to get back to you when I have time.

Uh, please ping me if I forget.

Gatlin  posted on  2015-01-20   18:07:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Moderator X (#6)

What is an "rtwb" account I am supposed to have?

Gatlin  posted on  2015-01-20   18:10:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: BobCeleste (#2)

examples of Christians killing for Christ? I can think of none.


Knights Templar


....

Indeed, the Nazis, the Norwegian mass murderer and many others have committed terrorism in the name of Christianity. Adolph Hitler professed to be a Christian, and churches in Nazi Germany mainly supported the Nazis. .....

Most Muslims condemn Islamic terrorism, just as most Christians condemn terrorism by fundamentalist Christians and most Jews condemn terrorism by fundamentalist Jews.

......


The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party

"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul

Hondo68  posted on  2015-01-20   18:26:30 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: TheFireBert (#3)

Once again, Comrade, your penchant for taking things out of context is dead on:

I took nothing out of context. I only posted the article.

If you want to ask me if I agree or disagree with the author, then please do so.

I bet ol' Gats has a metric sh*te-tonne of research that will back up the good professor Philip Jenkins claims that Christians are mush bloodier than Muslims. Why, just look and the Middle East right now. So much "peace" that you cannot even walk a straight line for 10 miles without bumping into one of the ISIS "emissaries of peace"!!!

Nope, ol'w Gats has done no such research.

Gatlin  posted on  2015-01-20   18:30:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: TheFireBert (#5)

Doesn't gatlin find that debatable?

Not dripping with enough sarcasm for the Pastor to detect...

I've been trying to take it a little easy around poor gat, since he suffered the embarrassment of leaving LP over a mere mention that his 'personal info' might be accessible to a new owner. What could possibly be within such info, - to cause such an overreaction?

tpaine  posted on  2015-01-20   18:34:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: tpaine (#1)

"Most Muslims condemn Islamic terrorism?"

Doesn't gatlin find that debatable?

Okay, I have time for you now.

I personally have no idea if "Most Muslims condemn Islamic terrorism" or not.

I did find that a 2007 Pew Research Center study of several nations throughout the Muslim world showed that opposition to suicide bombing in the Muslim world is increasing, with a majority of Muslims surveyed in 10 out of the 16 of the countries responding that suicide bombings and other violence against civilians is "never" justified, though an average of 38% believe it is justified at least rarely.

Do you have anything that supports or disputes the Pew Research Center study?

Gatlin  posted on  2015-01-20   18:42:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: tpaine (#13)

"Most Muslims condemn Islamic terrorism?"

I also found that the YouGov survey for the Daily Telegraph, published two weeks after the July 2005 bombings in the London Underground, showed that 88% of British Muslims were opposed to the bombings, while 6% (about 100,000 individuals) fully supported them, and one British Muslim in four expressed some sympathy with the motives of the bombers.

On the basis of that survey, if it is to believe, one must say that most British Muslims were opposed to the bombings and therefore condemned Islamic terrorism, right?

Gatlin  posted on  2015-01-20   18:47:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Gatlin, rtwb sock puppet (#9)

What is an "rtwb" account .... ?

How many sock puppet accounts do you have left, tater?


The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party

"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul

Hondo68  posted on  2015-01-20   18:53:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: hondo68, Gatlin, rtwb sock puppet. Moderator X (#15)

What is an "rtwb" account .... ?

How many sock puppet accounts do you have left, tater?

I have never seen a post by "rtwb"....have you?

I did a "From" and "To" search for "rtwb" and came up with nothing.

Gatlin  posted on  2015-01-20   18:58:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Gatlin (#16)

rwbt

Moderator X  posted on  2015-01-20   19:06:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Gatlin, Return To Work Bonus, Acorn (#16)

search for "rtwb" and came up with nothing.

A world wide web search comes up with... Return To Work Bonus.

How much is Acorn paying you, including sock puppet accounts?


The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party

"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul

Hondo68  posted on  2015-01-20   19:06:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: tpaine (#14)

"Most Muslims condemn Islamic terrorism?"

Condemnations from Muslim sources against terrorists:

A common complaint among non-Muslims is that Muslim religious authorities do not condemn terrorist attacks. The complaints often surface in letters to the editors of newspapers, on phone-in radio shows, in Internet mailing lists, forums, etc. A leader of an evangelical Christian para-church group, broadcasting over Sirius Family Net radio, stated that he had done a thorough search on the Internet for a Muslim statement condemning terrorism, without finding a single item.

Actually, there are lots of fatwas and other statements issued which condemn attacks on innocent civilians. Unfortunately, they are largely ignored by newspapers, television news, radio news and other media outlets.

The following essays describe a small percentage of statements condemning terrorism that have been made, but not widely published.Topics covered in this section:

Gatlin  posted on  2015-01-20   19:11:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Gatlin (#13)

"Most Muslims condemn Islamic terrorism?"
Doesn't gatlin find that debatable?
Okay, I have time for you now. -- I personally have no idea if "Most Muslims condemn Islamic terrorism" or not.
Thanks for admitting you're posting agitprop without having an idea if it's factual, or not.

tpaine  posted on  2015-01-20   19:14:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: hondo68 (#18)

search for "rtwb" and came up with nothing.

A world wide web search comes up with... Return To Work Bonus.

How much is Acorn paying you, including sock puppet accounts?

A google search for "rtwB" came up with a number of links to: "Respiratory Therapists Without Borders."

No, I am not connected with the medical profession in any way.

If you find anyone giving out a "return to work bonus"....check to see what they are paying. If it is enough, and it would have to be a huge sum, then I may be interested.

Gatlin  posted on  2015-01-20   19:17:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: tpaine (#20)

I was not, it is that you have no importance to me....so you get to the back of the line.

I have my research laid out well in advance for everything I post.

You must know that....try to remember it.

Gatlin  posted on  2015-01-20   19:19:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Moderator X (#17)

rwbt

Screen Name Search: rwbt

There are no posts with the given search criteria.

Sorry, I still have no idea what you are talking about.

If you want me to leave, just say so and I am gone right now.

Gatlin  posted on  2015-01-20   19:26:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Gatlin (#23)

I think he knows that.

Biff Tannen  posted on  2015-01-20   19:28:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Gatlin (#23) (Edited)

Screen Name Search: rwbt

There are no posts with the given search criteria.

Shoddy research is standard for you.

There is one post by your sock puppet rwbt, which I responded to.

libertysflame.com/cgi-bin...gi?ArtNum=37125&Disp=2#C2


The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party

"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul

Hondo68  posted on  2015-01-20   19:45:33 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Gatlin (#0) (Edited)

The Problem Isn’t Islam … It’s ALL Religious Fundamentalism

When you cut to the chase,that isn't even the problem. The problems come when the fundies demand everyone else live according to their morality codes.

If they just applied those standards to themselves and left the rest of us alone,no problem.

It's all about freedom of choice.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-01-20   19:46:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: hondo68, Moderator X, A K A Stone (#25)

Screen Name Search: rwbt

There are no posts with the given search criteria.

Shoddy research is standard for you.

There is one post by your sock puppet rwbt, which I responded to.

libertysflame.com/cgi-bin...gi?ArtNum=37125&Disp=2#C2

Not shoddy research....I do that to perfection.

I did transpose the letters to "rtwb" when I performed a "From" and "To" search....you can charge to to me acting like greased lightning. I am one fast Devil.

I have no idea why Moderator X ever got the idea I am rwtb.

I am done with this....and you should be too, Moderator X.

Gatlin  posted on  2015-01-20   19:57:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: sneakypete (#26)

Gatlin posted an article: -- "The Problem Isn’t Islam … It’s ALL Religious Fundamentalism"

Then said:--- "I personally have no idea if "Most Muslims condemn Islamic terrorism" or not."

Now Pete observes: --- When you cut to the chase,that isn't even the problem. The problems come when the fundies demand everyone else live according to their morality codes.

If they just applied those standards to themselves and left the rest of us alone,no problem.

It's all about freedom of choice.

Well said Pete. --- And I'll bet you get a very convoluted 'answer' from gatlin. If we're lucky he may use Pew again.

tpaine  posted on  2015-01-20   20:11:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: sneakypete, tpaine (#28)

Gatlin posted an article: -- "The Problem Isn’t Islam … It’s ALL Religious Fundamentalism" Then said:--- "I personally have no idea if "Most Muslims condemn Islamic terrorism" or not."

Now Pete observes: --- When you cut to the chase,that isn't even the problem. The problems come when the fundies demand everyone else live according to their morality codes.

If they just applied those standards to themselves and left the rest of us alone,no problem.

It's all about freedom of choice.

Well said Pete. --- And I'll bet you get a very convoluted 'answer' from gatlin. If we're lucky he may use Pew again.

Well said Pete.

There, not convoluted, tpaine.

If I were to have bet, then you would have lost your bet, tpaine.

But then, tpaine, I will never bet with you because you no doubt would renege on that too....just like you did on making a contribution to LP.

Gatlin  posted on  2015-01-20   20:18:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Gatlin (#29)

I'm pretty sure that Goldi knew he would never ptay up.

Palmdale  posted on  2015-01-20   20:28:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Palmdale (#30)

I'm pretty sure that Goldi knew he would never ptay up.

She did.
She knew what kind of a person he is.
She backhanded him good on the post where she told him to shut up.

Gatlin  posted on  2015-01-20   20:31:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: Gatlin (#29) (Edited)

Well said Pete.

There, not convoluted, tpaine.

If I were to have bet, then you would have lost your bet, tpaine.

Rats, foiled again by Mr. Obvious.

But then, tpaine, I will never bet with you because you no doubt would renege on that too....just like you did on making a contribution to LP.

I've never welshed on a bet in my life. -- You failed to meet my conditions, which was made obvious by your chump like flight from LP when you thought some of your personal info might be compromised.

tpaine  posted on  2015-01-20   20:33:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: tpaine (#32)

I've never welshed on a bet in my life.

Yea, sure....and you never lied in you life either. :)

You know what, chump....I never have to meet you conditions.

Gatlin  posted on  2015-01-20   20:37:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: Gatlin (#0)

Another click wasted on a crappy 3-sentence excerpt.

If you don't like it enough to post the whole thing, then please don't post it.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-01-20   20:38:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: Gatlin (#31)

She knew what kind of a person he is.

She knew indeed, when I defended her position on the thread where she told the religious fanatics to shut up.

She backhanded him good on the post where she told him to shut up.

Yep, that was her style, especially when she was defending poor you over whatever strange thing you were covering up, and still are.

tpaine  posted on  2015-01-20   20:41:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: tpaine, Moderator X, Devil Anse (#33)

I feel sure that MX or DA will be along shortly to stop this exchange.

So, I will save them the time and trouble.

I am through sparring with you, featherweight.

You are no match for me and it is unfair if I continue.

You take care, ya hear!

Gatlin  posted on  2015-01-20   20:41:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: TooConservative (#34)

Another click wasted on a crappy 3-sentence excerpt.

Your browser doesn't handle hyperlinks?

Palmdale  posted on  2015-01-20   20:42:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: Y'ALL (#36)

In my world, he who calls in the moderators, and flees the scene, is a loooser.

tpaine  posted on  2015-01-20   20:48:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: tpaine (#38)

In my world, he who calls in the moderators, and flees the scene, is a loooser.

Right!

I admit: I lost....I lost....I lost....

Now can you please just shut up and stop stalking me and bothering me?

Gatlin  posted on  2015-01-20   20:54:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Gatlin (#39)

Now can you please just shut up and stop stalking me and bothering me?

Sorry, but as long as you post articles here, you'll get my comments on them.

Nope I'm not gonna shut up. I'm not stalking you, and if my comments are bothering you, feel free to be a bozo, as you were on LP.

tpaine  posted on  2015-01-20   21:04:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: Palmdale (#37)

Your browser doesn't handle hyperlinks?

No, it doesn't.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-01-20   21:04:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: Gatlin (#39)

Now can you please just shut up and stop stalking me

Good luck on that.

Palmdale  posted on  2015-01-20   21:13:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: Palmdale (#42)

Now can you please just shut up and stop stalking me.

Good luck on that.

Gatlin  posted on  2015-01-20   21:20:43 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: Gatlin (#11)

I took nothing out of context. I only posted the article.

I am not debating your posting of the article, only your ability to shape the context of the conversation by selective posting of the main body of content, along with no explanation of why you did so.

This post you seem to highlight just the juiciest part of the article, the hook, which does not contain any "facts" or "opinions" which at least support why you think the article was important.

On the other post you made about "greying" Christians, you left out the main meaning of the article in favor of what many would call agitprop.

Perhaps you should post the entire article next time or at least create a poster's comment on why that is the only content that matters in the article.

Otherwise, your posts will remain in troll'dom with the rest of your Troll Kingdom.

TheFireBert  posted on  2015-01-20   22:43:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: TheFireBert (#44)

This post you seem to highlight just the juiciest part of the article

Palmdale  posted on  2015-01-20   22:45:05 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: BobCeleste (#2)

Don't waste the internet ink on this article. This was done over at LP too.

We know the true definition of Christian fundamentalist and it does not involve cowardly violence:

FIVE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE FAITH

There are five fundamentals of the faith which are essential for Christianity, and upon which we agree:

1. The Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1; John 20:28; Hebrews 1:8-9).

2. The Virgin Birth (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:27).

3. The Blood Atonement (Acts 20:28; Romans 3:25, 5:9; Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 9:12-14).

4. The Bodily Resurrection (Luke 24:36-46; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 15:14-15).

5. The inerrancy of the scriptures themselves (Psalms 12:6-7; Romans 15:4; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20).

Christians at the turn of the 20th century embraced the label "fundamentalist." It separated them from the liberalism infecting the churches and theological universities in the late 19th century.

Based on the above, I am a fundamentalist.

"Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa

redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-20   23:46:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: hondo68, Gatlin (#15)

Nexus6  posted on  2015-01-20   23:51:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: TheFireBert, Vicomte13, TooConservative (#3)

The God described in the Bible was always considered vengeful, but never without some reason for vengeance. To be fair, the Bible also says that God committed near total annihilation of the world just because He was sick of it at the moment...

I will add to your analysis. That being we are the created and God is the Creator.

There were horrible things going on in Canaan and later around, and even later right inside Israel. Things like parents having their children walk through fire as a sacrifice to gods. Of course the children perished. The parents did this ritual sacrifice to gain favor with the gods, gain power and financial gain. Sounds familiar.

There was also other horrible murders, rapes, brutal treatment of orphans and widows and yes the worst kind of sexual perversions. God judged these kings and nations. He used the sword from Israel to remove the filth from His nostrils.

Are we really going to judge the Judge? Job has an answer to this question.

"Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa

redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-21   0:10:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: Gatlin, CZ82 (#6)

I banned your rtwb account. You're not allowed to have more then one account. You have been warned.

"Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa

redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-21   0:17:27 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: Gatlin (#11) (Edited)

If you want to ask me if I agree or disagree with the author, then please do so.

That is actually an excellent question: where exactly are you on this issue?

Mind you, the issue is multi-topical - religious sects, definition of fundamentalist, violence in religion, etc.

I have my own reservations about fundamentalism in general, and how each major religion handles and uses the term. This site has a very simplified primer on the differences between Christian and Islamic fundamentalism, and kinda strays into "religion of peace" territory when explaining away how the majority of Muslims do not wish to visit violence upon others.

If one were to take in what is reported in news across the world today, they would get a much fuzzier picture of what Islamic fundamentalism is, and how easy it is to transform it into a jihad against the infidels.

Any time you have a religious ideology, not matter how far from mainstream it may be, demanding that society adopt its laws and beliefs, it is a recipe for disaster when enough people subscribe to its madness. And I would not say that whole nations have called for genocide in the recent past, but we have had religious and political leaders in Muslim-dominant countries that have done just that, along with mutterings of destruction for western nations.

This is in stark contrast to what Christian fundamentalism is. Yes, there are some that believe that homosexuals are deviants and that you should burn in hell if you work on Sunday, but at worst the average modern Christian fundamentalist could be considered champions of the status-quot. They would like to return to a more morals-based society, but are more concerned with proving that the Bible is 90-100% true than forcing society as a whole to a theocratic rule which could possibly include some of the cruelest punishments known to man.

And the key term is "Christ"ian. Any argument that poses that Christians would want to return to the Old Testament style of living would do better talking to a fundamentalist Jew about how the Old Testament fits in to modern life. Anyone who walks under the banner of Christ would know that much of the old laws were abandoned once the teachings of Jesus spread.

On the violence in the recorded texts of the Bible and the Qur'an, the Bible makes mostly historical references to specific violence related to events in a specific context. In places where violence may be implied, it is often metaphorical or talked about in an external influence, rather than a direct call to arms. The Old Testament was heavily coded with violent episodes of military campaign, while the New Testament, which is based on history after Jesus' birth, is recorded as primer in non-violent living. In contrast, there are numerous accounts of direct, open-ended calls of violence to be visited upon non-believers, foreigners, and those who turn from Islam to another religion found in the texts of the Qur'an and other historical records of Mohammad. Even the contrast of personalities and gravity toward violence is evident in the texts when referring to both Jesus and Mohammed. One was a near perfect pacifist, and the other a military leader and prophet who often decreed that Allah said it was OK to kill and loot as long as you were aggrieved.

Of course, there is plenty of content out there to call all of this text a lie; who are any of us to know the past truth, rather than look into the current affairs of mankind?

TheFireBert  posted on  2015-01-21   0:20:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: hondo68, BobCeleste, Vicomte13 (#10)

Indeed, the Nazis, the Norwegian mass murderer and many others have committed terrorism in the name of Christianity. Adolph Hitler professed to be a Christian, and churches in Nazi Germany mainly supported the Nazis. .....

Hitler was not a Christian. He embraced the ancient pagan gods of the Germanic tribes. You can see that by the rituals kept at his rallies.

Plus, and most important...the real Christians stormed the beaches of Normandy to destroy the false proclaiming Nazis.

The greatest trick of Satan is to create belief systems that look and feel like the real thing. But for those who have eyes that see, these systems are easily identifiable.

Finally, nowhere in Biblical Christian teaching is it taught to conquer in the Name of Christ. Nowhere is it directed or hinted to establish nation states as a theocracy with using such a state to spread and force the Gospel.

With Islam they are commanded to use the sword. And they do so with their Allah's blessings.

"Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa

redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-21   0:31:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: TheFireBert (#50) (Edited)

Of course, there is plenty of content out there to call all of this text a lie; who are any of us to know the past truth, rather than look into the current affairs of mankind?

Good laydown.

Jesus Christ blessed the little children.

Muhammad raped young girls.

"Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa

redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-21   0:44:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: redleghunter, Moderator X (#49)

rwtb is not me....

Gatlin  posted on  2015-01-21   0:45:31 ET  (2 images) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: Gatlin (#53)

I think they know.

"Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa

redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-21   0:50:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: redleghunter (#54) (Edited)

I think they know.

Why do you think that?

I give you my word as a Retired Officer and I will place my hand on a Bible to swear that I am not rwtb....if any of this means anything to you.

But I have no reason to defend myself....Moderator X (Stone) made the charge. He should prove it. He knows that he can't.

Gatlin  posted on  2015-01-21   1:36:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: TheFireBert (#50)

I found your post interesting and informative.

I have never read the Koran or the Bible. Therefore I am not a student of either and I have no interest to become one. I posted the article because the title held my attention when I ran across a link to it while reading another article.

I am a person who can make a decision, but I do so only after I have all the facts. Furthermore, I am a person who continues to look for the facts and ask questions until I get them. The unanswered question foremost in my mind about the subject brought forth in the article is: Are all these people wrong when the say the bible calls for genocide?

The answer to that is: I don’t know.

Up until now, I never considered whether the Bible did or did not all for genocide. Before I finish reading all information I find available, I will not be able to say whether it does or does not.

The dilemma I continually face is: Who is to dictate interpretation when biblical scholars can't agree?

I am not evading an answer, I am simply saying that I don’t have one yet….there is a difference.

Proverbs 29:20 - Do you see a man who is hasty in his words? There is more hope for a fool than for him.

Gatlin  posted on  2015-01-21   1:39:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: Gatlin (#56)

The dilemma I continually face is: Who is to dictate interpretation when biblical scholars can't agree?

PING

SOSO  posted on  2015-01-21   1:48:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: Gatlin (#56)

Are all these people wrong when the say the bible calls for genocide? ... Up until now, I never considered whether the Bible did or did not all for genocide.

There is a large measure of faith that generally dictates one's belief that a God, as merciful as both the Qur'an and the Bible lead us to believe, would not prescribe wholesale genocide. I believe that a large number of people tend to interject what they think a God would say into a belief system, whether true or not, for their own selfish reasons. Such as I believe Mohammad, or his followers, may have done; such as I believe the Christians of the Dark Ages may have done.

To read the Bible in a nearly literal manner, one can come to the conclusion that the God in the Bible often called to eradicate an enemy of the children of Israel, and we must understand that in those times leaving some of the enemy could spell disaster at a later time. This same God often set goals as a test, not to wipe out an enemy, but to test the resolve of the key figure in the story. Also, we could easily suppose that the rules of war in those times often resulted in the complete annihilation of the opposite party.

It can also be interpreted that every call to attack an enemy of God was provoked by either a irrecoverable behavioral pattern or the consequence of an attack on the children of Israel.

Whatever the interpretations, the history of the Bible is also the history of the descendents of Islam and the Jews. Whatever we end up blaming Christianity for in the Old Testament, we must also place an equal amount of blame on the other two religious offspring of Abraham: Judaism and Islam. To not do so would be to lie to yourself and reject reality.

TheFireBert  posted on  2015-01-21   3:05:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: TheFireBert (#58)

To read the Bible in a nearly literal manner, one can come to the conclusion that the God in the Bible often called to eradicate an enemy of the children of Israel,

Yes he did. The thing that amazes me, though, is the degree to which people don't read the Bible in a literal manner.

If one does, we see that before the Flood, God destroyed a world that was filled with violence. THAT, specifically, is the thing mentioned. We don't have to speculate as to what triggered God to destroy the world, Genesis tells us: violence. It disgusted God. So God drowned the world and saved the remnant, and then when the remnant got off the boat God laid down the law for mankind: do not shed man's blood, and he laid down the standard of justice: he who sheds man's blood, by man his blood must be shed.

THAT is the standard for human violence. THAT is the law of God.

Now move forward God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah by his own hand. We're told that they are very sinful. We see the angels nearly raped and speak of the sin of Sodom, but Scripture tells us (not in Genesis, but later) that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was primarily wild violence. Yes, all those men showed up to rape the angels. The key here is not that they showed up to have sodomy with angels (although yes, that's bad), it's that they showed up to forcibly take and rape the angels. Rape isn't simply sex, it's violent domination. They threatened to do it to Lot too. I don't have the passage in front of me, but if you look up Sodom in the text, you will find one of the prophets say later that the sins for which Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed were sins of violence.

So now we come to Canaan. Yes, God commanded the Israelites to enter into Canaan and drive the Canaanites out, and to kill any who stood and fought. That's true, completely true. God said it was because their sins stank to him, so God was using the Israelites as the means to effect this destruction.

We read all of the destruction and war, indeed genocide, and we can see that the Canaanites were to be destroyed by it, as God's will.

But here's the literal thing that seems to escape everybody: this is no authorization for anybody to commit genocide. It was a specific commandment, given by God from flame and power or by an angel visibly standing there before Joshua, to do a specific thing. Note that when the Israelites didn't carry out the sentence, they were themselves afflicted by God. The Hebrews themselves had zero say in any of it. They were instruments of God, nothing more. And remember, please, that God kills EVERYBODY, not just Canaanites. He'll kill you and me too. God uses disease, earthquake, accident, and war, to harvest humans. He does it every day. The Canaanites perished by war. Their Israelite attackers were ALSO all killed by God. God killed everybody. He made the point of killing the Canaanites by Israelite war, to give the Israelites the land quickly, yes, to give them land already under cultivation and with houses, yes, and to make an example of the Canaanites to the world, yes.

But what God never did was authorize any other men to make war on each other. The rule, rather, is: DO NOT SHED HUMAN BLOOD.

So, when one reads the Scripture LITERALLY, what it says is that men cannot make war on other men UNLESS God physically appears and audibly speaks and sends angels and pillars of fire and explicitly commands you to do it. THEN you not only CAN commit genocide, but you MUST or God will kill YOU for the disobedience.

God kills everybody, so God doing this is no moral shock (to anybody with a brain), but God doesn't authorize MEN to do it: that would be murdererd. He commanded Israelites, Circa 1500 BC, to do it, then and there. He hasn't authorized it since.

God granted men the right to defend themselves, so men everywhere, including Israelites afterward, had the right to take up arms to repel and destroy invaders. Why? Because invaders come in and shed blood - and when a man sheds blood, by man his blood shall be shed. So, the DEFENSIVE wars of Israel, and everybody else, are licit. But OFFENSIVE wars of empire, to conquer and rule and take the land for ones self? God commanded the Israelites to do that to the Canaanites in 1500 BC. And he commanded everybody else forever to never do such a thing, because that's going out to shed human blood.

THAT is what a literal read of the Bible will get you.

The very thing the Israelites did is damnable if anybody else does it, ever, and WOULD HAVE BEEN damnable for the Israelites had they not done it, and indeed, the Israelites suffered terrible disasters, from God directly, whenever they didn't do it the WAY God commanded it done. When the Israelites, for example, didn't want to destroy certain property they'd captured, but God ordered it UTTERLY destroyed, He began to inflict defeat and death on the Israelites, because they'd converted his justice into disobedience and personal gain.

An analogy: the executioner in prison is there to carry out a sentence, and if he does so, the state does not consider him a criminal. But if the executioner, in carrying out the sentence, adds features to the execution to indulge his own sick mind, even though the condemned ends up dead either way, the executioner becomes a felon and is himself punished severely for turning the execution of a sentence by the authorities into his own perverse little game.

I've read for years over and over about people rejecting the God of Scriptures because of the genocide of the Canaanites. That seems remote: may as well reject God, then, for human death, because he kills everybody. The fact of a God-ordered genocide in that place doesn't mean much, for God is not simply a genocide, he's a xenocide - he's killed everybody else between then and now too, and he keeps doing it. He's going to be our executioner too. There's reason to hate and fear that, but there's nothing particular worse about having an Israelite put a sword through a man's chest than about inflicting pancreatic cancer on a child. God does both.

Perhaps it's because of the German genocide of the Jews, or the various genocides of native peoples: the people who committed the genocides for their own gain were indeed murderers, monstrous sinners, who face damnation. But that's because they were murderers, pure and simple. The other genocides differ from Canaan in this: God didn't command them. God commanded that the Canaanites die that way, but God commanded the Germans, and the other genocidal conquerors, NOT to murder people. They did anyway. What was right and necessary for the Israelites specifically to do to the Canaanites is pure murder for anybody else to do it. The Israelites were blessed for it, but everybody else who has ever done the same thing was damned to hell for it.

God isn't capricious: He said not to kill. Do it, and you're damned. He specifically commanded the Israelites to kill, because the Canaanites were damned. This is not inconsistency. It cruel and hard. But it's a distinction without a difference when it comes to God, for God kills everybody, whether by tidal waves of Israelite troops upon Canaanites, or ocean tsunamis on Thais and tourists. Either way, God kills us all. That's HIS prerogative, per scripture, but it's NEVER ours.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-01-21   7:17:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: redleghunter, hondo68, BobCeleste, Vicomte13 (#51)

"The greatest trick of Satan is to create belief systems that look and feel like the real thing. But for those who have eyes that see, these systems are easily identifiable".

So simple that a child could understand, and an adult could use to deceive the world.

Murron  posted on  2015-01-21   8:25:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: TheFireBert (#58)

Someone smarter than I can ever hope to be once noted:
     "What’s important is what you think about after you read, what you conclude, what you do with what you read,"

While I speed read, there are times when I stop and reread something again. I did that when reading the information you presented to me here. In fact, I reread it three times. Although I have good retention when speed reading, I find the slower I read, the higher my understanding soars. I liked what I read….I liked it very much. In fact, I was impressed and at age 81 and having accomplished what I have in life, I am not easily impressed.

To keep this brief (something I confess to have trouble doing)….I will extract only one of the many good points you made and comment on it, I hope that meets with your approval.

You said:
     I believe that a large number of people tend to interject what they think a God would say into a belief system, whether true or not, for their own selfish reasons.

Absolutely! To that, I would emphatically add: They use religious freedom as a dogma to turn it into a personal code and attempt to impose “their” Christian beliefs on others. Actually, they try to shove “their” religious “beliefs” down the throats of others. In doing this, they often times form an authoritarian group that seeks to impinge on the right of others. It is as though these professed Christians become tyrants, while I think the true followers of Jesus Christ will never seek to infringe on the rights of others.

As Christians see the importance of having a higher authority than themselves, they should not want to impose “their” values and interpretations of what is right and wrong on others.

To quote you….amirite?!?

It is refreshing to finally find someone with the knowledge and attitude necessary for me to use as my “go to guy” when I have a question or need a clarification on religion. I hope that it be okay with you if I do that. You make more sense in your posts about religion than all the others here combined. That is refreshing, to say the least. In addition to that, you are courteous and not condescending.

I wish I had more time to chat, but I am on my way to the dentist.

Catch you later….

Gatlin  posted on  2015-01-21   8:45:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: Murron (#60)

This Crusade is going to take a while

The Bush/Obama/Clinton Crusades continue. What's the death toll so far, in this apparently endless crusade? "What difference does it make" ~Hillary

These allegedly Christian presidents are bloodthirsty warmongers, with no rhyme or reason. It's fairly certain that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Sadam had executed or driven out virtually all of the al-CIA-da Muslims in Iraq.

Shouldn't the troops be back in the US, stopping the ongoing invasion of OUR nation? The Constitution says they should, "Protect the States against invasion."


The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party

"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul

Hondo68  posted on  2015-01-21   9:24:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: tpaine (#4)

You've got me confused with gatlin, who posted this opinion piece. --- I'm with you in criticizing it.

Thank you and please forgive me.

BobCeleste  posted on  2015-01-21   11:27:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: hondo68 (#10) (Edited)

Just because a person, group or even denomination call them selves Christians does not make them Christians, to be a Christian means to be both a follower and o 0beyer of Christ.

Shortly I am going to do a thought entitled "Remember me". It may help separate the Christian from the the likes of those you cited.

BobCeleste  posted on  2015-01-21   11:30:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: BobCeleste, hondo68 (#64)

Just because a person, group or even denomination call them selves Christians does not make them Christians, to be a Christian means to be both a follower and o 0beyer of Christ.

Indeed:

John 14:15King James Version (KJV)

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

"Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." Gregory of Nyssa

redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-21   11:40:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: redleghunter (#46)

There is one other thing, being Born Again Spiritually, not denominationaly.

In Luke 23 we find the words "Remember me", those two words are key to salvation. Unless a man is Born Again, Scripturally, he will not see the kingdom of God.

BobCeleste  posted on  2015-01-21   11:41:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: BobCeleste, *Neo-Lib Chickenhawk Wars* (#64) (Edited)

Just because a person, group or even denomination call them selves Christians does not make them Christians, to be a Christian means to be both a follower and o 0beyer of ...

The same may be said of Islam, no?

Bottom line... attempting to use religion as an excuse for bad behavior is despicable, IMO.


The neo-lib/neo-con alliance. Different wings, same bird (Satan/D&R party).


The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party

"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul

Hondo68  posted on  2015-01-21   11:47:01 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: Gatlin (#61)

They use religious freedom as a dogma to turn it into a personal code and attempt to impose “their” Christian beliefs on others. Actually, they try to shove “their” religious “beliefs” down the throats of others. In doing this, they often times form an authoritarian group that seeks to impinge on the right of others. It is as though these professed Christians become tyrants, while I think the true followers of Jesus Christ will never seek to infringe on the rights of others.

I am far from a source or expert on religion, thermodynamics, or universal remote controls. All are too complicated for one man to understand correctly or safely.

.

.

Unfortunately, the image that most people see today is that [all] Christians "'try to shove “their” religious “beliefs” down the throats of others'".

While I may consider myself a Christian (based on my beliefs and what I find to be true in a well know historical account that began with many bloody beginnings) I do not consider the practice of trying to sway public opinion of what I think is moral an attempt to shove it down their collective throats. This is, of course, a matter of how one could interpret the actions of others without the context of intent and meaning. It is also up to the delivery of the actions.

This being said, I do not think that most Christians are either prepared nor qualified to argue their beliefs well enough to sway anyone to their way of thinking, and often this causes an impression of aggression, force, and dogmatic dictation. In reality, I think over 80% of the population would be in the same boat since the mental capacity of a Christian is the same as any other human being, and thus could be calculated into the average of the population. Often the attempt to sway others ends up being an overly pushy affair, or the receiving end over-thinks the encounter then shares their opinionated recount of the event.

And you are correct: a true believer would not seek to infringe upon the rights of others. The debatable point is that they may seek to shape society into the image of Christ where one could do so. God spake that the laws of man must be followed; it was always implied that God's will be done before the law of menpg 227-228. The idea of a "true Christian" is also a subjective identity which depends on what your stance is on religious affairs. What you may consider a true Christian could be applied as a black/white filter, and many Christians would consider the definition more dynamic. This ties into the recent article you posted about "grey" Christians, but in many instances it can all be a bit grey.

Christ was considered to be a transformer of culture, a defining element of innocence and rightly living. Although He showed tolerance to others, it was never meant to be a sign of acceptance. Numerous accounts in the Bible show the characters following the law where they are forced to do so, and attempting to change the law where the opportunity exists to bring about a righteous change.

TheFireBert  posted on  2015-01-21   13:56:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: hondo68 (#67)

Don't they both claim to be Catholics?

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

CZ82  posted on  2015-01-21   16:36:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: CZ82 (#69)

Don't they both claim to be Catholics?

No. The Catholics of note in American politics are Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, John Kerry and 6X SCOTUS justices.

A Catholic outside this murderous circle is one Rick Santorum who is Pro Life.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-21   16:48:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: CZ82 (#69)

Don't they both claim to be Catholics?

Hillary is supposed to be Methodist.

McCain: " Baptist congregant
(brought up Episcopalian)"

They both need a good Catholic exorcist, IMO.


The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party

"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul

Hondo68  posted on  2015-01-21   17:13:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: redleghunter (#70)

Gingrich converted to Catholic due to his new wife.


The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party

"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul

Hondo68  posted on  2015-01-21   17:15:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: hondo68 (#72)

Gingrich converted to Catholic due to his new wife

What happened to his 'old' wife?

Wonder what the bishop has to say about that.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-21   17:19:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#74. To: redleghunter (#73)

What happened to his 'old' wife?

He's had three wives. The first he dumped ("She's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of the President. And besides, she has cancer."). The second dumped him. The present one is Catholic. Those two annulments must have set him back a pretty penny.


Religion

Gingrich was raised a Lutheran.[197] In graduate school, he was a Southern Baptist. He converted to Catholicism, Bisek's faith, on March 29, 2009.[198][199] He said "over the course of several years, I gradually became Catholic and then decided one day to accept the faith I had already come to embrace." The moment when he decided to officially become a Catholic was when he saw Pope Benedict XVI on his visit to the United States in 2008: "Catching a glimpse of Pope Benedict that day, I was struck by the happiness and peacefulness he exuded. The joyful and radiating presence of the Holy Father was a moment of confirmation about the many things I had been thinking and experiencing for several years."[200] Gingrich has stated that he has developed a greater appreciation for the role of faith in public life following his conversion, and believes that the United States has become too secular.

At a 2011 appearance in Columbus, Ohio, he said, "In America, religious belief is being challenged by a cultural elite trying to create a secularized America, in which God is driven out of public life."[116]

Gingrich is allowed to receive holy communion, despite being divorced, because his two earlier marriages were annulled by the Catholic church.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich#Religion


The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party

"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul

Hondo68  posted on  2015-01-21   17:39:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#75. To: hondo68 (#71)

Hillary is supposed to be Methodist.

Hillary Clinton's Religious Background & Beliefs: What Does Clinton Believe? Religious Beliefs of Hillary Clinton Affect Positions on Religion, Secularism

By Austin Cline, Agnosticism/Atheism Expert

Hillary Clinton grew up in a Methodist household, she taught Methodist Sunday school like her mother, is a member of a Senate prayer group, and regularly attends the Foundry United Methodist Church in Washington. Hillary Clinton can be placed in the moderate to liberal wing of American Christianity, but she appears to share a number of attitudes with more conservative American Christians. Clinton's liberalism is a relative matter: she's more liberal than many in America, and certainly more liberal than the Christian Right, but she has a long way to go to support truly progressive stances when it comes to religious debates.

The United Methodist Church is made up of both conservative and liberal congregations. The Foundry United Methodist Church in Washington which Hillary Clinton regularly attends describes itself as a "reconciling congregation." According to them, this means aside from not making any distinctions about race, ethnicity, or gender, they also invite "gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons to share our faith, our community life and our ministries." The denomination as whole, however, regards homosexuality as "incompatible with Christian teaching" and opposes not only legalizing gay marriage, but even solemnizing same-sex civil unions.

Abortion is formally frowned upon by the United Methodist Church, but the denomination nevertheless opposes criminalizing abortion as a medical procedure. This makes it technically pro-choice rather than pro-life. America's temperance movement was once strongly supported by Methodist congregations and even today, the United Methodist Church formally affirms the importance of abstinence form alcohol in all forms — it's not even used during communion. The United Methodist Church takes a similarly strong stance against gambling in any form, including state lotteries.

For a while, the United Methodist Church was an important pillar of the Social Gospel Movement, a Christian social movement which sought to transform American politics and society along lines consistent with the Christian gospel. Hillary Clinton has stated that she believes it was an error for the Methodists to focus so much on social transformation because this took attention away from "questions of personal salvation and individual faith."

There is no evidence that Hillary Clinton's religiosity is superficial or an affectation; her behavior is consistent with her professed beliefs and she has explained more than once how important faith is for herself personally and her family. She has also said that prayer - trying to communicate with a god - is important in her life. The Christian Right, though, has tried to portray her as being just the opposite.

Radio show host Michael Savage, for example, has described her the most godless member of the Senate:

Then you have Hillary Clinton, the most Godless woman in the Senate, right out of the Marxist playbook, speaking at the National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast, so as all politicians, suddenly she becomes religious. And here she is opening up her speech to the Hispanics who actually believe in God...

Jerry Falwell once went further by declaring that she would energize the Republican "base" of conservative evangelicals even more than if Lucifer were running as the Democratic candidate for president. Demonizing Hillary Clinton transfers responsibility from the people who hate Hillary Clinton so much onto Hillary herself - if she's demonic, then people have no sane choice but to hate her. Furthermore, this ensures that there is no reason to hold back in attacks on her: you negotiate and compromise with political equals, not with demons.

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

CZ82  posted on  2015-01-21   17:59:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#76. To: hondo68, Vicomte13 (#74)

Maybe Vic can explain this one.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-21   19:31:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: redleghunter (#76)

Maybe Vic can explain this one.

I'm always up for 'splainin'.

This time, I'm not sure what it is I'm s'posed to be explaining, though.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-01-24   8:21:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#78. To: Vicomte13 (#77)

He's had three wives. The first he dumped ("She's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of the President. And besides, she has cancer."). The second dumped him. The present one is Catholic. Those two He's had three wives. The first he dumped ("She's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of the President. And besides, she has cancer."). The second dumped him. The present one is Catholic. Those two annulments must have set him back a pretty penny. must have set him back a pretty penny.

Seems Newt had not one, but two annulments when becoming a Catholic. I know you have knowledge of the process.

"And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;" (Revelation 5:9)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-24   14:08:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com