Sessler's Soapbox: Violence Has Always Been Entertaining - G4tv.com

Image by MarmotChaser via Flickr

Adam Sessler gives his thoughts on how throughout human history violence, blood, and gore has always been part of human entertainment. I agree. Then we wonder why the Bible says everyone is sinful! We are guilty. 

Xbox 360 Games - E3 2010 - Grand Theft Auto: Episodes From Liberty City

Sessler's Soapbox: Violence Has Always Been Entertaining - G4tv.com

Paul Verhoeven: ‘Robocop was a Jesus metaphor’?

Paul Verhoeven,the director of the original RoboCop movie, was interviewed by MTV. It was interesting to me about how Verhoeven views the story.

How you do [a remake] now, you’d have to go into all of the digital world, and I’m not sure that would improve the soul of the movie, you know? The point of Robocop, of course, it is a Christ story. It is about a guy who gets crucified in the first 50 minutes, and then is resurrected in the next 50 minutes, and then is like the supercop of the world, but is also a Jesus figure as he walks over water at the end. Walking over water was in the steel factory in Pittsburgh, and there was water there, and I put something just underneath the water so he could walk over the water and say that wonderful line, “I am not arresting you anymore.” Meaning, I’m going to shoot you. And that is of course the American Jesus.

Is he right does Robocop's story mirror Jesus' life? I'm not sure, I'm sure that Verhoeven is referring to the myths of dying and rising saviors of pagan mythologies which cannot be applied to Jesus. I think it's worth further discussion. There are several differences between RoboCop and Jesus.

Jesus chose to lay down his life. He was resurrected and acted on his own without being under other people's control. Jesus predicted his death, burial, and Resurrection, and his claim to deity was validated by his resurrection. Jesus also died for others. He was punished because of our sins.

RoboCop on the other hand was murdered. He did not choose to die. The death of Alex Murphy did not save anyone or get rid of sin. Unlike Jesus' resurrection which confirmed Jesus' identity, Alex Murphy's resurrection detracted from his identity. He be came less than human. Robocop's free will was arrested and he was reprogrammed. None of these traits Jesus shared with RoboCop. The thing I always found interesting was the question about where Murphy's soul went. I think it was firmly established that Robocop retained his soul. I wonder if that means if we can ask if Murphy even really died. He was more than just a puppet on a string. Because of that soul RoboCop transcended his programming.

Movie Trailers - Movies Blog

Paul Verhoeven: ‘Robocop was a Jesus metaphor’

Exegeting Mark 16:17

I saw the following tweet from tweeter AlmightyGod:

How to tell if someone is really a Christian: http://is.gd/bKcAV

The  link takes you to the following cartoon:



Obviously  the strip is saying that if a person claims to be a Christian, then we must be able to cast out demons, survive snake bites, and survive drinking poison. The conclusion is that Christians are hypocrites because the majority of us are not looking for demons to subjugate, pick up deadly snakes, or drink poison and those that are doing those things are crazy!

There are two problems with this. Anyone who knows anything the Greek texts and it's copies we have of Mark knows that Mark 16:9-20 is not in the oldest manuscripts and was most likely added later! Therefore I don't think that we can say that Jesus actually said it because it does not seem the same author of Mark wrote the Mark 16:9-20. In addition, even if you disagree and say that  Mark 16:9-20 is just as much scripture as the rest of Mark, the cartoon strip twists verse 17-18. Let me quote the NIV and KJV

¹⁷And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; ¹⁸they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well." (NIV)

 ¹⁷And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
 ¹⁸They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. (KJV)

Jesus is not telling his followers to pick up snakes or drink poison. The context is in terms of preaching. These signs are to be given to validate the witness not just because. If you happen to pick up a snake or drink poison unbeknown to you these promises are made. In Acts  Paul was bitten by a poisonous snake while he was gathering  wood. He didn't get sick  but it was an accident. I liked how the following web site answered this:

If it is supposed to be in the bible then should we drink poison to get our skeptic "saved"?
We can see from the Devil's testing in the wilderness where Jesus stood on this issue:

(Mat 4:6-7 NIV) "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: "'He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'" {7} Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"

Like some skeptics, the devil is good at quoting scripture (Psa 91:11-12) and Jesus wisely answers with scripture Deu 6:16. Clearly we should not put God to the test by drinking poison, further God saves using preaching, that is his method (Rom 10:14). (http://www.apocalipsis.org/difficulties/poison.htm)

THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Slave Catcher of the Week: Pastor James David Manning supports Virginia's Confederate History Month and uses the bible to endorse slavery

So Manning is back. Here is an article discussing the latest spew of inconsistent  rhetoric that characterizes Manning's ministry.  The author posts two videos and then comments. I think h3 as some good points.

THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY: Slave Catcher of the Week: Pastor James David Manning supports Virginia's Confederate History Month and uses the bible to endorse slavery

Roman Catholicism – Was Peter the Rock? Was Peter the First Pope? | True Freethinker

One of the most famous claims about Roman Catholicism is that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church because Apostle Peter was the first pope and Jesus left him in charge. Matthew 16:13-20 is generally used to teach this. In this particular article (linked below) , Mariano explains why this interpretation is much more an example of eisogesis and not exegesis. He explains that Peter was not the first pope using Biblical evidences. This a great article and well worth reading!

Roman Catholicism – Was Peter the Rock? Was Peter the First Pope? | True Freethinker

Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Mariano Grinbank of TrueFreeThinker.com

 Brian Auten of Apologetics 315 interviewed Mariano Grinbank on his Apologetics ministry. I admire Mariano's writings and comments immensely. I've been reading his work for a while now and always enjoy and benefit from his work. He is really good at writing and communicating his ideas. I thank God for the way he uses both Brian and Mariano.  I also appreciate Mariano for mentioning this blog as a good resource.  Listen to the whole interview at the following link,

Apologetics 315: Apologist Interview: Mariano Grinbank of TrueFreeThinker.com

Promiscuous women make the earth move says senior cleric | News.com.au

One of the Spiritual leaders of Iran said the following:

"Many women who do not dress modestly ... lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes.'' - Iranian Ayatollah Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi

Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi of Iran was quoted to have said the above last week. I didn't know how to respond. I mean the implications given the 4 large earthquakes in the last four months., the implication is not much different than Pat Roberston's Haiti-Made-a-deal-with-the-devil reason for the Haitian earthquake. In other words Sedighi seemed to be saying that nations who have earthquakes are more wicked than nations that don't have earthquakes. It's just as wrong as when Roberston said his statement.

Of course Feminists have gotten really angry. One such women has named Jen McCreight has decided to take him up on the challenge. She has proposed an experiment on her blog Blag Hag.

Sedighi claims that not dressing modestly causes earthquakes. If so, we should be able to test this claim scientifically. You all remember the homeopathy overdose?
Time for a Boobquake.
On Monday, April 26th, I will wear the most cleavage-showing shirt I own. Yes, the one usually reserved for a night on the town. I encourage other female skeptics to join me and embrace the supposed supernatural power of their breasts. Or short shorts, if that’s your preferred form of immodesty. With the power of our scandalous bodies combined, we should surely produce an earthquake. If not, I’m sure Sedighi can come up with a rational explanation for why the ground didn’t rumble. And if we really get through to him, maybe it’ll be one involving plate tectonics. - quoted from her blog

And from an article:

Called “BoobQuake”, Blag Hag’s event calls for women to dress immodestly (but within bounds), in shirts revealing cleavage or in short shorts, in an attempt to bring down the wrath of Allah and cause an earthquake.

I have a problem with this. I agree that Sedighi needs to be answered, but i don't th8ink that this is the way. You don't combat ignorant stupidity with immodesty. Immodesty is another form of ignorance. People dress immodestly and act inappropriately when they don't understand their own worth and what God says about them and His purpose for them. I did find news that there was an earthquake today in Taiwan today on Monday, April 26 - "Boobquake".

According to the Associated Press, a 6.5-magnitude “earthquake struck off the southeast coast of Taiwan on Monday, causing buildings to sway briefly but no casualties or damage. The temblor was felt at the site of a massive landslide in northern Taiwan but did not hamper rescue efforts.” News of the quake has, shall we say, shaken up the event’s Facebook page. One member wrote, “The Taiwan EQ doesn’t count because it happened before the official start of the experiment.” Another surmised: “Our girls are powerful but as half the planet wasn’t even out of bed yet, I seriously doubting [sic] the correlation!” Will Earth lose its cruelly ironic edge? Tomorrow or the next day’s horrendous earthquake will surely tell.

I'm not going to make a comment other than to say that I don't think for a minute that promiscuous and immodest women cause earthquakes. If they did wouldn't places where prostitution is legal be hot beds for big earthquakes? I think that the fact that there aren't frequent earthquakes in Nevada or in Holland makes upping immodesty for a day unnecessary to show that Sedighi is wrong!

Better is that Jesus disagrees with Sedighi

¹Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. ²Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? ³I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. ⁴Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? ⁵I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish." - Luke 13: 1-4

And we must not forget what the Bible says about modesty!

³Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. ⁴Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight. - 1 Peter 3:3-4

Promiscuous women make the earth move says senior cleric | News.com.au
Promiscuous women make the earth move says senior cleric
Philosophically Poorly Timed Earthquake Coincides with “Boobquake”
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2010/04/26/photos-boobquake-iranian-cleric/

The Daily WTF: The Simpson’s Stand By South Park, Sort Of « Crushable

In last night's Simpsons opening the show commented on the controversy of the creators of South Park being threatened by Muslim extremists who are unhappy with how the program depicted Muhammad in an episode Comedy Central refuses to air.


The Daily WTF: The Simpson’s Stand By South Park, Sort Of « Crushable

Crucifixion and Resurrection Time Line

Image via Wikipedia

One issue that keeps coming up is that people claim that the gospels give conflicting information about when Jesus was crucified. This is not true. There has been great research on how to understand the timeline for what happened the last week before Jesus was crucified. I have found three good online articles about this.

Essay: The Chronology of Jesus' Crucifixion
The Crucifixion of Jesus
The Chronology of Christ's Crucifixion
& Resurrection

Here is a brief chronology of Holy Week:

Saturday	Arrived at Bethany	John 12:1
Sunday	Crowd came to see Jesus	John 12:9-11
Monday	Triumphal Entry	Matthew 21:1-9; Mark 11:1-10; Luke 19:28-44
Tuesday	Cursed Fig Tree	Matthew 21:18-19; Mark 11:12-14
	Cleansed Temple	Matthew 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45-46
Wednesday	Fig Tree Withered	Matthew 21:20-22; Mark 11:20-26
	Temple Controversy	Matthew 21:23-23:39; Mark 11:27-12:44; Luke 20:1-21:4
	Olivet Discourse	Matthew 24:1-25:46; Mark 13:1-37; Luke 21:5-36
Thursday	Last Supper	Matthew 26:20-30; Mark 14:17-26; Luke 22:14-30
	Betrayed and Arrested	Matthew 26:47-56; Mark 14:43-52; Luke 22:47-53; John 18:2-12
	Tried by Annas and Caiaphas	Matthew 26:57-75; Mark 14:53-72; Luke 22:54-65: John 18:13-27
Friday	Tried by Sanhedrin	Matthew 27:1; Mark 15:1; Luke 22:66
	Tried by Pilate, Herod	Matthew 27:2-30; Mark 15:2-19; Luke 23:1-25; John 18:28-19:16
	Crucified and Buried	Matthew 27:31-60; Mark 15:20-46; Luke 23:26-54; John 19:16-42
Saturday	Dead in Tomb
Sunday	Resurrected	Matthew 28:1-15; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-35

According to Harold W. Hoehner, "Chronology," Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (InterVarsity Press, 1992, pp. 120.

Do Christians Oppose Universal Health Care Because They Think People are Lazy? | Athanatos Christian Apologetics Ministry

I read a real good article about why Christians are against Universal Health Care. The blogger makes a lot of good points. The best one I thought was:

Perhaps we should raise a new objection to universal health care: it isn’t that the people receiving the care are lazy, it’s that the tender-hearted ‘truly compassionate’ people are lazy… they want to have people helped, but they aren’t willing to do it themselves unless the government tells them to do it or if they can get everyone else forced to ‘help’ in the same way.
I for one do not believe that it is any ‘help’ to make an entire nation wards of the state.

I agree. However I don't think universalizing health care would make people "wards of the state". Something must be done because we have hard-working people who can't afford health care and some people are dying because of that. As a Christian I have a huge problem with the idea that the only people who can't afford health care are lazy or don't deserve it. I don't think the blogger is saying that people don't deserve health coverage. However in all the talk, I haven't heard another alternative to the government getting involved in regulating health care and everyone getting the coverage they need. So far the current system is not working. I actually know people who can't afford health coverage and are working hard to support themselves and their families. What about them?

Do Christians Oppose Universal Health Care Because They Think People are Lazy? | Athanatos Christian Apologetics Ministry

Truthbomb Apologetics: Video: Jesus: Man, Messiah, or More?

I don't know how I missed this post but Chad has posted an article with links to a series of video lectures of Craig Evans explaining who Jesus is. This is worth going  through!

Truthbomb Apologetics: Video: Jesus: Man, Messiah, or More?

Comparison Chart: Christianity vs. Islam - ReligionFacts

Here is a great chart I found on the Internet. It summarizes Christianity and Islam.

History & Stats	Christianity	Islam
date founded	c. 30 AD	622 CE
place founded	Palestine	Arabian Peninsula
founders & early leaders	Jesus, Peter, Paul	Muhammad
original languages	Aramaic and Greek	Arabic
major location today	Europe, North and South America	Middle East, Southeast Asia
adherents worldwide today	2 billion	1.3 billion
adherents in USA	159 million	1.1 million
adherents in Canada	21 million	500,000
adherents in UK	51 million	1.6 million
current size rank	largest in the world	second largest in the world
major branches	Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant	Sunni, Shiite
Religious Authority	Christianity	Islam
sacred text	Bible = Old Testament (Jewish Bible) + New Testament	Qur'an (Koran)
inspiration of sacred text	views vary: literal Word of God, inspired human accounts, or of human origin only	literal Word of God
status of biblical prophets	true prophets	true prophets
status of Jewish Bible	canonical	noncanonical but useful as a (corrupted) inspired text
status of Jewish Apocrypha	canonical (Catholic); useful but noncanonical (Protestant)	noncanonical
status of New Testament	canonical	noncanonical but useful as a (corrupted) inspired text
summaries of doctrine	Apostle's Creed, Nicene Creed	Six Articles of Faith
religious law	canon law (Catholics)	Sharia
other written authority	church fathers, church councils, ecumenical creeds (all branches); papal decrees, canon law (Catholics)	Hadith
Beliefs & Doctrine	Christianity	Islam
ultimate reality	one creator God	one creator God
nature of God	Trinity - one substance, three persons	unity - one substance, one person
other spiritual beings	angels and demons	angels, demons, jinn
revered humans	saints, church fathers	prophets, imams (especially in Shia Islam)
identity of Jesus	Son of God, God incarnate, savior of the world	true prophet of God, whose message has been corrupted
birth of Jesus	virgin birth	virgin birth
death of Jesus	death by crucifixion	did not die, but ascended bodily into heaven (a disciple died in his place)
resurrection of Jesus	affirmed	denied, since he did not die
second coming of Jesus	affirmed	affirmed
mode of divine revelation	through Prophets and Jesus (as God Himself), recorded in Bible	through Muhammad, recorded in Qur'an
human nature	"original sin" inherited from Adam - tendency towards evil	equal ability to do good or evil
means of salvation	correct belief, faith, good deeds, sacraments (some Protestants emphasize faith alone)	correct belief, good deeds, Five Pillars
God's role in salvation	predestination, various forms of grace	predestination
good afterlife	eternal heaven	eternal paradise
bad afterlife	eternal hell, temporary purgatory (Catholicism)	eternal hell
view of the other religion	Islam is respected as a fellow monotheistic religion, but Muhammad is not seen as a true prophet	Christians are respected as "People of the Book," but they have mistaken beliefs and only partial revelation
Rituals & Practices	Christianity	Islam
house of worship	church, chapel, cathedral, basilica, meeting hall	mosque
day of worship	Sunday	Friday
religious leaders	priest, bishop, archbishop, patriarch, pope, pastor, minister, preacher, deacon	imams
major sacred rituals	baptism, communion (Eucharist)	Five Pillars: prayer, pilgrimage, charity, fasting, confession of faith
head covered during prayer?	generally no	yes
central religious holy days	Lent, Holy Week, Easter	Eid-al-Fitr, Eid-al-Adha, month of Ramadan
other holidays	Christmas, saints days	Mawlid, Ashura
major symbols	cross, crucifix, dove, anchor, fish, alpha and omega, chi rho, halo	crescent, name of Allah in Arabic

Comparison Chart: Christianity vs. Islam - ReligionFacts

The Information Challenge | Australian Skeptics

Richard Dawkins via last.fm

I recently came across the following video on YouTube




Of course when I saw this I immediately thought that maybe there was a response.




The rebuttal video links to an article written by Dawkins himself to explain how he was blindsided and that the interview was edited to make him look bad. The link to that article is below.

The Information Challenge | Australian Skeptics

I think that Richard Dawkins' response is plausible but I think that the question was a valid question and in that video he did not answer it. His written response is more substantive but it still does not answer the question.

Dawkins wrote:

This idea of information fed from ancestral generations into descendant gene pools is one of the themes of my new book, Unweaving the Rainbow. It takes a whole chapter, “The Genetic Book of the Dead”, to develop the notion, so I won’t repeat it here except to say two things. First, it is the whole gene pool of the species as a whole, not the genome of any particular individual, which is best seen as the recipient of the ancestral information about how to survive. The genomes of particular individuals are random samples of the current gene pool, randomised by sexual recombination. Second, we are privileged to “intercept” the information if we wish, and “read” an animal’s body, or even its genes, as a coded description of ancestral worlds. To quote from Unweaving the Rainbow: “And isn’t it an arresting thought? We are digital archives of the African Pliocene, even of Devonian seas; walking repositories of wisdom out of the old days. You could spend a lifetime reading in this ancient library and die unsated by the wonder of it.”

I don't think he answered the question.What I still want to know how does one species' gene pool get infused with more genetic information to turn it into another? During the article he likened our genomes to hard drives and DNA as computer code. I agree. However if he is right  that all higher organisms contain code from past generations then where does this code comes from. Random mutations don't explain it and as a computer programmer I can tell you that I don't want my code mutating.

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Franklin Graham: The Christian Message of Hate.

thegrandverbalizer has written a blog post regarding the way Christians speak of violence in the Bible. He makes a valid point that many Christians are embarrassed and even deny that these passages exists. I want to point out that denying any part of scripture is stupid. I see it good to refer to his thoughtful post paragraph by paragraph. My comments will be in red and his comments will stay black.

The United States of America should be applauded recently for not allowing a Christian hate monger Franklin Graham to speak before the Pentagon. I also want to applaud both the United States and New Zealand for removing Bible passages from ammunitions that are used to kill people (and some times even innocent children) in the war in Afghanistan.

Maybe Franklin Graham just wanted to have a photo oportunity of him sitting on a tank with a Bible in his hand struggling with a half smile. Yet, it's good to know that there are Americans of good conscious who thought this could be sending the wrong message.

I'm not sure it is fair to call Franklin Graham a "hate monger" and I would like to see evidence proving that this is an appropriate description.

Where do these Christian dominionist and far right Christian extremist like Franklin Graham, Sarah Palin and Rod Parsley get the idea that violence is o.k and it solves things? Well they get their ideas from Jesus of course!

I also not sure if linking Franklin Graham, Sarah Palin, and Rod Parsley together is appropriately either - given the differences in what they believe.


Matthew 10:34

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword”.(Matthew 10:34)

Oh maybe Jesus didn't fulfill this prophecy in his 'first coming' but don't worry he will do that well enough with the help of the United States military in his 'second coming'. Not only that but he will bail out Israel (a nation that has rejected him as a myth or a magician who deserved to be stoned to death) just in the nick of time.

So don't worry in Jesus 'second coming' he will be back as a bad mama jama complete with eye beam lasers, holy hand grenades and what have you.

Do you really think that Jesus was advocating open and armed conflict? Look at the whole of Chapter 10. The context is Jesus is sending out his followers to teach. He warns them of the persecution that they will come against. Jesus is not saying that he desires to bring pain and destruction on earth but because of Him there would be and has been war and conflict. There is no in-between. You are either on his side or you are not. It's polarizing. That is what Jesus referring to.

Jesus says hate everyone but him!

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:25)

Let's look at the context. Could Jesus really be telling his followers to hate their parents when the Law expressly tells us to honor our parents? No. Therefore what did Jesus mean? What did the audience understand that Jesus meant? Jesus was using an extreme point to show hw much devotion we should have to Him not that we should hate our parents. He was saying that we should be more committed to Him than anything or anyone else. He was talking about worship. Considering that worship is being commanded...we can see that Jesus is indeed God for we should worship no one but God. By the way this is verse 26 not verse 25.

“But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'" (Luke 19:27)

A horrible Apologetic

In fact the above verses attributed to Jesus are so shocking that even a Christian in a recent debate with a Muslim tried to flat out deny that they even existed! You can see that here:

It's sad that some would try to deny these verses while still claiming to Christians. I don't really see what is the matter when understood in context. Luke 19:27 is part of a parable. It must be understood in that context. Anyone who denies Christ will not be in the Kingdom. They will be going to hell. Why is that embarrassing?


Jesus and the Old Testament

Remember the Christians believe that Jesus pre-existed as God the word. (John 1:1) so everything that God ordered in the 'Old Testament' or the TNCH Jesus had a hand in it. Any Christian who wants to distance Jesus from the events of the Old Testament is making to admissions.

1. 
   
   
   
   That the Old Testament is indeed embarrassing thus we need to make distance between Jesus and it.
2. 
   
   
   
   The God of the Old Testament and New Testament are quite different thus indirectly endorsing the heresy of Marcion.

I agree that trying to distance Jesus from the Old Testament means that you are doing those two things you stated. That is why I would never do that. The Old Testament is completely true and inerrant. Don't forget Jesus based his authority and proofs directly on the Old Testament. It's indeed heretical to say otherwise.

I wonder if the song “Jesus loves the little children”... plays in your head as you read the following biblical passages.

Revelation 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which search the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

It does play in mind. Love without Justice is not love.

http://kjvbible.net/cgi-bin/search.cgi

1 Samuel 15:3 (New International Version)

3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "

Footnotes:

Jesus loves the little children ALL the children in the world (except those of the Amalekites) red and yellow black and white they are precious in his site (precious enough to just sit back and watch them to get hacked to bits and pieces) Jesus loves the little children of the world. Come on Franklin Graham sit on top of a U.S Abrams tank and sing it with us!!!


How do you know Jesus did not love them? I think that it's equally problematic for a Muslim to attack the Old Testament while Muhammad endorsed it. I trust God that the little Amalekite children deserved whatever He gave them. 

1 ...2... 3 'Jesus loves the little children all the children of the world (except those who get in the way of U.S smart bombs) red, and yellow, BUT MOSTLY WHITE, Most of them are precious in his site.

No way do I think that God ordered us  Americans to kill Children in Afghanistan or Iraq or anywhere else. I can find no scripture for declaring war on another Nation with no provocation.

Paul and Truth


When Christians are cornered about this they are actually exhorted by Paul to lie and distort the truth. 


Where is that?


This is why instead of a confronting the issues most Christians resort to scripture twisting and inconsistent methods of interpretation to hide the fact that they mask their love for violence with a false image of peace.


I don't deny throughout history there have been such Christians as long as you admit that the same thing can be said of Hamas and Al Quieda.

For examples of Christian using Paul's deceptive techniques when in sticky situations please see here: http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2009/11/greek-orthrodox-priest-attacked-by.html

Do you have any proof that Paul used deceptive techniques?

Swords


Lie no.1 The sword Jesus talked about sending is a 'spiritual' sword. Sure it is! Let's take a look at what the spiritual sword did when Peter used it.

More of an example of crappy exegesis not lying.

Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant's name was Malchus.) (John 18:10)

Why in the world did Jesus disciples carry swords around with them? To pear apples? Where they going to be part of a 'Pirates of the Caribbean Play'?

Also do you really think that Peter sliced off the high priest servants ear and nothing came of it?

Oh but didn't Jesus say,

Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”(Matthew 26:52)

Notice Jesus doesn't say DROP THE SWORD TO THE GROUND. “Put it BACK IN ITS PLACE”

You seem to have forgotten that no where did Jesus say that we could not defend ourselves and the Jesus picked up Malchus' ear and healed him.

But notice what is reported in John.

Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.)

Jesus commanded Peter,“Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?” (John 18:10-11)

Apparently the writer of John (whomever he/she is) thought it was find and dandy that Peter just strikes off someones ear and he goes about his business. Matthew however, makes it a point where Jesus rebukes Peter. Also notice above in John that there is no dramatic exchange between Jesus and Peter about 'living by the sword and dying by the sword.'

Again Jesus healed the man.  Also don't forget Jesus told his disciples to get swords:

³⁵Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"
      "Nothing," they answered.
 ³⁶He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. ³⁷It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'^[b]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."
 ³⁸The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
      "That is enough," he replied. (Luke 22:35-38)

Jesus told them this because He was leaving them.




Matthew 5:39

“But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also”. (Matthew 5:39)

This teaching is not very helpful if you are in prison and a man is trying to rape you. Christians who see violence as helpful 'means to an end' have felt that it is not necessary to interpret this passage literally. For example if a man is going to rape and kill your wife and children are you just going to advise your family to 'turn the other cheek'.

Did you know that in the first century if someone was going to strike you on the right cheek they would only want hit you on right cheek with the back of their hand. If you turn the other side they have to slap you again with the front right hand - meaning that you are an equal. Something that an enemy back then would not want to admit. Jesus was telling us to defend ourselves not cowtow.

If Osama Bin Laden launches a terrorist attack in New York and kills thousands of people are you going to 'turn the other cheek'. Hell No! Says Franklin Graham!

Where doe the Bible say we should?



Comments form Folks who Know nothing of Christianity

Loving quotes from Christians who embrace the "real Christianity".

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity ." - Ann Coulter , bestselling political author

Ann Coulter speaks for me as a Christians as much as the Ayatolla speaks for you.

“You know, I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don’t think any oil shipments will stop.” -Pat Robertson of 700 Club and former presidential hopeful.

Ah, yes. Consider the source. He thinks that Haiti gained its independence by making a deal with the devil.  I think that this quote shows just as much "wisdom".


In a chapter titled "Islam: The Deception of Allah," Mr Parsley speaks of Allah as a “demon spirit” and urges "war between Islam and Christian civilization". There is no difference between violent Islamist extremists and moderate Muslims, he argues.


"I cannot tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of Islam, that we see it for what it really is,” he writes. “In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam.


I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore.” -Rod Parsley former adviser to John McCain

Parsley can't exegete his way out of a paper bag.

I hope that there are Christians who can exegete the many violent passages in the Bible in a way that would allow for more coexistence between people of other faiths. I am hoping that not all Christians understand the Bible in the same way that Sarah Palin, Pat Robertson, Rod Parsley, Rudy Guliani, and Ann Coulter understand it. I hope that there are Christians who embrace love and peace and want better understanding with their Muslim neighbors. Here is hoping and praying for a better world.

 You can't consistently read and understand the Bible and agree with Sarah Palin, Pat Robertson, Rod Parsley, Rudy Guliani, and Ann Coulter. 

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Franklin Graham: The Christian Message of Hate.