Christian militias in Central African Republic burnt witches

[JimC]

And those "Christian militias", which aren't Christian to begin with, should be hunted down and destroyed, just like the Muslim ones.

That is an interesting parallel to the pleading by muslim spokesmen that Islamic terrorists are not really Islamic. I disagree with this "excuse", partly because the terrorists emphatically label themselves as Islamic.

For the same reason, if the Christian militias identify themselves as christian, I will take them at their word. Of course, one could truthfully say that they are not evincing mainstream christian values, but they are still a part (if an aberrant part) of that religion, just like the jihadists are a part of Islam.

The distinction is, of course, that nowhere in Christian doctrine is there any mention of Christians killing people for any reason, much less in the name of God, whereas in Islam that is one of the fundamental tenets of the entire religion.

I agree that Islamic holy writings contain many more passages than christian writings which can (but don't have to) be used by followers as exhortations to violent acts against apostates or infidels. But that is not relevant to the issue I was addressing, which was that you cannot unilaterally decide that the self-proclaimed Christian militias are not christian after all. Many christians over the ages and today kill others for a variety of reasons, and some of them kill in the name of their religion (or often in the name of a particular branch of christianity, much as Sunni muslims slaughter Shiites today). The fact that these killings do not come from specific injunctions in the bible is important in some ways, but not germane to the issue at hand.

[Hermit]

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." [Luke 19:27]

[Hermit]

No True Christian, eh? Religious fanatics are all cut from the same cloth. I'm absolutely certain that the evangelicals would have no problem at all rounding up atheists, muslims, jews, et. al. and popping them in ovens. Read The Hanmade's Tale, it's not far fetched if the Soldiers For Jebus get control.

Handmaiden's? I have not read the book, but have watched the film with that title and liked it.

[JimC]

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." [Luke 19:27]

That could indeed be used by fanatical christians as a justification to slaughter anyone they deem to be an enemy of christ. However, the exhortations in the koran and hadith are both more frequent, more specific and more vehement, as well as being used in practice in the current world a lot more often.

But Seth's absolutist vision of christianity as only reflecting "gentle Jesus meek and mild" whereas Islam is totally opposite is very one-eyed, to say the least...

[Hermit]

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." [Luke 19:27]

That could indeed be used by fanatical christians as a justification to slaughter anyone they deem to be an enemy of christ. However, the exhortations in the koran and hadith are both more frequent, more specific and more vehement, as well as being used in practice in the current world a lot more often.

Could? Never mind the quantity. Check the quality. No single line in either the Bible or the Qur'an could be a clearer, less ambiguous imperative that was used to justify the indiscriminate killing of others. No other line has been embraced so frequently to do just that with so great an enthusiasm while engendering the feeling of being virtuous whenever the killers obeyed that command of Jesus.

And I have not even touched the Old Testament. Yes, many defenders of the Christian faith try to dismiss the cruel and brutal aspects of their religion via "yabbut the new covenant...". That is just plain rubbish, and not only because the alleged son of god told his followers "Think not that I am come to destroy the law" and "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law", but the old testament is still an integral part of the Christian holy book and used to buttress Christian "morality" whenever it suits. At the extreme end of the spectrum the apologist Professor William Lane Craig argues that genocide is moral if god commands it, which he has reportedly done when he commanded his chosen people to massacre every man, woman and child of the Caananites. Oh, what about the suppression of women? All of it is from the old testament unless you admit the lunatic ravings of Paul, which he wrote after Jesus fucked off.

The difference between Islam and Christiany is not found in their respective holy books. It lies in what type of cherries their followers pick from them.

[Seth]

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." [Luke 19:27]

Quote mining out-of-context mendacity.

[Seth]

I agree that Islamic holy writings contain many more passages than christian writings which can (but don't have to) be used by followers as exhortations to violent acts against apostates or infidels. But that is not relevant to the issue I was addressing, which was that you cannot unilaterally decide that the self-proclaimed Christian militias are not christian after all.

Of course I can because they are not Christians.

Many christians over the ages and today kill others for a variety of reasons, and some of them kill in the name of their religion (or often in the name of a particular branch of christianity, much as Sunni muslims slaughter Shiites today). The fact that these killings do not come from specific injunctions in the bible is important in some ways, but not germane to the issue at hand.

You still don't understand. If you kill people in the name of Christ you are not and cannot be a Christian. You can call yourself a Christian, but Christ himself said that many people would claim to be Christians who are not and who, according to him, will be rejected by him and will never enter the kingdom of God because faux Christianity used as an excuse to commit un-Christian acts don't cut the mustard. Such people will, again according to Christ, be called to account and condemned for their actions. And yes, that means every Pope, Bishop and Priest claiming to be Christian in the past, present or future who uses Christ as an excuse to oppress, torture, kill and tyrannize others.

You simply are not a Christian if you do not follow the commandments of Jesus, which do not include harming or killing others in his name. No Christian has any authority to be an agent of judgment ("judge not lest ye be judged") much less meet out retribution for Christ, he himself said that only his father has that authority. Christians are only authorized to present the gospel of Christ to others and try to persuade them to accept salvation, and under no circumstances is any Christian authorized to enforce anything on anyone, although many despotic rulers claiming the authority of Christ have done so...wrongfully and to their eternal dismay I'm told they will discover.

On the other hand, if you are a Muslim obedient to the Koran, regardless of how some imam might interpret it, you are expressly and explicitly called upon to enslave and kill infidels in the name of Allah and, according to the prophet Mohammed if you do not you are an apostate and not a Muslim.

[Seth]

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." [Luke 19:27]

That could indeed be used by fanatical christians as a justification to slaughter anyone they deem to be an enemy of christ. However, the exhortations in the koran and hadith are both more frequent, more specific and more vehement, as well as being used in practice in the current world a lot more often.

Could? Never mind the quantity. Check the quality. No single line in either the Bible or the Qur'an could be a clearer, less ambiguous imperative that was used to justify the indiscriminate killing of others. No other line has been embraced so frequently to do just that with so great an enthusiasm while engendering the feeling of being virtuous whenever the killers obeyed that command of Jesus.

I've debunked this before and you are simply wrong. This passage is the most quote-mined bit of Atheist mendacity ever. Jesus was not factually exhorting his followers to kill "his enemies," and the entirety of his message to his followers proves this. The passage you rely upon is the conclusion of the parable of the ten minas and it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Here's some valuable context:

The Mis-interpretation of Luke 19:27
There is a statement in the Parable of the pounds (Luke 19:11-27) that many opponents of Christianity have used to convey the point that Jesus commanded his disciples to kill anyone that refuse to be ruled by Christ. In fact this is the verse:

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me."-Luke 19:27

Of course this is taken out of context and miss-interpreted. How is this a miss-interpretation? Did not Jesus make this statement? Yes he did. So how can we Christians explain this command of Jesus, to kill those who would not be ruled by him?

First of all, if you notice the disciples were not a military group. They were not equipped to make war or fight. Neither did they carry out this alleged command of Christ, did you ever wondered why? It is because Jesus did not direct them to do so, because he was reciting not his words but the words of a character in his Parable of the Pounds. The disciples knew that Jesus was just telling a story, not giving a command to be followed.

One of the reasons for this miss-interpretation of Luke 19:27 is because the opponents of Christianity have a habit of disregarding the context of the verses they cite. The context of the verse is preceded by the parable of the pounds, which is very similar to the parable of the talents. and is followed by Jesus heading to Jerusalem. The emphasis of the two parables is different from each other however. The parable of the Talents that is found in the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 25, emphasizes stewardship. The Parable of the Pounds not only emphasizes stewardship, but it also discloses what may happen to those who refuse to comply with the ruler of their time. Jesus was regarded neither as a ruler or even a nobleman. Jesus was, in many peoples eyes as a carpenter's adopted son, although he was qualified to be a king of Israel, for he was an descendant of King David. The nobles in Jesus's day were the Romans and whosoever they appointed to Govern Judea. Jesus through the teaching of this parable was making his disciples understand what rulers do when they take over a dominion, they eliminate their enemies. They squash any hint of rebellion. The disciples never took the instruction as a command to slay anyone that refused to be ruled by Jesus.

Another reason for the miss-interpretation of the verse in question, is the fact that the opponents of Christianity believe that Jesus is talking about himself in this parable as the nobleman. Which is understandable because of the similarity between the nobleman actions and Jesus's claims: The nobleman goes to receive a kingdom, likewise Jesus said that he was on his way to receive a kingdom of his Father in heaven.( Mark 14:25; Luke 22:29+30) The fact of the matter is that the nobleman could be anyone but Jesus, because Jesus does not command his disciples to kill anyone. Here are a few direct commands of Jesus to his disciples:


"Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."-Matthew 5:43-45

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
-Matthew 5:21+22

"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment.And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Matthew 22:37-40


"But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and [to] the evil."-Luke 6:35

"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." John 13:34

"This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you."
-John 15:12

One thing that is noticeable about these commands of Christ, not one of the is a parable or was issued from a parable. None of the direct commands of Christ direct anyone of his disciples to kill anyone for refusing to subject themselves to his rule. So the nobleman's words cited by Christ in the parable of the Pounds to kill anyone that refuses to be ruled by him are the commands of a fictional character and not of Jesus. Jesus does not use parables to issue commands. He speaks directly to him he directs.

But isn't Jesus a King? Yes but He is a king of truth, a King of conscience. (John 18:33-38) His Kingdom is not of this world, but it is in the world living through the lives of believers in his truth all over the world. Since it is a kingdom of truth, only those who seek the truth may find it and live in it, if they believe it. For Jesus said...

"...Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." -John 3:3

How does someone be "born again"? Does he go and be physically born a second time? Jesus clarifies....

"...Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again."- John 3:5-7

How does someone be born of water and born of the Spirit? Being born of the water is natural childbirth. Everyone that has been born in this world came into it by natural child birth, in fact when a woman is about to give birth it is said that a woman water breaks and fluid flows out her womb. I have witnessed this personally and can certify and testify to you that the phrase "born of water" is a direct reference to human child birth.

Ok, so what is being born of the Spirit? Being born of the Spirit is being born of God. For Jesus says God is Spirit. (John 4:24)

How does someone be born of God? The Apostle John testifies that a person must believe in Jesus in order to be born of God.

"...But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."-John 1:12

So If you accept Jesus and believe in his name you have the right to become a child of God or born of God. How do you exercise that right to be born a child of God? The Apostle Paul testifies that all you need is your faith and a confession.

"..That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."-Romans 10:9+10

[JimC]

What a lot of fucking rubbish. The words ("But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.") are straight forward, and no amount of theological squirming will change that.

Suck it up, Seth - the world's monotheistic religions all have their roots in violent tribalism, their holy writings show that. The degree to which they use those writings in the current age is simply a function of their evolutionary history since their origins. The history of christianity involves their teeth being pulled by an enlightened, secular social movement. Islam, not so much...

[Seth]

What a lot of fucking rubbish. The words ("But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.") are straight forward, and no amount of theological squirming will change that.

That's what religious Atheists always say because the truth destroys their argument.

I challenge you to show me one instance in which any person was brought before Jesus and slain at his command. You can't, and certainly that would have appeared in the gospel if it had happened. On the other hand, Jesus was recorded as having healed the sick, made the lame whole and risen Lazarus from the dead, among other miracles, none of which involved killing any human being ever. It was Jesus who was murdered, you see, not the sinners of the world.

Now, when God gets around to judging people God will, by Jesus' own words, severely punish those who rejected salvation and continued to sin, but then again that's God doing it, not the followers of Jesus, who were commanded NOT to resist being attacked and martyred for their faith.

So, your deliberately false interpretation is nothing more than religious Atheist propaganda and dogmatism that is utterly destroyed by the whole of the rest of the gospel of Christ.

[JimC]

The words remain, whether they were acted upon or not...

[Seth]

The words remain, whether they were acted upon or not...

Yes, they do, but not in the context you suggest, which is of supreme importance, which of course you know but deny as a part of your Atheist religious orthodoxy. I challenge you to cite the number of violent attacks perpetrated by Christians using that passage as justification since the 9/11 attack.

On the other hand, the violent passages in the Koran have been acted upon violently by Muslims more than 27,401 times since 9/11.

In fact, in the last week alone, 445 people have been killed by Muslim terrorists and 218 critically injured.

And you're wasting your time criticizing Christians? What a fucking stupid, ignorant, biased and completely blind to the true threat thing to do.

But I guess you religious Atheists hate Christianity more than you do Islam, for some impenetrable reason, given how much aid and comfort you give to Islamic terrorists by equating their ongoing campaign of murder to...well...pretty much nothing at all from Christians.

[JimC]

"Context" is a codeword for placing whatever fucking spin that religious apologists wish. For other parts of the bible, the literal meaning is insisted on, because, after all, its the "word of god"

Superstitious hogwash, the lot of it...

PS - I already acknowledged that, of course, in today's world the exhortations to violence in the Koran are acted on much more than similar exhortations in the bible. The point, which you do not seem to grasp, is that the problem is not so much the words in the holy writings, but whether, in a particular place and time, they are either acted on, or quietly ignored.

But the words remain...

[Jason]

I know this guy, I'll call him Beth. Beth is a real retard. He just can't understand cause and effect. People I know have been explaining this simple thing to Beth for as long as I've known him - some considerable years - but he never seems to understand. Sometimes people would get mad at Beth because they didn't believe anyone could be so stupid. They believed he must be trying to get under their skin with a show of willful stupidity. I believe, however, that Beth is mentally ill. I think Beth started out simulating ignorance as a way of insulating himself against his real ignorance. I think Beth was aware that people were catching on to this tactic he used to insulate himself against ignorance and started up a new simulation - he simulated being ignorant of simulating ignorance to mask his ignorance. Beth might have simulated ignorance so well that he became ignorant of his simulated ignorance. Beth might have become what is known in psychology circles as a 'recursive retard'. A hyperreal simulation of a retard - a retard more retarded than retarded. Forever unable to grasp cause and effect - Beth has become ignorant unto himself and attacks the community he once sought to foster his own growth. The community that tolerated this retard named Beth, even suffering a schism for his sake, is now vilified. Fortunately, Beth is largely ignored, or used for the sake of amusement. No one takes the opinions of Beth very seriously. Beth is more a caricature of a person. Beth likes to pretend this is purposeful, but Beth forgets he's done this before and Beth forgets he's dealing with people who are not retards. Beth forgets because he is a real retard. Because Beth is a 'recursive retard'. Beth will never not be retarded - he will be forever ignorant of his ignorance. His simulation of ignorance to mask ignorance and the subsequent simulations of ignorance of the initial simulation have taken their toll. There is no way back to reality for Beth. Beth is a dangerous man. A man out of touch with reality like Beth is capable of believing almost anything. Beth is capable of attacking almost anyone - even people who have tried to help him for years.

Poor Beth. What a retard.

Anyway.. nothing to do with anyone and definitely NOT a personal attack.

[JimC]

I'm not sure whether that post is bethical or not...