Exposed, The Extremist Agenda

“Very chilling. Yikes!

I recognized some of the opening fanatical lines from a quotation in the Hamas covenant (also worth reading and very chilling).

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm
last edited: 11/26/06 4:22:04 PM”

“Wow, you watched it in 15 minutes? It's 40 minutes.

Many of those lines are directly from the Qu'ran. The "peaceful" religion some claim.”

“Obviously, I didn't watch the whole thing - but what I saw was chilling and I responding regarding the material that used lines that are quoted in the Hamas covenant.

One could find lots of fuel for fanatics in the Bible as well. It depends on how you select your quotes.”

“One could find lots of fuel for fanatics in the Bible as well. It depends on how you select your quotes.

In context, you are incorrect. Only taking things out of context in the Bible could you do that. In context, the Qu'ran is not peaceful.

One could fuel a fanaticism from the Little Engine that Could too if you took it out of context.
last edited: 11/26/06 5:27:30 PM”

“OK, tell me by what rules Numbers 31 is only violent out of context, but the violent passages in the Koran are violent in context.”

“We were not speaking of versus that reference something that can be considered "violent", we were speaking of things that could support fanaticism.

Anyways, are you familiar with the "New Testament"? We are subject to it's rules, in context. You gave the chapter to a specific command given to a specific people of long ago. It's not a command to us, in context. It's history. The passages in the Qu'ran are laws in effect today.

In fact, just read verse 2 to see that it is a once and done command of long ago: Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.
last edited: 11/26/06 5:48:04 PM”

“#1: Most of the Koran is also historical.

#2: Look at all the commands in the Old Testamant about who is supposed to be killed and what for.

#3: The New Testament is full of wrath for those who reject Jesus. Lots of killings and sufferings are prescribed. Yes, I believe that this is metaphorically intended. Others can back up their interpretation that these relate to prophesy of extreme and destructive apocalytpical battles and that no Christians are to do such things/

Spainish Catholics in the new world, the Inquisitors, the burners of witches and many others found justification in the Bible - just as the bloody Islamists find it in the Koran. Islam has had its periods of peace and harmony. Within Islam, there has been a struggle for about 150 years between the Wahabis and the much more peaceful Sufis. I hope the vision of the Koran as a book of peace triumphs in the Moslem world.”

“Why just the other day I heard a well known rabbi say every Jew should raise up and kill all the Arabs just like they did the Midianites. Oh wait...”

“#1: There are specific commands in the Qu'ran that relate to all Muslims that are not a historical record of past events which are used, in context, for fanaticism. Here is one, and I'll find others if you'd like. Surah 47:3-6 "This, because the unbelievers follow falsehood, while the faithful follow the truth from their Lord. Thus God lays down for mankind their rules of conduct. When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly. Then grant them their freedom or take a ransom from them, until War shall lay down her burdens. Thus shal you do. Had God willed, He could Himself have punished them;"

#2: What about it? Again, keeping it in context it does not pertain to current day Christians. Give me one example of what you speak of.

#3: Again, be specific. We'll discuss any specific issue you bring up. Throwing around terms like "lots of killings and sufferings are prescribed" doesn't help this discussion. Let's go right to the meat of the matter.
last edited: 11/26/06 7:24:53 PM”

“#2: What about it? Again, keeping it in context it does not pertain to current day Christians.

The world is a violent place and those who try ascribe the peace, love and happiness view are usually the first to be surprised when the fit hits the shan. War has been around as long as man and will be until the messianic era begins. Even Jesus when he sent out his followers on their great missionary trips told them to take a sword. But as I have agreed in the past, it's all about context.”

“The only time we are told to take on a sword is here:

Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

Yes, context is everything.
last edited: 11/26/06 8:10:46 PM”

“#1 - For rules of war well over 1,000 years ago, that seems pretty reasonable.

I don't see much fruitful in the specifics. There is an answer for each one, just as those who say the Koran espouses peace have an answer for the quotations we might offer from the Koran.

Other than the fact that Jesus seems to approve of and does not challenege the laws laid down in the Bible of Israel, one example is Mathew 10, especially 12 - 21 and then 34 -36.”

“pedxing - There are answers when we talk specifics if we keep context.

Other than the fact that Jesus seems to approve of and does not challenege the laws laid down in the Bible of Israel, one example is Mathew 10, especially 12 - 21 and then 34 -36.

Honestly pedxing, you don't seem to have any idea what you're talking about. It's hard to decide where to begin.

First off, Jesus would not "challenge" the laws laid down in the Bible of Israel. In context, Jesus is Lord, He would not challenge Himself. Secondly, once again, there is an old and a new covenant. The old covenant is valid - for it's time.

Regarding Matthew 10, it's almost comical because you quoted a verse that specifically tells people not to cause trouble, but to move along and not let people discourage you when evangelizing as you experience trouble. LOL. Did you even read it?

The second part specifically refers to what Jesus is doing, not what we are to do. Again, IN CONTEXT, it tells us to "move along" and let God work as He pleases.


Ironically, you seem to have chosen a verse that displays my point quite perfectly.
last edited: 11/26/06 8:33:24 PM”

“PS - I meant for the "Again, IN CONTEXT" sentence to be on a new line.”

“Luke 19:27?”

“Violin - Did you read the whole chapter? It's a parable about an earthly King. Another good example of why context is important. The parables point is to teach us that Jesus is going away (He has) and will return someday. In the meantime, we are to use our gifts He has given us for Him. The one verse you quoted from the parable signifies that unbelieving Jews will one day perish. It doesn't tell us to kill them, in that is is a parable ... a tale of fantasy used to illustrate a point. It's even called "The Parable of the Ten Minas" which illustrates it's a parable, not a command.

Context is everything.”

“Yes. there are things you can interpret as Violent in the Bible. But guesswhat....it was ISLAMIC FASCISTS who committed the atrocities in 9/11. It is the Islamic Fascists who seek our destruction, and contrary to what you want to build as your little "happy place" by making illogical comparisons between our heroes over there and the terrorists (YES TERRORISTS) this is truly a WAR, it is staring you in your face like those cutsy newsreels in 1930's you know the Violin Hero with the Chaplin mustache.”

“Yes. there are things you can interpret as Violent in the Bible.

Please stay on topic XL. It's hard enough to keep these guys focused without you changing the subject.”

“Moon...I guess I see the central point as. a comparison of religions. Okay we can go off on that tangent all day but the thread is about the REAL threat posed.

Now you can equivocate the religions and you can find stuff in our history. But then we can find history of Monarchys threatening the world...but we must consider the real threat. My Faith tells me what I believe is RIGHT.”

“As you will note moonglo, I acknowledged the horrible wrath was to be carried out by God, not by the disciples. There, God is saying don't make trouble now, because when the time comes I will ensure they suffer terribly.”

“OMG....I can't believe they stole that little girls eyes and on TV too! OMG....PUKE!

Nuke those bastards!!!”

““As you will note moonglo, I acknowledged the horrible wrath was to be carried out by God, not by the disciples. There, God is saying don't make trouble now, because when the time comes I will ensure they suffer terribly.”

So what you're saying is you've got NO versus to back up your claim that in context the Christian Bible can be interpreted to use for support of fanaticism. Why don't you just say it instead of changing the subject? Admit defeat and we can move on.”

““The only time we are told to take on a sword is here:

Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

Yes, context is everything.

Luk 22:36
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.”

“...or you could just beat it into a plowshare......”

“Maybe after the Messiah comes but until then, I'll hang onto my .40 cal. LOL!”

“You're right, I forgot about that but that is because in that case he also told the disciples not to use the swords. The "sword of the Spirit" is to be used, but the physical one that you mentioned is not to be used. They are only to fulfill Old Testament prophesy (and was only in reference to the disciples). Again, in context, there is nothing that can be used to support fanaticism.

(ref: Luke 22:49-52)

All you have to do is read just a little bit further to see that they were not to be used. Did you read further for context?

last edited: 11/27/06 8:07:15 AM”

“Could this not be because it was in the defense of Jesus, which Jesus himself would not do? Having just prayed in the garden and come to the conclusion that he must die. So these swords they were to carry, which were more important than clothes, were for what? Decoration?”

“As I mentioned, they were to fulfill prophesy. As I also mentioned, if you read just several versus further, you will see that they are told not to use them by Jesus, which further clarifies their intended use. Again, did you read the whole chapter? It's fairly short. Try it. That way you have context ... it's everything ... it's what's for dinner.


If you have any doubt as to context of the use of the swords, ask yourself a simple question ... "Did Jesus tell them not to use the swords?" The answer is "yes". You can then research as to why he had them carry them to further your knowledge, but the simple fact is they were told not to use them in a violent manner by Jesus Himself.
last edited: 11/27/06 8:37:01 AM”

“I have read the whole chapter and it simply doesn't make any sense that he would tell them to even sell their garments to buy a sword and not expect them to use it. So, we have the J Man saying go buy a weapon in verse 36. The big question is, why? Verse 37 shows us why...

Luk 22:37
For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

Jesus is telling them, "Hey man, I ain't gonna be around cause I'z ain't gonna be around forever.". Verse 37 directly references 36.

So they tell him in verse 38, "Yo J, check it man, we got some steel right'chear.", To which Jesus answers, "Word.".

Luk 22:38

And they said, Lord, behold, here [are] two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

Then some 20 verses later (we're stretchin' the context thing here) Jesus and the boyz get jumped and his boy sayz, "Yo J, cap this foo now?" and zaps his ear off. But Jesus tells him to chill. Why? He told them to arm themselves and then he tells them to chill? What happened in between? Jesus prayed and asked G-d, "Yo Pops, I don't like this. Any chance we could do this another way?", an angel appears and says, "Yo J, ya gots to go braugh.". So of course Jesus would tell them not to attack the priests. This doesn't mean he was resending the order to arm and defend themselves.

so the big questions here are, why tell them to get swords if to not use them?, was he misspeaking?, and mostly, why is Jesus praying to himself?

{This has been another riveting episode of Masterpiece Gansta Theater}”

“LOL...the Bible RNV (Revised Nigal Version)”

“I have read the whole chapter and it simply doesn't make any sense that he would tell them to even sell their garments to buy a sword and not expect them to use it.

But He DID tell them not to use it. The only reason it doesn't make sense to you is because you don't know why. The fact is, He told them not to use it. No matter what His reason for telling them to get it (which I've already explained to you), the fact is He said not to use it. You are ignoring that simple fact ... and therefore ignoring context.

If your theory is correct and He wanted them to use them, Him being GOD, you have some explaining to do Nigal. (1) Why did He tell them not to use them. (2) If He wanted them to use them ... WHEN? At what point did Jesus expect them to use them? They must have used them sometime because He's God and would know that they would be needed ... but when? I'll tell you when ... "never". There never came a time when He wanted them to use them.

To say it again, they are only for the purpose of fulfilling prophesy (in Isaiah).”

“And you people think the rag heads are scary?”

“"But He DID tell them not to use it."

Against the priests and guards. It's like a father telling his kid when there's three feet of snow on the roads, "Hey, don't use the car tonight.". Does this mean the kid isn't to use the car for driving ever again? Of course not.

"To say it again, they are only for the purpose of fulfilling prophesy (in Isaiah)."

Where? Which one? Cause my Isaiah doesn't mention Jesus once.”

“Against the priests and guards.

So when did He want them to use them? The ONLY thing He did was say *IN CONTEXT* was not to use them - so can you please tell us when Jesus told them to use the swords??? Once again, being Jesus, He would have a reason for them to carry them ... so WHEN did He want them to use them? You'll need to answer that because so far we only know that He told them NOT to use them.

Isaiah mentions a prophet who will be tried as a common criminal (common criminals carried swords) ... (even though He committed no crime, to them He appeared as one).

I realize that you don't think Isaiah doesn't mention Jesus, but we are not talking about a Jewish perspective on Christianity - we are talking about if you are a Christian and you read the texts in context, would you be moved to cause violence. The answer is "no". Only by ignoring context could one do so, just like you could be moved to violence if you take Little Red Riding Hood out of context.
last edited: 11/27/06 9:30:43 AM”

“Tut tut tut Sarge. You're breaking your own rules now and not being specific. LOL!

"So when did He want them to use them? The ONLY thing He did was say not to use them - so can you please tell us when Jesus told them to use the swords? Once again, being Jesus, He would have a reason for them to carry them ... so WHEN did He want them to use them? You'll need to answer that because so far we only know that He told them NOT to use them."

THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING YOU!! elohel! Why else would he have them go buy and carry swords? In case they need to clean under their finger nails? Cutting the cheese?

"Isaiah mentions a prophet who will be tried as a common criminal.”

Be specific and what relation does it have to Jesus telling them to carry swords that were not to be used for defense?”

“By the way Nigal, I haven't even begun to address all the times Jesus told his followers to be peaceful, especially against your enemies. But, I don't need to bring that up for further context because in what we are discussing He specifically told them NOT to use the swords.

You're ignoring context.”

“I have been specific. Do you want the verse in Isaiah which mentions they will try a criminal?

Again, you have yet to provide when they are supposed to use the sword. I have provided, IN THE SAME CHAPTER, where He told them NOT to use the sword. Why do you keep ignoring this? Please tell us when they are supposed to use them. I'm repeating this simple request several times now.


To date, all we know is Jesus told them NOT to use them. You have been making assumptions by ignoring context. Specifically, that He told them NOT to use them. How much clearer can this be?

The fact is, the only way you can prove your point is by ignoring context. In fact, you're not only ignoring context, but the text itself! By your own admission you don't know why He would have them carry the swords. I have given you a reason - but that's beside the point. Nothing He says, in context, would give permission for them to use the swords. Quite the opposite. He specifically told them NOT to use them.

You're either trolling now or are refusing to read the text.
last edited: 11/27/06 9:39:02 AM”

“The fact is that the Bible was used (in or out of context) to provide support for a host of extremists acts: the Spanish Inquisition, various acts of the KKK and that nutty group that protests at veterans funerals and other places.”

“Vileman - If you say "in context", you'll need to back that up. I agree it can be used "out of context", but not "in context".”

“I don't have to back anything up. I have no desire to go around in circles with you all week.”

“That's what I thought.”

“For the love of...




“I have been specific. Do you want the verse in Isaiah which mentions they will try a criminal?

Well yeah, that's being specific, right?

"Again, you have yet to provide when they are supposed to use the sword."

Listen carefully...THAT'S WHAT I WANT YOU TO TELL ME!!!! I'm wanting to know if not for defense, because DUH! that's what a sword is for and he doesn't give any other reason why so I can only assume for defense.

"I have provided, IN THE SAME CHAPTER, where He told them NOT to use the sword. Why do you keep ignoring this?"

I'm not ignoring it. I admitted he tells them not to use the swords at that time but gave no qualifying reference to never using them. OK, for the sake of simplicity let's go with your version. They were never to use them. So why the swords then? Decoration?

"Please tell us when they are supposed to use them. I'm repeating this simple request several times now.”

I don't effing know! You're supposed to tell me! I assumed when they went out on the road in their own defense.”

“"You're either trolling now or are refusing to read the text."

No, no trolling or ignoring anything. I just wanna know what the effing swords were for if not for defense. And this is all in non combative font. Just good natured theological discussion between two believers. Kewl?
last edited: 11/27/06 9:48:52 AM”

“Well yeah, that's being specific, right?

12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, [j]
and he will divide the spoils with the strong, [k]
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

"Transgressors" are lawbreakers. He fulfilled the prophesy of being a lawbreaking (giving the appearance of one), even though He was not one.


Listen carefully...THAT'S WHAT I WANT YOU TO TELL ME!!!! I'm wanting to know if not for defense, because DUH! that's what a sword is for and he doesn't give any other reason why so I can only assume for defense.

#1 - I've done that many times already.
#2 - Even if I didn't, the fact is that He told them NOT to use them. You have to show me where he told them to use them, and you have not. In context, He said "do no use them". He also on dozens of other occassions told people not to be violent against their enemy. (I can go there if you want) So in context, you are wrong.

They were never to use them. So why the swords then? Decoration?

#1 - If He told them NOT to use them, then that negates your theory without further explanation.
#2 - Nevertheless, it's to fulfill prophesy, as I've said many times now.

I don't effing know! You're supposed to tell me! I assumed when they went out on the road in their own defense.

So the bottom line is you don't know why they were to carry them, but you agree that Jesus told them not to use them, and I'm sure you'd agree He preached many times against violence against your enemy. So what is your point in bringing up this verse? In context, they are told not to use swords for violence, and this just emphasizes that point. In fact, Jesus UNDID when a sword was used via a miracle! So you've got nothing to stand on in context of the events that took place.”

“No, no trolling or ignoring anything. I just wanna know what the effing swords were for if not for defense. And this is all in non combative font. Just good natured theological discussion between two believers. Kewl?

If that is all you are asking, fine, but you are also ignoring that He told them not to use the swords. There is no indication He said otherwise, past, present, or future. There is on the other hand multiple sermons by Him saying just the opposite. In context, there is no call for violence.”

“12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, [j]
and he will divide the spoils with the strong, [k]
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

"Transgressors" are lawbreakers. He fulfilled the prophesy of being a lawbreaking (giving the appearance of one), even though He was not one.

A subject for another time but Jesus is not the servant in 53. Within the context of the Servant's Song (chapter 41-53) the servant is named by name six times.
41:8
44:1
44:21
45:4
48:20
49:3

#1 - I've done that many times already.

No you didn't.

#2 - Even if I didn't,

Well did you or didn't you? You didn't.

You have to show me where he told them to use them, and you have not.

No I don't because I already told you I was assuming their use. My very first post on this was...

"Even Jesus when he sent out his followers on their great missionary trips told them to take a sword.”
Nigal
7:30:40 PM
11/26/06



#1 - If He told them NOT to use them, then that negates your theory without further explanation.

Oh no ya don't. You're not wiggling out of this. I even stated, let's assume he did tell them to never use them, then what are they for. You're dodging.

#2 - Nevertheless, it's to fulfill prophesy, as I've said many times now.

Which ones?

So the bottom line is you don't know why they were to carry them, but you agree that Jesus told them not to use them,

[sigh] Yes this is what I've been saying for four posts now! If you don't know what the swords were for just fukcing say so. There's no shame in not knowing an answer but there is shame in simply trying to muddy the waters until the only thing that can be said is, "What?".

"and I'm sure you'd agree He preached many times against violence against your enemy."

Well there are a few places where he failed to practice what he preached but that will only get you even further off track.”

“You're dodging. You are the one who has to show that the sword was to be used for violence. All signs point to they were NOT to be used for violence. I've provided proof again and again, yet you have provided NO proof that they are to be used for violence. The dodger is you.

Which ones?

I answered that. In fact, you even quoted my answer, so stop playing dumb.

Yes this is what I've been saying for four posts now! If you don't know what the swords were for just fukcing say so.

I said YOU don't know. I do know (and I told you). Do you know the difference between you and me?

The bottom line is you have provided ZERO instances where the disciples were told to use the swords for violence, but I have provided more than one (including sermons) which say that they were NOT to use the swords for violence.”

“Far too often the bible has been re-interpreted to justify killing in gods name. I would remind you all of two commandments:
Thou shalt not KILL
Thou shalt not take the lords name in vain.

Killing in gods name violates both.

Perhaps to re-iterate for those who cant understand the referance work...."Vengence is mine, thus sayeth the lord"




I have to side with nigal on the Isaiah 53 stuff. There was a big to-do a few years ago between many of the church leaders to hash out this issue and they all agreed that it does not refer to Jesus. There really arent that many clear referances to Jesus in Isaiah at all.”

“There was a big to-do a few years ago between many of the church leaders to hash out this issue and they all agreed that it does not refer to Jesus.

Really? Be specific please.”