US Forces fighting Chrisitian Organisation in Uganda

[Charles Darwin]

[youtube][/youtube]

How dare he!?

Funny how christians are all for killing muslim terrorists but boy when the terrorists are christians..whole nother story!

[East of Eden]

Well, for a book that's clear, it's odd that there are thousands of different denominations, each with their own interpretation, and each one of which thinks the others are wrong about it. But I'm sure yours is the only one that's right.

Nonsense, 90% of Christian denominations agree on the essentials of the faith, as expressed in the creeds, for instance. We have Christian liberty on secondary issues. VERY few think only they are really Christians. I am part of the 70,000,000 Anglican Communion, we believe there are many different branches of the church.

Exactly. Follow Jesus, get war against non-Christians.

Nonsense again, nobody is talking about war, but about the kind of disagreement we see on this forum.

99.9% of Biologists accept ToE.

And most theologians agree with me.

[Autodidact]

Nice try, but not quite. The Jewish dietary and ceremonial laws have nothing to do with Christians today. See Galations. The Ten Commandments do.

On what do you base this? Your position is that Christians should not make graven images?

At the same time, you use what God (Jesus) told the OT theocracy of Israel as justification for the actions of Christians today.

Yes, I am saying a just war is not outside of God's character, notwithstanding the NT passage you try and misinterpret.

Well, exactly. and the LRA agrees with you, which is exactly what they think they're fighting.

[East of Eden]

On what do you base this? Your position is that Christians should not make graven images?

Here is an audio explanation of this: http://www.gty.org/resources/questions/QA37

The Ten Commandments were restated in the NT, except for the Sabbath. The Jewish Dietary and Ceremonial laws were not.

Well, exactly. and the LRA agrees with you, which is exactly what they think they're fighting.

Wrong, they aren't fighting a just war, and how do you know they get their violent parts from the Christian parts of their beliefs rather than the animistic or traditional African religious parts?

[Autodidact]

On what do you base this? Your position is that Christians should not make graven images?

Here is an audio explanation of this: http://www.gty.org/resources/questions/QA37

No thanks. I assume you can answer my question yourself, since it's a question as to what your position is.

The Ten Commandments were restated in the NT, except for the Sabbath. The Jewish Dietary and Ceremonial laws were not.

Support for this assertion?

Well, exactly. and the LRA agrees with you, which is exactly what they think they're fighting.

Wrong, they aren't fighting a just war, and how do you know they get their violent parts from the Christian parts of their beliefs rather than the animistic or traditional African religious parts?

I'm not saying that you agree with them that this particular war is just. I'm merely pointing out that they agree with your theology--God permits/endorses killing in just wars.

I don't know what they get from where. I was merely answering your request for evidence that they use the Bible to justify their actions. They do, don't you agree?

[East of Eden]

No thanks. I assume you can answer my question yourself, since it's a question as to what your position is.

Then I'm done here, it appears you aren't interested in a real exchange of ideas. BTW, that audio IS my position.

[Autodidact]

No thanks. I assume you can answer my question yourself, since it's a question as to what your position is.

Then I'm done here, it appears you aren't interested in a real exchange of ideas. BTW, that audio IS my position.

O.K., well let us know if you ever want to take the trouble to articulate it for us. Thanks.

[GiddyUp]

[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum

I will be happy to explain them, they are following false doctrines other than Christianity and Jesus' teachings.

But they were theists[i/]. If atheists have to explain Stalin because he was a an atheist, then you, as a theist have to explain every single theist. I mean I am an atheist but I'm not a communist! So why should I have to cover for someone who lacked a belief in god/s? If an atheist has to explain for atrocities done by atheists then you as a theist have to explain for deeds done by theists. which includes a whole'lot'a'people!

My point is simply that "that's ridiculous". You as a theist are not responsible for some crimes done by some obscure theist, any more than an atheist is responsible for crimes done by some atheist. I'm sure there is something that both atheists and theists lack a belief in, but if someone who also lacked a belief in that "something" it wouldn't be on our record, now would it? Hitler didn't believe in me being God and I'd guess everyone who ever killed anyone didn't either. That doesn't make someone who disbelieves my divinity a bad person.

Also, how can a Christian claim to be following Christ's teaching and then elect officials who practice policies contrary to those?

Who is saying to do that?

Jesus laid down some pretty strict rules in the Sermon on the Mount and went on to say that anyone who doesn't follow those teachings is not his follower. Yet here we see Christians coming up with all sorts of justifications for why they don't practise what Jesus preached.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Even if you twist it from individuals to governments is says 'Blessed are the Peacemakers', we did that when we defeated Hitler and Japan.

So how can a Christian be a soldier and abide by Jesus' teachings? "Do not resist an evil person", "turn the other cheek", etc?

Now, sometimes waging war is the only answer, and I agree that defeating Japan and Germany was a good thing. Even the nuclear bombings of Japan were quite justified if one one considers the death toll that would have been incurred by a continued blockade and invasion of Japan.

But that wasn't a Christian thing to do. Jesus said "do not resist an evil person". Jesus was concerned about the kingdom he had in Heaven, and as he preached he made quite clear that his followers would only be concerned about the kingdom of heaven also. You, and most Christians obviously are mostly concerned about Earth, and security on earth, and wealth on earth.

When Jesus talked about "the wise man who built on the rock" and "the foolish man who built on sand" who do you see yourself as?

*How the hell is the quote funtion supposed to work? This is a nightmare.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Why are you so dedicated to evading my point? Do I really need to ask you a direct question four times to get you to answer it?

You claim that what God (Jesus) told the OT theocracy of Israel has nothing to do with Christians today.

Nice try, but not quite. The Jewish dietary and ceremonial laws have nothing to do with Christians today. See Galations. The Ten Commandments do.

If this is your position, I take it you were mistaken when you said this:

What God did in the flood or told the theocracy of Israel to do has nothing to do with Christians today.

Do you retract (or modify) the above statement? It appears you made a blanket statement that you do not actually believe to be true. This being the case, it would have been easier for you to clarify this in the first place instead of dodging my questions for several pages.

And Jesus said this where?

Jesus didn't, the context did.

From Wikipedia: "Jesus was not changing the meaning of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" but restoring it to the original context. Jesus starts his statement with "you have heard it said" which means that he was clarifying a misconception, as opposed to "it is written" which would be a reference to scripture. The common misconception seems to be that people were using Exodus 21:24-25 (the guidelines for a magistrate to punish convicted offenders) as a justification for personal vengeance. In this context, the command to "turn the other cheek" would not be a command to allow someone to beat or rob a person, but a command not to take vengeance."

This idea in relation to those who persecute is seen in Lamentations 3:30, "Let him offer his cheek to one who would strike him". This is from the same OT that has no restraints on forcibly stopping evildoers.

I have heard Bible commentators say that 'resist' in Matt. 5:39 probably means in a court of law. The Greek word for 'strike' in that passage means 'slaps you with the back of the hand', so it was more of an insult than an act of violence. The point is that it is better to be insulted twice than to take the matter to court.

If your misinterpretation was correct, why would Jesus say "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace." (Luke 11:21 RSV). No "turn the other cheek" for burglars or looters, and by extension, every other sort of common criminal.

Is there any particular reason you have cited one of three interpretations given on the Wiki page as authoritative? Is there any particular reason you have cited as authoritative the one interpretation that is lacking in references? Is there any particular reason that you have cited as authoritative this interpretation even though it disagrees with your interpretation (it mentions beating or robbing, not insulting as you claim the passage is really about)?

With regard to Luke 11:21, this is a different depiction of Jesus in a different book by a different author, I am not sure why we would expect Matthew's and Luke's Jesuses to be logically consistent. Even so, I am not sure that your out-of-context quote from Luke supports your point. How exactly, given the context, are you taking this to be an instruction from Jesus? It seems descriptive rather than prescriptive to me.

Straw man, I never said don't follow Jesus' teachings. It would be nice if you stop distorting them as if they applied to governments. Jesus had several interactions with people in the military, and never condemned them for their occupation.

As soon as you show where Jesus said "my teachings do not apply to individuals in governments." You most certainly have said "don't follow Jesus' teachings," your entire position here is that governments do not have to follow Jesus' teachings, is it not?

Once again, you base your theology not on what Jesus said but on an imagined reason for something he didn't say.

Yes it is, I am asking you if the Matt. passage means our actions in WWII were wrong, and genocidal. Either they were, or you have the passage way wrong. Why won't you answer that?

If that's what you're asking, no problem: yes, I think Jesus would view nuclear warfare as wrong based on the passage from Matthew. On the other hand, Jesus appears to be pro-genocide in the OT, so he would have no problem with it. The thing about having a God concept so full of contradictions is that it makes it pretty easy to argue whatever side of the debate you desire.

Yes, it is about Uganda, not the Matt. passage or the OT.

I'll again ask you to answer my question about the Good Samaritan. Do you really think Jesus would have wanted the Good Samaritan to stand by and watch the victim be robbed and beaten? Would you want that to happen if you were the victim? The Golden Rule says the attack should be stopped, and then the victim helped, and the criminals prosecuted by government officials (placed over us by God, according to the Bible) so they don't do it to someone else. Or do you think the police arresting criminals is a violation of Matt. also?

Hold on a second. The Golden Rule says the criminal should be prosecuted by government officials? I thought that the Golden Rule was a teaching of Jesus, and I thought you said the teachings of Jesus do not apply to governments.

Aren't you just using the Golden Rule here to say "do unto others as East of Eden would do unto them" instead of actually supporting your position with anything Jesus actually said?

[McCulloch]

Everybody's actions are impacted by their value system, including Christians. A Christian politician has every right to oppose abortion, racial discrimination, or gay marriage because of his value system. If the voters disagree, they can use their value system and vote against him.

Agreed. I wonder why it is that Christian politicians oppose abortion, racial discrimination and same sex marriage because of their value systems, but do not oppose women with short hair, men with long hair, violence as a means to solve international disputes, sabbath breaking, idolatry, blasphemy and public prayer because of the same value systems.

You'd have to ask them, but I notice you have stuff intended for the OT theocracy of Israel mixed in here.

Really? Which ones?

1. women with short hair, men with long hair, 1 Corinthians 11
2. violence as a means to solve disputes, Matthew 5
3. sabbath breaking, The Ten Commandments (please do not tell me that Christians disregard the Ten Commandments)
4. idolatry, Acts 15, 21, Romans 2:22
5. blasphemy Luke 12:10, 1 Timothy 1:20 and
6. public prayer Matthew 6

That's talking to individuals, not the police or military. Do you think a police dept. is unbiblical?

I take it that the prohibition against violence is not part of the stuff intended for OT theocracy, right?

So, when I list a number of items which, for the most part Christian politicians do not oppose, East of Eden alleges that I have included stuff intended for OT theocracy of Israel. When prompted for which ones, East of Eden appears to evade the issue ranting about activist judges and state sponsored chaplains. When we blow through the smoke screen, it seems that the one and only item on my list which qualifies as stuff intended for the OT theocracy of Israel is the one of the Ten Commandments about the Sabbath. So rather than debate if keeping the sabbath is a Christian value, we can remove the ten commandments from the list of Christian values systems.

The unaddressed question is still why do Christian politicians feel that it is appropriate to oppose abortion, racial discrimination and same-sex marriage based solely on their religious faith, but not oppose women with short hair, men with long hair, violence as a means to solve international disputes, idolatry, blasphemy and public prayer. I fear that the Christian politicians and the electorate that support them are somewhat selective about their values.

[East of Eden]

I take it that the prohibition against violence is not part of the stuff intended for OT theocracy, right?

Again, you are confusing was said on how we are to handle an insult with government policy. Jesus also said to buy a sword.

So, when I list a number of items which, for the most part Christian politicians do not oppose, East of Eden alleges that I have included stuff intended for OT theocracy of Israel. When prompted for which ones, East of Eden appears to evade the issue ranting about activist judges and state sponsored chaplains. When we blow through the smoke screen, it seems that the one and only item on my list which qualifies as stuff intended for the OT theocracy of Israel is the one of the Ten Commandments about the Sabbath. So rather than debate if keeping the sabbath is a Christian value, we can remove the ten commandments from the list of Christian values systems.

No, the rest of the Ten Commandments were reinforced in the NT, unlike the Jewish ceremonial and dietary ceremonial laws. You're really charging an imaginary dragon here. We judge a religion by what they do, and Christians aren't living by the OT rules, it has been a settled issue for 2,000 years.

The unaddressed question is still why do Christian politicians feel that it is appropriate to oppose abortion, racial discrimination and same-sex marriage based solely on their religious faith, but not oppose women with short hair, men with long hair, violence as a means to solve international disputes, idolatry, blasphemy and public prayer. I fear that the Christian politicians and the electorate that support them are somewhat selective about their values.

Obviously, hair length is a much lower issue than the murder of 40,000,000 Americans by abortion.