Jimmy Swaggert says he would kill a Homosexual!

[tiger]

Yes Jimmy said he would kill a Homosexual and tell God he died!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8CrabYgivQ

[CFLarsen]

Don't point fingers at Ol' Jimmy: He is just doing what the Bible says he should do:

Leviticus 20, 13 (http://scripturetext.com/leviticus/20-13.htm)
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

King James Bible
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

American King James Version
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be on them.

American Standard Version
And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Bible in Basic English
And if a man has sex relations with a man, the two of them have done a disgusting thing: let them be put to death; their blood will be on them.

Douay-Rheims Bible
If any one lie with a man se with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them.

Darby Bible Translation
And if a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall certainly be put to death; their blood is upon them.

English Revised Version
And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Webster's Bible Translation
If a man also shall lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

World English Bible
"'If a man lies with a male, as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Young's Literal Translation
And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood is on them.

[Fiona]

Well on the basis of what he says would lead up to this murder, I don't think there is much danger.

I have often wondered why such people are worried: perhaps they believe themselves to be irresistible, though there is seldom much evidence for that :). It is more likely that they have so little respect for women as people that they would rape if they were not afraid of the consequences, and they assume homosexuals are just the same as they are themselves. They need a fear of divine retribution to keep them from the worst of crimes, so anyone who does not accept the idea of hell will naturally rape given half a chance. It is not comfortable being the potential tiger's lunch when you are so clearly a tiger in your own "mind". You have to have some sympathy, really. Not.

I admit this is speculative but I think this is a man who has been demonstrated to be a hypocrite? In fact I think he is so far from irresistible that he was paying prostitutes? (If anyone still believes prostitution is not demeaning, btw, I think this settles the matter, but that might just be me...). Circumstantial but I think it supports my hypothesis, to some extent.

Oh and the audience is not exactly demanding, judging from their infantile laughter - they made me sick, to be honest.

I am a little sour this morning so forgive this rant if it is over the top

[tiger]

Well on the basis of what he says would lead up to this murder, I don't think there is much danger.

I have often wondered why such people are worried: perhaps they believe themselves to be irresistible, though there is seldom much evidence for that :). It is more likely that they have so little respect for women as people that they would rape if they were not afraid of the consequences, and they assume homosexuals are just the same as they are themselves. They need a fear of divine retribution to keep them from the worst of crimes, so anyone who does not accept the idea of hell will naturally rape given half a chance. It is not comfortable being the potential tiger's lunch when you are so clearly a tiger in your own "mind". You have to have some sympathy, really. Not.

I admit this is speculative but I think this is a man who has been demonstrated to be a hypocrite? In fact I think he is so far from irresistible that he was paying prostitutes? (If anyone still believes prostitution is not demeaning, btw, I think this settles the matter, but that might just be me...). Circumstantial but I think it supports my hypothesis, to some extent.

Oh and the audience is not exactly demanding, judging from their infantile laughter - they made me sick, to be honest.

I am a little sour this morning so forgive this rant if it is over the top


Funny how Good Ole Jimmy saw nothing wrong with that statement. Yes the audiences laughter is disturbing, but then you have those that go to church and think it was alright to go to war.

[Aitch]

The problem with relying on Leviticus is that it also prohibits, under pain of death, lots of other things. :(

See this joke letter for some details. Or read the original if you're at a loose end.

http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/susan/joke/laura.htm :D

[Bikewer]

Wait...I see an "out" clause. It says "as he lieth with a woman". How many gay guys do that? I mean, the plumbing isn't there....

And why is it that lesbians are spared?

[albion]

How does that creature still have a TV show?

Everyone in that audience should be made to watch Marjoe on endless repeat.

[CFLarsen]

How does that creature still have a TV show?

It's the other way around. That creature is on TV because that's what TV is all about.

[JoeEllison]

So, he's advocating murder, and his crowd cheers and laughs. What the ****** eff is wrong with those people?

[Beerina]

Wait...I see an "out" clause. It says "as he lieth with a woman". How many gay guys do that? I mean, the plumbing isn't there....

I doubt that would stand up in holy court. See, God would know what was in your heart, deceitful trickery, and would nail you anyway.

Scumbucket lawyerly wordplay only succeeds when you can lie feign ignorance of the desired meaning of a phrase. With a perfect mind reader, well...

In any case, Important Documents tend to have more poetic phrasing. Constitutional scholars know this very well, and don't want the Constitution gummed up with overly lawlerly descriptions in ammendments. States have no problems with this, gumming up theirs with ammendments that are thousands of pages specifying school spending in detail and so on. Not mere laws per say. Constitutions. Supreme law of the land.


So "he, you know, 'lays with him the way one lays with a woman'..."

Nah, this is correct. This statement from the Bible is so crystal clear that the very best an apologist can claim is that it was appropriate for a rougher, tougher time.

Which is still a horrible thing for a supposedly kind and omnipotent god to do.

[Beerina]

It's also interesting, in a horriffic way, how it acknowledges both a "top" and a "bottom" position for the actors. "A man who lies with another man as with a woman" describes the top, then "and both of them" means the top and the bottom.


Uhhh, I guess God was aware of that loophole.

[JoeEllison]

I wish people would start calling Christianity a "death cult" the way they call Islam a "death cult", just for balance. :boxedin:

[BPSCG]

I wish people would start calling Christianity a "death cult" the way they call Islam a "death cult", just for balance. :boxedin:I'll be happy to, the moment Christianity starts flying planes into buildings in the name of Jesus, the moment Christianity starts bombing nightclubs full of civilians, the moment Christianity starts kidnaping international aid workers and killing them, the moment Christianity starts kidnaping newspaper reporters and sawing their heads off, the moment Christianity starts stoning women to death for adultery, the moment Christianity starts rioting in the streets when someone makes fun of the pope or of Jesus, the moment Christianity starts strapping bombs onto mentally retarded people and sending them on suicide-bombing missions, the moment Christianity...

Well, you get the picture. Calling Christianity a "death cult" because Jimmy Swaggert is a homophobic jerk is like calling me a hardened criminal because I got caught doing 83 mph on I-81 ten years ago.

[Darth Rotor]

Well, you get the picture. Calling Christianity a "death cult" because Jimmy Swaggert is a homophobic jerk is like calling me a hardened criminal because I got caught doing 83 mph on I-81 ten years ago.
*EJ Mode*

War criminal!

[quixotecoyote]

I'll be happy to, the moment Christianity starts flying planes into buildings in the name of Jesus, the moment Christianity starts bombing nightclubs full of civilians, the moment Christianity starts kidnaping international aid workers and killing them, the moment Christianity starts kidnaping newspaper reporters and sawing their heads off, the moment Christianity starts stoning women to death for adultery, the moment Christianity starts rioting in the streets when someone makes fun of the pope or of Jesus, the moment Christianity starts strapping bombs onto mentally retarded people and sending them on suicide-bombing missions, the moment Christianity...

Well, you get the picture. Calling Christianity a "death cult" because Jimmy Swaggert is a homophobic jerk is like calling me a hardened criminal because I got caught doing 83 mph on I-81 ten years ago.

I think you're giving too much credit to Christianity and too little to the society that constrains it. Let the Dominionists take power and you'll see all the atrocities you mention and more (or possible some different and equivilent ones). It isn't that Christianity is a 'better' religion, but that it exists without the power that leads to the excesses of Islam.

[ravdin]

Didn't this happen about 20 years ago?

Not that it excuses what he said, but this is old news.

[JoeEllison]

I think you're giving too much credit to Christianity and too little to the society that constrains it. Let the Dominionists take power and you'll see all the atrocities you mention and more (or possible some different and equivilent ones). It isn't that Christianity is a 'better' religion, but that it exists without the power that leads to the excesses of Islam.

Just as importantly, Christians in western societies usually have the power of military force that makes suicide bombing unnecessary. After 9-11, American Christians didn't have to strap on backpack bombs or hijack planes of their own, they send the world's most expensive military to do their killing for them.

[BenBurch]

I invite him to try on me (I'm bi) and if he does I think old Jimmy will find himself pushing up daisies long before I will.

[paximperium]

Don't point fingers at Ol' Jimmy: He is just doing what the Bible says he should do:

I only accept the Good News Children's Revised Version as a valid translation of Leviticus.

"Gays are evil because they eat kittens. You like kittens don't you?"
Leviticus 20:13

[ravdin]

Just as importantly, Christians in western societies usually have the power of military force that makes suicide bombing unnecessary. After 9-11, American Christians didn't have to strap on backpack bombs or hijack planes of their own, they send the world's most expensive military to do their killing for them.

While I'm not a fan of the Bible, I don't know of any passages in the New Testament that exhort Christians to kill nonbelievers. The 9/11 terrorists wanted to inflict maximum casualties on civilians because their holy book explicitly instructed them to do so (those passages are ignored by the vast majority of the world's Muslims, but they aren't taken out of context by the murderous fanatics).

[BPSCG]

I think you're giving too much credit to Christianity and too little to the society that constrains it. Let the Dominionists take power and you'll see all the atrocities you mention and more (or possible some different and equivilent ones). It isn't that Christianity is a 'better' religion, but that it exists without the power that leads to the excesses of Islam.Pah - I've been reading here for years that the fundies have taken over the U.S. If that's true, then how come we haven't seen wholesale massacres of Jews, gays, atheists, and all the other groups the fundies allegedly hate so much?

Just as importantly, Christians in western societies usually have the power of military force that makes suicide bombing unnecessary. After 9-11, American Christians didn't have to strap on backpack bombs or hijack planes of their own, they send the world's most expensive military to do their killing for them.:)

This is great.

Quixotecoyote says the fundies are constrained by society from carrying out atrocities. Then in the very next post, JoeEllison, apparently delusionally believing he's somehow back qc up, takes the complete opposite tack and says that the fundies are so powerful that they command the U.S. military to do their killing for them.

At least one of you guys is wrong.

:)

[BPSCG]

I invite him to try on me (I'm bi) and if he does I think old Jimmy will find himself pushing up daisies long before I will.So what would happen if you and CFL happened to spot Jimmy Swaggert on a plane with a gun?

[Skeptical Greg]

How old is that video ?

It seems I heard about this stuff from Swaggart years ago ..

[paximperium]

Pah - I've been reading here for years that the fundies have taken over the U.S. If that's true, then how come we haven't seen wholesale massacres of Jews, gays, atheists, and all the other groups the fundies allegedly hate so much?


Do you realize its a straw man or a straw man argument...its what I like to call a scarecrow argument.


This is great.

Quixotecoyote says the fundies are constrained by society from carrying out atrocities. Then JoeEllison takes the opposite tack and says that the fundies are so powerful that they command the U.S. military to do their killing for them.

At least one of you guys is wrong.


Well, JoeEllison's claim borders on the...super exaggerated. If the Middle-East had no oil or if we didn't need the stuff, I doubt the Middle-East would be relevant to the modern era even with Fundie and Jewish pressure on the government.

[BPSCG]

Do you realize its a straw man or a straw man argument...its what I like to call a scarecrow argument.A strawman argument is a weak argument your rhetorical opponent did not make, but which you attribute to him for purposes of knocking it down and thereby winning the larger argument.

My claim that some people here believe the U.S. has been taken over by fundies is no strawman. Tony has said so on a number of occasions, to the point where I posted a list of people who are arguably the 25 most powerful people in the U.S. government and asked him to identify the fundies. I asked the same of someone else, too (ImaginalDisc, I think), in response to a similar claim. In neither case did I ever get an answer.

[paximperium]

A strawman argument is a weak argument your rhetorical opponent did not make, but which you attribute to him for purposes of knocking it down and thereby winning the larger argument.

My claim that some people here believe the U.S. has been taken over by fundies is no strawman. Tony has said so on a number of occasions, to the point where I posted a list of people who are arguably the 25 most powerful people in the U.S. government and asked him to identify the fundies. I asked the same of someone else, too (ImaginalDisc, I think), in response to a similar claim. In neither case did I ever get an answer.

I am aware of what a strawman argument is.
So this was directed at a specific person's argument? If quixotecoyote is this Tony or ImaginalDisc, then it is a valid statement and I apologize otherwise it is strawman that seems to attribute this claim many forum posters.

[BPSCG]

So this was directed at a specific person's argument? If quixotecoyote is this Tony or ImaginalDisc, then it is a valid statement and I apologize otherwise it is strawman that seems to attribute this claim many forum posters.No, quixotecoyote is not ID or Tony (the forum prohibits sock puppets). I was just putting qc's claim up against ID's and Tony's conflicting claim (and now JoeEllison) to see what he thought.

But yes, I do attribute that claim to a number of forum posters. Some of the atheists here seem to hate Christians with the same fervor that they believe Christians hate them.

[coalesce]

Wait...I see an "out" clause. It says "as he lieth with a woman". How many gay guys do that? I mean, the plumbing isn't there....

And why is it that lesbians are spared?

'Cos lesbians are hot!!!

I have links and evidence, but the Membership Agreement prohibits me from posting them.

Michael

[JoeEllison]

Well, JoeEllison's claim borders on the...super exaggerated.


Sorry that you dislike reality, with its complexity and resistance to simplistic explanation. :D

And, really... stop quoting BPSCG please. Every time he addresses one of my posts, he feels unable to restrain his compulsive lying.

[paximperium]

Just as importantly, Christians in western societies usually have the power of military force that makes suicide bombing unnecessary. After 9-11, American Christians didn't have to strap on backpack bombs or hijack planes of their own, they send the world's most expensive military to do their killing for them.
If you consider this claim "reality", you have a worldview that is not far off from most Conspiracy Theorists.

[Skeptical Greg]

What other country has a more expensive military than the U.S ?

[paximperium]

What other country has a more expensive military than the U.S ?

Hmmm? Didn't realize that was in contention. Define "expensive".

But whose definition of expensive? By total money spent, yup we win. But then we win in almost all spending in the world. By GDP? We're not even in the top 10.

Are you actually going to try to justify Ellison's statement that
"American Christians" sent the US military to kill for them? Nevermind the insinuation that Christians control foreign policy or that the Iraqi war is purely due to religious reasons.

[tkingdoll]

I'll be happy to, the moment Christianity starts flying planes into buildings in the name of Jesus, the moment Christianity starts bombing nightclubs full of civilians, the moment Christianity starts kidnaping international aid workers and killing them, the moment Christianity starts kidnaping newspaper reporters and sawing their heads off, the moment Christianity starts stoning women to death for adultery, the moment Christianity starts rioting in the streets when someone makes fun of the pope or of Jesus, the moment Christianity starts strapping bombs onto mentally retarded people and sending them on suicide-bombing missions, the moment Christianity...

Well, you get the picture. Calling Christianity a "death cult" because Jimmy Swaggert is a homophobic jerk is like calling me a hardened criminal because I got caught doing 83 mph on I-81 ten years ago.

Not been to Belfast lately, then?

[Hokulele]

Not been to Belfast lately, then?


That was my first thought upon reading BPSCG's mini-rant.

[tiger]

How old is that video ?

It seems I heard about this stuff from Swaggart years ago ..

It can't be to old considering how old he looks in it!

[BPSCG]

Not been to Belfast lately, then?

That was my first thought upon reading BPSCG's mini-rant.Yeah, the IRA is well-known as a worldwide organization carrying out terrorist bombings in New York, London, Madrid, Bali...

Okay, London, anyway.


You can't be serious.

[Hokulele]

Yeah, the IRA is well-known as a worldwide organization carrying out terrorist bombings in New York, London, Madrid, Bali...

Okay, London, anyway.


Location is more important than intention?

You can't be serious.


Likewise.

[Badger]

I'll be happy to, the moment Christianity starts flying planes into buildings in the name of Jesus, the moment Christianity starts bombing nightclubs full of civilians, the moment Christianity starts kidnaping international aid workers and killing them, the moment Christianity starts kidnaping newspaper reporters and sawing their heads off, the moment Christianity starts stoning women to death for adultery, the moment Christianity starts rioting in the streets when someone makes fun of the pope or of Jesus, the moment Christianity starts strapping bombs onto mentally retarded people and sending them on suicide-bombing missions, the moment Christianity...

Well, you get the picture. Calling Christianity a "death cult" because Jimmy Swaggert is a homophobic jerk is like calling me a hardened criminal because I got caught doing 83 mph on I-81 ten years ago.


"if I saw a homo on a plane with a tube of lube" joke done. Oh, well, I'm slow on the draw.


BPSCG, are you kidding?

Consider what the British Empire achieved and how. Consider the inquisition. Consider the dark ages, and reformation.

I'll throw in Jim Jones just because, and David Koresh as he's a sidelight too. There are many more cults that have roots in the original construct that are just as relevant.

Not to mention the whole flesh of christ, blood of christ thing. (ya, sure it's catholic with a small c)

I find the line quite blurred. Can you elaborate such that it makes sense? I mean, the whole "this life is almost meaningless, we will be in heaven given ________ (fill in the blanks) for eternity" not being a death cult perspective.

[BPSCG]

And, really... stop quoting BPSCG please. Every time he addresses one of my posts, he feels unable to restrain his compulsive lying.Touched a nerve, I see. Of course, you never do have the courage to stand up and try to say where you think I'm wrong. The above is as close as you've ever come - which isn't close at all.

[rwguinn]

"if I saw a homo on a plane with a tube of lube" joke done. Oh, well, I'm slow on the draw.


BPSCG, are you kidding?

Consider what the British Empire achieved and how. Consider the inquisition. Consider the dark ages, and reformation.

I'll throw in Jim Jones just because, and David Koresh as he's a sidelight too. There are many more cults that have roots in the original construct that are just as relevant.

Not to mention the whole flesh of christ, blood of christ thing. (ya, sure it's catholic with a small c)

I find the line quite blurred. Can you elaborate such that it makes sense? I mean, the whole "this life is almost meaningless, we will be in heaven given ________ (fill in the blanks) for eternity" not being a death cult perspective.
Show me a single (much less multiple) Christian Priest, Minister, Preacher or elder who publicly (and in present time) calls for the death of anyone of Islamic, Buddist, Shinto, or other faith.
Show me where it declares this in the Xtian Bible.
You totally missed the point of Calling Christianity a "death cult" because Jimmy Swaggert is a homophobic jerk is like calling me a hardened criminal because I got caught doing 83 mph on I-81 ten years ago.
This also applies to other atrocities in the past.

[BPSCG]

BPSCG, are you kidding?

Consider what the British Empire achieved and how. Consider the inquisition. Consider the dark ages, and reformation.

I'll throw in Jim Jones just because, and David Koresh as he's a sidelight too. There are many more cults that have roots in the original construct that are just as relevant.

Not to mention the whole flesh of christ, blood of christ thing. (ya, sure it's catholic with a small c)

I find the line quite blurred. Can you elaborate such that it makes sense? I mean, the whole "this life is almost meaningless, we will be in heaven given ________ (fill in the blanks) for eternity" not being a death cult perspective.*...sigh...*

Near as I can tell from this rather disjointed outpouring, you're trying to revive yet again the argument we've had on previous occasions regarding how Christianity is different from Islam. I've argued this ad nauseum before: You can not find anywhere in the Bible where Jesus preached you should kill your enemies, where Jesus preached you should kill anyone who has wronged you, where Jesus preached you should kill anyone who does not worship God in the prescribed manner, where Jesus preached you should kill anyone for adultery, where Jesus preached you should kill anyone for anything.

Further, you can not find anywhere in the Bible where Jesus himself killed anyone, ordered someone to be killed, or even approved of someone's being killed. If the New Testament is to be believed, Jesus resurrected more people (1) than he killed, ordered killed, or whose killing he approved of (0).

The Koran and the Hadith, OTOH, are full of teachings that permit, even order devout Muslims to kill other people. Where Christianity's greatest teacher never killed anyone, Islam's greatest teacher did, and also ordered others to kill. Many times.

Killing in Jesus's name is not Christianity. Killing in Allah's name is very much a part of Islam.

Jesus would have had no truck with the IRA.

This is getting way off-topic; it's a derail from JoeEllison's silly comment that he'd like to see Christianity denounced as a culture of death, just as Islam is. For a culture of death, Christianity sure forbids it an awful lot.

Jimmy Swaggert is a homophobic ass, and if he were to meet tell Jesus he would kill a gay if he encountered one, Jesus would tell him to sin no more.

[Complexity]

1. He needn't lose any sleep over attracting any men.
2. He's been on my list for several years.

[ponderingturtle]

Wait...I see an "out" clause. It says "as he lieth with a woman". How many gay guys do that? I mean, the plumbing isn't there....

And why is it that lesbians are spared?

Because god is a man an men find lesbian sex hot.

[ponderingturtle]

Not been to Belfast lately, then?

You know the easy answer to that?

"They are papists not christians"

[ponderingturtle]

Show me a single (much less multiple) Christian Priest, Minister, Preacher or elder who publicly (and in present time) calls for the death of anyone of Islamic, Buddist, Shinto, or other faith.


How specific are you being?

Paul Hill went further than simply calling he killed abortion-clinic doctors himself with his own shotgun.

[DoubtingStephen]

Jimmy Swaggert is welcome come to my house to try to kill me anytime he wants to. I know where to kick him, and I will not hesitate to do so. Then once he is on the floor I'll kick his head to see if it really does ring like a bell. He might wish to keep in mind that queers bash back.

As far as the description of Christianity as a death cult is concerned, Beeps is correct when he says that Jesus never advocated killing anyone, indeed as the character of Jesus is described in the New Testament he is clearly a man of peace.

As a religion, Christianity could be greatly improved if the influence of Jesus was detectable.

It is a death cult in the sense that it teaches people to suffer willingly in the real world with the completely undocumented and obviously specious claim that they will be rewarded later in fairy tale land.

I don't see that what Beeps has said in this thread necessarily contradicts what Joe Ellison had to say, but Joe's comments seem more relevant to the thread, while Beeps' relate well to Christianity in the theoretical realm.

On the subject of death penalties proscribed in Leviticus, I spend a great deal of time documenting this on deeply sarcastic websites, for example, God Hates Brats (http://GodHatesBrats.com/). Leviticus 20:9

While hair cuts are not a capital crime, those planning to travel to Galapagos this summer might enjoy God Hates Barbers (http://godhatesbarbers.com/).

[Darth Rotor]

I figure this is a slam dunk:
Jimmy Swaggert says he would kill a Homosexual!
The next time someone kills a homosexual, the cops go out and round up the usual suspects and must in that group include Swaggert, since he said he'd do it.

I think he's letting himself in for a lot of unwanted travel and time spent in police lineups.

DR

[shadron]

How old is that video ?

It seems I heard about this stuff from Swaggart years ago ..

No, years ago, Swaggert was more on the religious rather than the political mainstream. The targets of his ire then were catholics and cultists (i.e., anyone not radically evangelical), with a taste for the occasional sinner, as we later saw. For the most part homosexuals weren't a blip on the radar.

[imjohn]

What other country has a more expensive military than the U.S ?

I'm happy for that too by the way. Money well spent.

Note that I am not saying that about all the wars we wage.

[Mashuna]

Pah - I've been reading here for years that the fundies have taken over the U.S. If that's true, then how come we haven't seen wholesale massacres of Jews, gays, atheists, and all the other groups the fundies allegedly hate so much?

:)

This is great.

Quixotecoyote says the fundies are constrained by society from carrying out atrocities. Then in the very next post, JoeEllison, apparently delusionally believing he's somehow back qc up, takes the complete opposite tack and says that the fundies are so powerful that they command the U.S. military to do their killing for them.

At least one of you guys is wrong.

:)

Nah, they're just practising abroad first. It's when they get back that Jews, gays and atheists need to worry.


:boxedin:

[Skeptical Greg]

Hmmm? Didn't realize that was in contention. Define "expensive".

But whose definition of expensive? By total money spent, yup we win. But then we win in almost all spending in the world. By GDP? We're not even in the top 10.

Are you actually going to try to justify Ellison's statement that
"American Christians" sent the US military to kill for them? Nevermind the insinuation that Christians control foreign policy or that the Iraqi war is purely due to religious reasons.
You spoke of ' reality ', and I pointed out some reality in what he was saying ..
Last time I checked, GW is the Commander In Chief, and he claims to be a Christian ..


There is some truth to be found in the adage, that one of the main differences between terrorists and legitimate governments, is that the latter can afford their own airplanes to deliver their bombs ..

Granted, the latter is usually a little more discriminating in choosing their targets ..

[fuelair]

I think he greatly exagerrates the size of his "equipment" if he thinks it could do any more than tickle.

[JoeEllison]

You spoke of ' reality ', and I pointed out some reality in what he was saying ..
Last time I checked, GW is the Commander In Chief, and he claims to be a Christian ..


There is some truth to be found in the adage, that one of the main differences between terrorists and legitimate governments, is that the latter can afford their own airplanes to deliver their bombs ..

Granted, the latter is usually a little more discriminating in choosing their targets ..

And of course there's no truth to what paximperium claims I said.

I've changed my mind about people like him, though. I don't think they are actually liars, I think that their beliefs make it difficult to comprehend what people actually write/say. Some people seem to have a sort of "filter of unreason" that the entire world passes through before their conscious mind deals with things. They don't actually read what people write, they read what their filter tells them the words actually "mean", based on whatever irrational beliefs they have.

The fact is that religious terrorism and violence doesn't exist in some sort of magical vacuum, where the only factor involved in religion. Calling Islam a "death cult" is a sign of stupidity, ignorance, and bigotry in the same way that calling Catholicism a "child molesting cult" would be... or in the case of Jimmy Swaggart, calling the Pentacostal church a "homosexual murdering cult" would be.

[Axiom_Blade]

Near as I can tell from this rather disjointed outpouring, you're trying to revive yet again the argument we've had on previous occasions regarding how Christianity is different from Islam. I've argued this ad nauseum before: You can not find anywhere in the Bible where Jesus preached you should kill your enemies, where Jesus preached you should kill anyone who has wronged you, where Jesus preached you should kill anyone who does not worship God in the prescribed manner, where Jesus preached you should kill anyone for adultery, where Jesus preached you should kill anyone for anything.


There's tons of killing, and commandments to kill, in the Old Testament, which is not an insignificant part of the Bible.
In fact, it's half of it!


Jesus would have had no truck with the IRA.


Doesn't seem to stop them, does it?
Read the Old Testament. I think what you're looking for is in there.

[paximperium]

You spoke of ' reality ', and I pointed out some reality in what he was saying ..
Last time I checked, GW is the Commander In Chief, and he claims to be a Christian ..


There is some truth to be found in the adage, that one of the main differences between terrorists and legitimate governments, is that the latter can afford their own airplanes to deliver their bombs ..

Granted, the latter is usually a little more discriminating in choosing their targets ..
Come on dude. That's absurd logic. GW is white therefore white people control America?
Claiming that Christian fundies called for the invasion of Iraq is not even true. That's a gross oversimplification of the current dilemma we're in. To just frame things in that light won't solve a thing and just reeks of political posturing.

Terrorism including car or suicide bombings etc. is nothing more than a tactic of a militarily inferior side. We did the same during the Revolutionary War with the British.

[rwguinn]

There's tons of killing, and commandments to kill, in the Old Testament, which is not an insignificant part of the Bible.
In fact, it's half of it!



Doesn't seem to stop them, does it?
Read the Old Testament. I think what you're looking for is in there.
And that's the point, isn't it.
Christianity deals with the NEW Testament. In all the cases I know of, the New overrules the Old where there is conflict.

[Axiom_Blade]

And that's the point, isn't it.
Christianity deals with the NEW Testament. In all the cases I know of, the New overrules the Old where there is conflict.

Where does it say that?

[paximperium]

And of course there's no truth to what paximperium claims I said.

I've changed my mind about people like him, though. I don't think they are actually liars, I think that their beliefs make it difficult to comprehend what people actually write/say. Some people seem to have a sort of "filter of unreason" that the entire world passes through before their conscious mind deals with things. They don't actually read what people write, they read what their filter tells them the words actually "mean", based on whatever irrational beliefs they have.
I love the snap judgment coming from you. Who is this "people like him" you are talking about. What sort of person am I? Would you care to rephrase your statement to make it more clear to "people like me"? Is this what you meant:

"Just as importantly, (Christians in) western societies usually have the power of military force that makes suicide bombing unnecessary. After 9-11, American (Christians) didn't have to strap on backpack bombs or hijack planes of their own, they send the world's most expensive military to do their killing for them."

Remove the underlined text and I guess I agree with you.

The fact is that religious terrorism and violence doesn't exist in some sort of magical vacuum, where the only factor involved in religion. Calling Islam a "death cult" is a sign of stupidity, ignorance, and bigotry in the same way that calling Catholicism a "child molesting cult" would be... or in the case of Jimmy Swaggart, calling the Pentacostal church a "homosexual murdering cult" would be.
Agreed.

[rwguinn]

Where does it say that?

dUH!
CHRISTIANITY==> J. Christ
Old Testament==> No Christ
New Testament==> Life and teachings of Christ.

Next?

[TX50]

Yeah, the IRA is well-known as a worldwide organization carrying out terrorist bombings in New York, London, Madrid, Bali...

Okay, London, anyway.



And the rest; several fatal attacks in the Irish Republic, locations
in the UK outwith NI and London, W. Germany (one of these attacks
affected me personally), Belgium, the Netherlands; attacks attempted
in Spain; and terrorist training expertise in at least S. America, Libya,
and Basque Spain.

Provo IRA, however, was a political and organized crime organisation;
nothing to do with christianity.

[BPSCG]

There's tons of killing, and commandments to kill, in the Old Testament, which is not an insignificant part of the Bible.
In fact, it's half of it!Okay, I just got done reading the Old Testament through for the second time, and I can't find a single word in it about Jesus. Could you please direct me to the books, chapters, and verses of the Old Testament that have to do with Jesus?

Thank you.

Read the Old Testament. I think what you're looking for is in there.What I'm looking for is evidence supporting JoeEllison's claim that Christianity is a "culture of death" (actually he should be providing it, since he's making the claim, but I'm feeling generous today). Anyway, I just got done reading the Old Testament again for the third time, and I still can't find a single word in there about Jesus or about the teachings known as Christianity. Could you please direct me to the books, chapters, and verses of the Old Testament that have to do with Jesus?

Again, I thank you. :)

[BPSCG]

Terrorism including car or suicide bombings etc. is nothing more than a tactic of a militarily inferior side. We did the same during the Revolutionary War with the British.Emphasis mine.

I bet we didn't.

[Skeptical Greg]

Come on dude ......

I stop reading after ' dude ' ..... It's a clue about what follows .. ( ... or doesn't .. )

[Axiom_Blade]

dUH!
CHRISTIANITY==> J. Christ
Old Testament==> No Christ
New Testament==> Life and teachings of Christ.

Next?

So, Christians just ignore the Old Testament?
No.

There's this passage from Christ in the book of Matthew (5:17-20) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%205:17-48)

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.


Since Heaven and Earth have not yet disappeared, I would think that the Old Testament laws are still in effect.
Apparently, Swaggart thinks so, too.

[paximperium]

Emphasis mine.

I bet we didn't.

Are you being purposefully stupid or are really missing the point?

Terrorist tactics are tactics used to cause terror and erode public support for a war. It is used by a militarily inferior force who can can't stand toe to toe with a conventional army.

In the Revolutionary War we(and the Brits) used guerrilla tactics, sabotage and terrorist strikes against British loyalist(yes even civilians) during the Revolutionary War. Look up the battles in the South where most of these occurred.

[Axiom_Blade]

Anyway, I just got done reading the Old Testament again for the third time, and I still can't find a single word in there about Jesus or about the teachings known as Christianity. Could you please direct me to the books, chapters, and verses of the Old Testament that have to do with Jesus?

Again, I thank you. :)

OK, so we can only judge Christianity based on the (alleged) actions of Jesus, not on the actions of Christians? I think the activities of a group says a lot more about that group than the purported actions of its founder, who hasn't been heard from in thousands of years!

And you better tell them that the Old Testament is not part of their religion, because apparently they haven't gotten the memo.

[paximperium]

I stop reading after ' dude ' ..... It's a clue about what follows .. ( ... or doesn't .. )

Whoop...I'm stunned by your great retort.
If you're unwilling to be civil in a debate, you're just arguing for arguments sake and are not worth my time or effort. I do hope you're not involved with any active debates with theist because you're a very poor example of us atheist or skeptics.

[BPSCG]

OK, so we can only judge Christianity based on the (alleged) actions of Jesus, not on the actions of Christians? I think the activities of a group says a lot more about that group than the purported actions of its founder, who hasn't been heard from in thousands of years!Ah, I see.

If I wanted to be silly, I could use the exact same logic to claim that the Constitution means what George W. Bush and the Republican party say it means, since James Madison and his fellow Founders have been dead almost 200 years.

Sorry, Christianity is the teachings of Jesus. Whatever strays from his teachings, to the extent of the straying, is not Christianity.

Mark Twain distinguished between what he called "professing Christians" and "professional Christians." The former were people who tried to live as best they could according to Jesus's teachings. The latter were people who followed his teachings only with their mouths. Jimmy Swaggert is a fine example of the latter. Read Twain's short story, Letter to the Earth (http://www.armageddonbuffet.com/lettertoearth.html), for a biting, sarcastic, jeering look at a professional Christian (his reference to "Sheol" is apparently an archaic 19th century term for Hell).

[DoubtingStephen]

So, Christians just ignore the Old Testament?
No.


Don't I wish that Christians ignored the Old Testament instead of cherry picking it to provide seeming justification for their narrow minded views.

We often hear about Leviticus condemning homos, but how often do Christians start ballot initiatives to legalize a mandatory death penalty for teenagers that swear at their parents? It's right there, it just does not align with their pre-existing bigotry, so they don't cherry pick that one.

Leviticus 20:9
" For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood [shall be] upon him."

Of course we all know that No True Christian would ever use the psychotic rants of ancient tribal leaders to justify 21st century bigotry. No, no, no, no, yes.

[Axiom_Blade]

Sorry, Christianity is the teachings of Jesus. Whatever strays from his teachings, to the extent of the straying, is not Christianity.


What about Matthew 17-20, which I quoted earlier? Where Jesus teaches that the Law is unchangeable?

Why is Leviticus in the Holy Bible, if Christians aren't supposed to follow it?

[rwguinn]

What about Matthew 17-20, which I quoted earlier? Where Jesus teaches that the Law is unchangeable?

Why is Leviticus in the Holy Bible, if Christians aren't supposed to follow it?

Ad did he not revoke the total prohibition of working on the Sabbath? To seek out the lost lamb--to feed oneself
"Mark 2:23-28 (http://www.twopaths.com/faq_sabbath.htm) 23One sabbath he was going through the grainfields; and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. 24The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?" 25And he said to them, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food? 26 He entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and he gave some to his companions." 27Then he said to them, "The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath; 28 so the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath."


looks like he changed a few things, did he not?
See also Matthew 12:1-14 (javascript:quote('Matthew_12_1_14')), Mark 2:23-28 (javascript:quote('Mark_2_23_28')), 3:1-6 (javascript:quote('Mark_3_1_6')), Luke 6:1-11 (javascript:quote('Luke_6_1_11')), 13:10-17 (javascript:quote('Luke_13_10_17')), 14:1-6 (javascript:quote('Luke_14_1_6')), John 5:1-18 (javascript:quote('John_5_1_18')))

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Who was expecting better from Jimmy Swaggart? Maybe we should learn to ignore jerks like him. They love attention.

[Damien Evans]

Not been to Belfast lately, then?

I thought that had quietened down recently?

[Skeptic Guy]

Only very recently.

And you had that recent unpleasantness in the Bulkans...

[Skeptic Guy]

Ah, I see.

If I wanted to be silly, I could use the exact same logic to claim that the Constitution means what George W. Bush and the Republican party say it means, since James Madison and his fellow Founders have been dead almost 200 years.

Sorry, Christianity is the teachings of Jesus. Whatever strays from his teachings, to the extent of the straying, is not Christianity.

Mark Twain distinguished between what he called "professing Christians" and "professional Christians." The former were people who tried to live as best they could according to Jesus's teachings. The latter were people who followed his teachings only with their mouths. Jimmy Swaggert is a fine example of the latter. Read Twain's short story, Letter to the Earth (http://www.armageddonbuffet.com/lettertoearth.html), for a biting, sarcastic, jeering look at a professional Christian (his reference to "Sheol" is apparently an archaic 19th century term for Hell).

Except for we know for a certainty that Mr. Madison and the other Founding Fathers existed. We have a historical record of their thoughts and writings outside of the Constitution. We know that he/they actually wrote the document for which they have attribution.

And having once been a Christian, I am comfortable in saying it wasn't all about the New Testament. I was taught out of the Old Testament as well, when it suited. Genesis, Exodus, the silly Ark, all of it was presented as part of the usual Sunday service. At no time did the chaplain say, this is from the Old Testament, you can ignore it if you wish.

In any event, we have drifted from the OP.

Jimmy Swaggert professes to be a Christian, seems to believe in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, and wishes homosexuals dead. He's a horrible person. There are quite a number of other Christians in this country that share that view...Jesus needs to review the New Testament with them.

[Lonewulf]

You gotta remember, there are two wills of God. THe first is the Old Testament, which doesn't count anymore; God changed his mind, and admitted he wasn't perfect enough, so he had to have another one, the New Testament.

The Old Testament happened, but it just doesn't count. Yes, God ordered a lot of people be killed, but he was young and stupid. Now he's just old and wise.

Actually, now he's probably just dead.

[Axiom_Blade]

looks like he changed a few things, did he not?
See also Matthew 12:1-14 (javascript:quote('Matthew_12_1_14')), Mark 2:23-28 (javascript:quote('Mark_2_23_28')), 3:1-6 (javascript:quote('Mark_3_1_6')), Luke 6:1-11 (javascript:quote('Luke_6_1_11')), 13:10-17 (javascript:quote('Luke_13_10_17')), 14:1-6 (javascript:quote('Luke_14_1_6')), John 5:1-18 (javascript:quote('John_5_1_18')))




Are you saying Jesus contradicted himself? And, if so, how are his followers supposed to know when to follow the Old Testament, and when not to?

Do you follow the Old Testament, unless Jesus overrides it? For example, did Jesus say anything about whether or not to kill gays?

[Axiom_Blade]

Jimmy Swaggert professes to be a Christian, seems to believe in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, and wishes homosexuals dead. He's a horrible person. There are quite a number of other Christians in this country that share that view...Jesus needs to review the New Testament with them.

One big problem with Christianity is that while there are many "liberal Christians", very few of them are willing to stick their necks out and publicly chastise people like Swaggart. They just shake their heads, and say to themselves "Tut, tut! Jesus would not approve!" and generally feel superior over their fundamentalist brethren.

I don't see an awful lot of these liberal Christians standing up and saying "This is wrong!" over homophobia, teaching Intelligent Design in public school, etc.

[Skeptic Guy]

Agreed, and the same problem seems to exist in Islam when extremists use suicide bombers, threaten death to cartoonists, and generally wish death on "unbelievers".

Though I am open to correction, I do believe that the majority of Christians believe that homosexuality is "morally wrong" and so do not get too worked up when they hear the more extreme views as espoused by Swaggert.

[rwguinn]

Are you saying Jesus contradicted himself? And, if so, how are his followers supposed to know when to follow the Old Testament, and when not to?

Do you follow the Old Testament, unless Jesus overrides it? For example, did Jesus say anything about whether or not to kill gays?

Jump at conclusions much?

I think you are assuming something that there is little supporting evidence for...

[Lonewulf]

I have yet to see a single biblical source, of any type or sort, that outright claims that the Old Testament is null and void. Almost all the ones that I HAVE seen, have said that you should still follow the rules of the Old Testament.

Until a Christian can point and show me a specific passage that demonstrates that the Old Testament should not be considered, I'm just not interested in listening to their assumptions.

[rwguinn]

I have yet to see a single biblical source, of any type or sort, that outright claims that the Old Testament is null and void. Almost all the ones that I HAVE seen, have said that you should still follow the rules of the Old Testament.

Until a Christian can point and show me a specific passage that demonstrates that the Old Testament should not be considered, I'm just not interested in listening to their assumptions.
Nice straw man--the arguement was originally the the Xtian Holy Book has nowhere in it that "Thou shalt kill anyone who refuses to b'leev as thee"--which the Koran (or however you want to spell it) does.
As fot the old testament--it is backup--the very name "Christian" means "follower of Christ"--and his word takes precedence over the old laws...
Adios!

[shadron]

Nice straw man--the arguement was originally the the Xtian Holy Book has nowhere in it that "Thou shalt kill anyone who refuses to b'leev as thee"--which the Koran (or however you want to spell it) does.
As fot the old testament--it is backup--the very name "Christian" means "follower of Christ"--and his word takes precedence over the old laws...
Adios!

Come on, rw. There are only a few possibilities here. Either the OT must always be obeyed, or it must be always ignored, or it must be obeyed unless the NT overrides it. You seem to be saying the latter, but in reality Christianity seems to choose a different path - to always obey the OT unless it has been decided by common assent to ignore it. How else do you explain that the myriad ridiculous laws in the OT are ignored when there is no override from the NT? How can Swaggert demand that Lev's laws against homosexual activity be maintained while ignoring the fight against blended wool, when neither is even mentioned in the NT?

The answer is what I was taught in Catholic theology - that tradition has the power of revelation, and what authority's teachings based on tradition (read, what the pope and the curia says) overrides the Bible. Now, that explanation covers the problem above - unfortunately, it collides head-to-head with protestantism, wherein the church's authority is diluted into "personal knowledge of god", and the Bible is re-elevated as the authority.

So, come again about what exactly you do believe about the OT vis-a-vis the new, and no weasel-wording. Site your authority - I was amused by your argument above, but not convinced by it. I'd never considered the OT as a "backup", whatever you may have meant by that. Include, if you will, and analysis of why you believe that Swaggert is right, or wrong, and why, and how the same does/doesn't apply to cotton and polyester shirt stuffings.

I have yet to see a single biblical source, of any type or sort, that outright claims that the Old Testament is null and void. Almost all the ones that I HAVE seen, have said that you should still follow the rules of the Old Testament.

Until a Christian can point and show me a specific passage that demonstrates that the Old Testament should not be considered, I'm just not interested in listening to their assumptions.

Amen (Pardon my presumption.)

[BPSCG]

Come on, rw. There are only a few possibilities here. Either the OT must always be obeyed, or it must be always ignored, or it must be obeyed unless the NT overrides it. You seem to be saying the latter, but in reality Christianity seems to choose a different path - to always obey the OT unless it has been decided by common assent to ignore it. How else do you explain that the myriad ridiculous laws in the OT are ignored when there is no override from the NT? How can Swaggert demand that Lev's laws against homosexual activity be maintained while ignoring the fight against blended wool, when neither is even mentioned in the NT?

The answer is what I was taught in Catholic theology - that tradition has the power of revelation, and what authority's teachings based on tradition (read, what the pope and the curia says) overrides the Bible. Now, that explanation covers the problem above - unfortunately, it collides head-to-head with protestantism, wherein the church's authority is diluted into "personal knowledge of god", and the Bible is re-elevated as the authority.Sounds like what you're saying is Christianity's problem is the lack of internal consistency in the Bible, that lets you cherry-pick what you like out of it.

And thus, we have Moses at the Bat (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/last-page-200806.html):

And Abner said to Joab, "Let the young men...arise and play before us" (II Samuel 2:14)
...[and] all the people rose up... (Exodus 33:8)
And Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud was the recorder; and Sheva was scribe... (II Samuel 20:24-25)
And they said unto Jephthah, "Come and be our [Captain]" (Judges 11:6)
...and he measured two lines... (II Samuel 8:2)
And he set the bases... (I Kings 7:39)
And they stood every man in his place round about the camp (Judges 7:21)
...behold, Rebekah came forth with her pitcher... (Genesis 24:45)
Ehud...the Benjamite, a man left-handed ... (Judges 3:15)
...the children of Israel ...said "Who shall go up for us first...?" (Judges 20:18)
...seek out a man who is a skillful player... (I Samuel 16:16)
...Judah [shall go up] first... (Judges 20:18)
[And] Judah took... (Judges 1:18)
Three times... (Exodus 23:14)
...and...it was good. (Genesis 1:10)
...and Abram went down... (Genesis 12:10)
...out at the base... (Leviticus 4:18)
And Moses...smote... (Exodus 7:20)
...and... [it] became foul... (Exodus 7:21)
And Moses went out... (Numbers 11:24)
...and none came in. (Joshua 6:1)
And there was not a man left... (Joshua 8:17)
And Miriam was shut out... (Numbers 12:15)
And the children of Benjamin went out... (Judges 20:31)
...and went into the field ... (Numbers 22:23)
And...Aaron waved... (Leviticus 9:21)
And he looked this way and that way... (Exodus 2:12)
...and [he] delivered up... (Numbers 21:3)
...and they ran as soon as he had stretched out his hand... (Joshua 8:19)
...and they fell on their faces to the ground... (Judges 13:20)
Get thee up; wherefore now art thou fallen upon thy face? (Joshua 7:10)
...for it was an error... (Numbers 15:25)(...click the link to see how the game turned out...)

[rwguinn]

Short answer:
I believe that both (sorry-all "holy" books) we written by power-hungry priests who wanted to maintain control over the essentially under-educated populace by calling down the Wrath of God on those who had the audacity to defy them.
Although there are some good things in there (Jesus message to love thy neighbor, etc)-and some that made sense at the time ( for example: prohibitions on pork and bottom-feeding sea/lake creatures, such as shellfish) due to a general (total) lack of knowledge of the way things actually work, in general, the inconsistencies and outright contradictions make the thing pretty much worthless in many ways.

As I said--you guys are making assumptons about me that the evidence doesn't match.
But then, I am a skeptic about religions, while athiests are not (See sig)

[Charlie Monoxide]

I invite him to try on me (I'm bi) and if he does I think old Jimmy will find himself pushing up daisies long before I will.Here's a good opportunity for the NRA to get involved ....

Charlie (arm a gay, kill a god boy) Monoxide

[DoubtingStephen]

But then, I am a skeptic about religions, while athiests are not

If my atheism prevents me from being skeptical about religion, at least I can still be critical of it.

[rwguinn]

If my atheism prevents me from being skeptical about religion, at least I can still be critical of it.
And you think I'm Not?
Whatever floats your boat, I guess

[Lonewulf]

And you think I'm Not?
Whatever floats your boat, I guessI don't think that was his main accusation.

But not everyone has to make a message with an attack hidden inside like you do.

[DoubtingStephen]

And you think I'm Not?
Whatever floats your boat, I guess

I take no position on your position. My prior comment was only intended to reflect my position on the subject.