LRA: What 10 Commandments Can be About

[evildave]

The next time some moron brings up how "perfect" everything would be, if only we lived by the "Ten Commandments", it's worthy to note that this is exactly what the LRA (Lord's Resistance Army) is trying to do in Uganda. Set up a theocracy based on the "Ten Commandments".

True to "Old Testament" form, they've been slaughtering lots of people, but have extended the Old-Testament brutality by kidnapping children and turning them into battle thralls or sex slaves (the girls are mutilated when they finish with them), and generally raping, murdering, pillaging, burning, etc. anybody they find that's not protected.

Nothing wrong with any of that, as long as the people who are doing it are on God's side; just so long as the people you're doing it to are on the "other" side. Those 'Ten Commandments' are nothing but flexible when it comes to this sort of morality.

Do a web search on "Lord's Resistance Army" and read a few stories for yourself. The Google 'News' tab works fine.


The LRA rebels say they are fighting for the establishment of a government based on the biblical Ten Commandments. They are notorious for kidnapping children and forcing them to become rebel fighters or concubines. More than one-half-million people in Uganda's Gulu and Kitgum districts have been displaced by the fighting and are living in temporary camps, protected by the army.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/lra.htm


The army of the LRA is built almost entirely of children, all of them abducted from their homes or schools and then forced to attack and kill their own Acholi people. These young “soldiers” are then placed on the frontlines against the Ugandan army. UNICEF estimates that the LRA has abducted 8,000 people over the past 13 months.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/fromthefield/105730669613.htm

[Yahzi]

I'm a bitter, hardcore atheist who savagely attacks religion (and particularly Christianity) at the slightest excuse. But even I would not mistake the LRA's psychotic babble with The Ten Commandments.

Just because they use that title does not mean they actually conform to any rational description of the actual Ten Commandments.

[scribble]

LAst time I checked 'thou shalt not kill' was in the list. Kind of a stupid rule for an Army.

[evildave]

Originally posted by Yahzi
I'm a bitter, hardcore atheist who savagely attacks religion (and particularly Christianity) at the slightest excuse. But even I would not mistake the LRA's psychotic babble with The Ten Commandments.

Just because they use that title does not mean they actually conform to any rational description of the actual Ten Commandments.

What makes anyone think that any of the groups pushing for the "Ten Commandments" in the U.S. are any more pure in their motives? I mean, sure they haven't started literally capturing and enslaving children to do their dirty work ... YET, but they do want them in the schools....

[evildave]

Originally posted by scribble
LAst time I checked 'thou shalt not kill' was in the list. Kind of a stupid rule for an Army.

Tell it to the Israelites. You ever read that 'Holy Bible' book? Practically printed in blood. Slaughter, destruction and, what do you know? Taking the young from your conquered foes and making them your own (when they didn't just kill them all).

A literal "how to" guidebook for sickos.

[Retro]

Do not slander Christians with such defective vitriol. I personally know several missionaries who travelled to Uganda, and if the "LRA" does what you say it does, it is nothing more than a Marxist revolutionary terrorist front (just like who knows how many identical groups in Africa).

Get the difference right.

-Retro

[evildave]

Not so anyone thinks I'm singling out the Xians,

'Caged' children freed from school (http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6698275%255E1702,00.html)

POLICE in Zambia have stormed a secret Islamic school in which 280 children were allegedly confined in cages and forced to study military tactics and Arabic, a police officer said today.

Women burnt for being 'witches' (http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6694046%255E13762,00.html)

TWO Indian tribal women suspected of being witches were burnt to death by a village mob in the eastern Indian state of Jharkhand, police said today.

[evildave]

Originally posted by Retro
Do not slander Christians with such defective vitriol. I personally know several missionaries who travelled to Uganda, and if the "LRA" does what you say it does, it is nothing more than a Marxist revolutionary terrorist front (just like who knows how many identical groups in Africa).

Get the difference right.

-Retro

Oh, so you think I'm slandering "Christians"?

Well, just because some of them are the only ones in the U.S. who try to cram "Ten Commandments" drivel down people's throats in the U.S., I suppose you could LEAP to that conclusion.

Re-read the articles. They only want to overthrow their government so they can establish a theocracy. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theocracy) (that means " A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.") Hmm, yeah, 'marxist'. Sure. Wanting a religious government based on the "Ten Commandments" sounds just like the sort of thing a "godless marxist" would want.

So what if they're a wacky cult? Jim Jones and David Koresh led cults as well. Heck, half the Christians there are are cultists, according to the other half. Which is which is all according to who you talk to.

Here we have a plain and simple example where all that talk about putting rocks with inscriptions on them in public places can be taken to a whole new level.

As I said, just something to think about when you see a bunch of people trying to get the "Ten Commandments" stuck into public places.

[c4ts]

Uh, which commandment says "thou shalt abduct children and place them in the front lines?"

[evildave]

None of them forbids it.

BTW, if a child raises hand to or even curses their parents, they should die.

That's in the bible, too.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by evildave
None of them forbids it.

BTW, if a child raises hand to or even curses their parents, they should die.

That's in the bible, too.


But that contradicts "thou shalt not kill."

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by c4ts


But that contradicts "thou shalt not kill."
Not entirely... you forget those rules are built with loopholes and bless the LRA for finding the one that allows it to completely disregard that rule and kill people without fear of going to hell.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by c4ts


But that contradicts "thou shalt not kill."

the actual translation is "though shall not murder". if the children are killed for misbehaving, it is clearly not murder.:k:

[i once had a character with saintly full plate, some badass shield, and doombringer. looked just like that]

[rwald]

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with those who say that this army is just using the Ten Commandments as a political tool to justify their violence. "Honor thy mother and thy father" is not synonymous with "If a child raises hand to or even curses their parents, they should die." I'm not going to pretend that the Bible is free of violence and the like, but to claim that the Bible is what inspires violence in these armies is invalid. They're just using religion as an excuse.

Also, I would agree that many of the religious folk in the US are in it just for politics, not religion. Do you really need prayer in schools to practice your religion? Or is it just to make non-Christians feel uncomfortable?

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by evildave

Oh, so you think I'm slandering "Christians"?

Yes, and so do I. You are.

Christians and their idiot commandents have plenty of crimes to answer for. There is no value in laying this particular absurdity at their door: your mis-accusation only serves to detract from their real crimes.

Accusing Christians of being responsible for the LRA is no more justifable than accusing atheists of being responsible for Stalin.

[evildave]

Bah!

All I said (three times, in three different ways now) is that wanting the "Ten Commandments" is not the same as wanting what's right.

If that can only possibly mean "Christians" to you, then so be it.

If you want "Jesus" or "Allah" or "Bonzo The Wonder God" to run the state, all it really means is you want priests and prophets to run things who aren't to be held responsible for anything, because it's all "God's Will".

Even if it involves murdering, raping, kidnapping and enslaving children. If that's what GOD ALMIGHTY wants, who are you to question it, HERETIC?


A link about YET ANOTHER "Ten Commandments" group. Uganda seems to be quite the fertile ground for this stuff. Too bad the U.S. is so similar in this respect.
"MOVEMENT FOR THE RESTORATION OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS OF GOD"
http://www.religioustolerance.org/dc_rest.htm

[evildave]

Ahh, more lovely images from Uganda.

Theocracy at its best.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3046426.stm


A woman called Laweel was told that she and 10 others were to be made an example of as a way of warning the community not to fight the rebels. They were to be mutilated, and sent home alive.

So they were lined up in front of their captors. Kidnapped children were told to sharpen the knives and machetes laid there, and one by one the women had their noses, lips and ears cut off. Then they were made to eat their own flesh.

[ShottleBop]

"Honor thy mother and thy father" is not synonymous with "If a child raises hand to or even curses their parents, they should die."

Deuteronomy 18-21: 18___If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19___Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20___And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21___And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

[rwald]

I don't doubt your veracity, ShottleBop, but I'd like to see what the commentary on that passage is in my edition of the Bible. So could you mention which chapter of Deuteronomy you took that from (not just the verses)?

[evildave]

Well, after all, Deuteronomy is the very book in which the "Ten Commandments" are introduced.

Here's a link, and a search engine.
http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=DEUT+21&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on

Deuteronomy 20 has a lot more interesting stuff to say about waging war.
http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=DEUT+20&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on


16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.


Deuteronomy 22 says a lot about women's rights under 'Marriage Violations '.
http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=DEUT+22&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on

Deuteronomy 25, too.

11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.


Yup, the Bible's all about understanding and beauty and God's perfect love for all of his creations and such. As long as you don't bother reading any of it.

[rwald]

OK, your quote came from chapter 21. Thanks.

According to the Talmud (San. 71a), this type of punishment "never occurred and never will occur." Not that that's going to make you feel any better.

[evildave]

Also in Deuteronomy 21: Partial biblical justification for taking women and doing with them as you will.


Marrying a Captive Woman
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured.

It gets even better! It reiterates that everybody should be killed, except those you take as "spoils of war".
After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.

And look! Just discard her when you're finished with her, if you like.
14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

[evildave]

Originally posted by rwald
OK, your quote came from chapter 21. Thanks.

According to the Talmud (San. 71a), this type of punishment "never occurred and never will occur." Not that that's going to make you feel any better.

Another link. To the cited Talmud text. In case anyone thought we'd get into the 'unobtainable reference' fun.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t08/t0811.htm


GEMARA: What does the Mishna mean by the words "was not fit"? Shall we assume that his father married a woman who was under the liability of the korat, or capital punishment by the court? Why? After all, the father is his father and the mother is his mother. Hence it must mean that she was like to his father. And so also we have learned plainly in the following Boraitha: R. Jehudah said: If his mother was not alike to his father in her voice, in her appearance and her height, he cannot be charged as the son in question. And what is the reason? Because it reads: "He does not hearken to her voice." As we see that their voices must be alike, the same is the case with the appearance and height. According to whom is the following Boraitha? The case of a stubborn and rebellious son never existed and will never occur, and it was written only for the purpose of studying and the reward for it. It is in accordance with R. Jehudah (who requires such things as can never occur). And

p. 211

if you wish, it is in accordance with R. Simeon, who said in the following Boraitha thus: Does the law indeed dictate that because this boy consumed a "tertimory" of meat and drank half a lug of Italian wine his father and mother shall deliver him to be stoned? Hence such a thing neither occurred nor ever will be, and it is written only for studying. R. Jonathan, however, said: I myself have seen such, and have sat on his grave.


It goes on waxing eloquent about how the same guy who said nobody would ever stone their children would also (from the same evidence) claim there was never leprosy.
A house of leprosy never occurred and will never be, and it is written only for studying, etc.

So, to use the silly religious double-talk and "what if?" stuff from the article, and extend it to another religious cult's thinking, obviously if what you said is the correct interpretation, then naturally Jesus could never have cured any lepers, because there never were any.

But, since it's all in the opinions and interpretation of laws, what this book seems to go on and on about, really any old opinion or interpretation will do. All you need is a good enough authority to do the interpretation, and any mad old prophet with a following has all the authority in the world from God. Just ask him.

[rwald]

Evildave, I've been browsing this http://www.sacred-texts.com site that you mentioned, and it's great! It has everything from Christianity to Taoism to Wicca to Nostradamus to UFOlogy! It even has a section for atheism! Thanks for the link.

[evildave]

No problem.