Exposed, The Extremist Agenda

““You're dodging. You are the one who has to show that the sword was to be used for violence."

This is not even in contest as it makes no difference to me weather they were used for defense or not. I said Jesus commanded them to take swords with them as the text says. Proving what they are for isn't my dog in the fight.

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.

I know you have provided this. I've said as much. Are you even reading my posts?

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

You mean this one?

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.

If so then you must be the one playing dumb because this has about as much to do with Jesus' followers having swords as claiming the messiah would drive a Pontiac Sunfire.

It's weak at best.”

“Whether or not you think it is weak, Nigal, is irrelevant simply because you have YET to show that Jesus wanted the swords to be used for violence, but I have shown that He did not want them for violence, and even said as much.

You HOPE that He wanted them to be used for violence, but in context, He said just the opposite.

When are we going to get to the part where you show us, in context, that He wanted the swords to be used for extremism/violence? We were discussing that, remember?

If you're not going to show that, just admit defeat and we'll move on. Otherwise, you are dodging the issue.”

“Sarge, seriously man, you're just trying to drive me insane, right? Because no way is someone as smart as you this damn bad at apologetics.

“Whether or not you think it is weak, Nigal, is irrelevant simply because you have YET to show that Jesus wanted the swords to be used for violence, but I have shown that He did not want them for violence, and even said as much.


You are continually clinging to this false notion that I am even claiming Jesus wanted the swords used for violence when I have said, how many frickin' times now that he DOES say not want them to use them? You further invalidate yourself by trying to make this weak connection between no proof being shown for the desire for violent use with the fact that it has zero to do with Isaiah 53. You simply will not let this point go, even though I have conceded it, because then you would to be faced with having to explain your misrepresentation of Isaiah 53:12.


"You HOPE that He wanted them to be used for violence, but in context, He said just the opposite."

Not once did I say anything like this.

If you're not going to show that, just admit defeat and we'll move on. Otherwise, you are dodging the issue.”

Defeat? Oh so it's just all about being right with you huh? You're better than that Sarge.”

“You are continually clinging to this false notion that I am even claiming Jesus wanted the swords used for violence when I have said, how many frickin' times now that he DOES say not want them to use them?

THEN WHY ARE WE DISCUSSING THIS? HAVE YOU LOST SIGHT OF THE POINT OF THE DISCUSSION?

I'll remind you ...

“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.”
moonglo
6:26:38 PM
11/26/06

Maybe you think I'm bad at apologetics because you've lost sight of the argument.


You have not shown that the Christian Bible, taken in context, could fuel fanaticism such as the violence the Muslims exhibit. Only out of context could this happen. By agreeing with me that he told them NOT to use the swords, you only prove my point.

Do you have something to prove yours? I'm still waiting on it if you do...

So far we agree that Jesus told them NOT to use the swords. Even the things we disagree on do not prove your argument. Please provide something that does or I'll have to assume you've either lost sight of the debate or are trolling because you're bored at work.
last edited: 11/27/06 12:12:27 PM”

“

Good gravy! For someone who demands specificity you sure do drift around at will a lot. Go back and read my second post. Ya know, the one where I agree that context is everything? You're the one that started this whole thing.

btw- nice dodge on explaining the Isaiah connection. :P”

“Nigal - This isn't a debate on whether or not context is everything.

You have been arguing that in Luke one can read that, in context, and it would support a fanatical movement.

If you've since changed your position, just say so instead of telling me I drift around. It's the ONE thing I've been discussing this whole time.

I can discuss the Isaiah connection with you if you want, but it is irrelevant to this discussion. There is NO evidence at all that the swords were to be used for violence, as you admit, so a discussion about Isaiah is pointless in this argument because whether or not there was another reason for using the swords shows no intent to use them for violence. Jesus specifically said not to use the swords for violence. End of discussion. If you want to talk about what there purpose was, fine, but we already agree it was not for violence - the whole point of this debate! If they were to be used for mixing cake batter ... we already agree He said not to use them for violence, so it's irrelevant.


The reason you think I'm avoiding a discussion is because you want to talk about something that is irrelevant to this debate. I consider that another debate. We BOTH AGREE He said not to use them for violence. What don't you get about how that fits in with what we were arguing? This is the argument!


I haven't even begun to bring out other supports for my argument, like Jesus preached non-violence against His enemies because I have no need to bring it out because HE SAID NOT TO USE THE SWORDS FOR VIOLENCE.

This isn't rocket science.
last edited: 11/27/06 12:24:05 PM”

“That's gotta win the "Most Properly Placed/Timed Avatar of the Year" award.

lmao!”

“LOL then there was the Church group at the Christmas Parade who had the Float that looked like an M-1 Tank with purple, grey and white camoflague paint......Ever had to explain how that fits into the whole Christianity thing? One of my scouts asked how that could be a Christian group....I thought a minute and told them.

"Must be the Jesuits, since they are the only group I know of historically who would advocate bringing Christ to the people at the end of a Smoothbore 120MM."...LOL

Moon, I agree with both of you. The sad thing is that regardless of what the intention or the REAL meaning....I have seen even the most innocent thing taken out of context for personal gain. This is why the need for a rounded education in faith and life is necessary.

My mother was in a "Christian" group who more or less preached "controlling GOD" by demanding God do this or that. Once again I look at the "real threat" to people as a whole.”

“Key phrase there XL, "taken out of context".”

“laqtis - While you're LYAO, if you want to provide any evidence that the swords were to be used for violence, as opposed to not being used for violence, as Jesus said, by all means provide it. Otherwise you're looking like a clown by laughing at my argument even though you can't disprove it.”

“You have been arguing that in Luke one can read that, in context, and it would support a fanatical movement.

Bull-effing-pucky! Where did I say this? Cut and paste it Scooter. Come on, paste it. Now, paste it. Where? G-d and I await your apology. :P

If you've since changed your position, just say so instead of telling me I drift around.

You don't even have a handle on what my position is much less weather I have changed it or not. This is how it breaks down Big Guy....

Nigal: I think this verse says this.

Sarge: No it doesn't say that.

Nigal: OK, then, let's assume you're right; what's it say and why then?

Sarge: No it doesn't say that.

Nigal: OK, what's it say then and why?

Sarge: No it doesn't say that.

Nigal: Yeah I get it, so what's it mean and why?

Sarge: No it doesn't say that.

Nigal: [insert Howard Dean screem here]

"I can discuss the Isaiah connection with you if you want, but it is irrelevant to this discussion."

Of course it does. It's you main claim for the followers having swords yet it has no connection. I'm simply asking how they can possibly be connected?”

“Nigal, all that tells me is that when you posted the verse to Luke, you were unfamiliar with the discussion preceeding your post.

Maybe you should read it carefully and get back to me.
last edited: 11/27/06 12:39:46 PM”

“Scanners, no?”

““Nigal, all that tells me is that when you posted the verse to Luke, you were unfamiliar with the discussion preceeding your post.

No, all this tells me is that you were unfamiliure with what I wrote in the post which I explained Jesus' command to buy swords....

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.”
Nigal
7:30:40 PM
11/26/06

And now you have two threads hanging out there awaiting your attention. Isaiah and what the connection is and the fact you lied about me claiming it to be a call to a fanatical movement.
last edited: 11/27/06 12:48:39 PM”

“Once again, your post about Luke (which followed that post) was to prove what exactly?

You just threw that out for fun I suppose in the middle of a discussion about fanaticism for what? To see if it floats? What was YOUR point of bringing it up in the middle of another argument?”

“Here is where our argument began (between you and me). Please tell me that you weren't arguing that the sword was to be used for violence...

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.”
Nigal
8:50:56 AM
11/27/06




“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 9:07:15 AM”
moonglo
9:04:32 AM
11/27/06




“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?”
Nigal
9:25:11 AM
11/27/06
last edited: 11/27/06 12:59:06 PM”

“Hey uh laq? Um how are exams looking?”

“Dang Sarge, what is it? Lack of memory, lack of attention span, lack of reading comprehension or what?

“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”
moonglo
8:09:09 PM
11/26/06

And my next post is this...


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.”
Nigal
7:50:56 AM
11/27/06

I said Jesus commanded them to buy swords. You said I was wrong. I posted where it was written. You went off on a tangent. And here we are still.

Where's my apology for lying about my words? Cut and paste it or apologize.”

““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?”
Nigal
9:25:11 AM

I was asking question. Sheesh! Don't you people explore any and all possibilities in your religion?”

“I said Jesus commanded them to buy swords. You said I was wrong. I posted where it was written. You went off on a tangent. And here we are still.

That is NOT what happened. I said you were RIGHT. I said I forgot that one because they were commanded to NOT use them. Then you gave me an arugment that they were to be used. Then the discussion continued. Read the discussion for once and you'll see THAT is what happened.

I was asking question. Sheesh! Don't you people explore any and all possibilities in your religion?

Oh please! You just happened to ask a question that directly challenges the same thing we were arguing! Come on Nigal. Stop the spin machine. You were challenging my statement. Read the thread. Stop spinning. Not only were you not "just asking questions", but you gave a sarcastic remark (about decorations) as if to say it wouldn't be anything but for violent purposes. Now I do think you're just trolling on this Monday.
last edited: 11/27/06 1:08:56 PM”

“I was trying to keep it lighthearted Skippy. How about we stop for a moment while you produce my remark that claimed a call to a fanatical movement or a chance to kindly apologize to me for the slander, or would it be liable? Either way.

tick tick tick”

“The only thing I've been arguing this whole time is that when you take the Christian Bible in context, it can't be used for fanaticism such as that that comes from the Muslim Bible.

If you thought we were discussing something else, fine. I wasn't. There was a misunderstanding from the start as to what we were even talking about if that's the case.

So, either drop it, or move on to another discussion starting from square 1.”

“How about we stop for a moment while you produce my remark that claimed a call to a fanatical movement

I just did that on this post 1:57:31 PM EST.

Read my bottom line post and move along.”

““How about we stop for a moment while you produce my remark that claimed a call to a fanatical movement

I just did that on this post 1:57:31 PM EST.

Ya mean here?

“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?”
Nigal
9:25:11 AM
11/27/06

That's bull. It doesn't say they were trying to start a fanatical movement. Until you can swollow enough pride to even admit you lied I say, "Good day.".”

“Well Nigal, if you maybe read the post that that responded to, as I posted them for you for that purpose, you'd be able to keep context. I even used bold for you! ooooo ... Bold!”

“

"I said GOOD DAY!"”

“from the NIV


He 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.

Jesus clearly commanded the swords be brought to fulfill prophecy and no other purpose. Hear is the rest for you to consider.


49When Jesus' followers saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, should we strike with our swords?" 50And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.

51But Jesus answered, "No more of this!" And he touched the man's ear and healed him.”

“Yeah, we covered that. Thanks. So, got any links to the big "to-do"?”

“"laqtis - While you're LYAO, if you want to provide any evidence that the swords were to be used for violence, as opposed to not being used for violence, as Jesus said, by all means provide it."

lmao!

"Otherwise you're looking like a clown by laughing at my argument even though you can't disprove it."

What a dim wit troll.

"That's gotta win the "Most Properly Placed/Timed Avatar of the Year" award.

lmao!"”

“LMAO!”

“LMFAO!”

“LMMFAO!

Don't try to out-elohel me dude. LOL!”

“so ...... no evidence of the sword thing?

Ok. Got it. Just LYAO ...

Thanks for telling us about your bodily eruptions.”

“"LMMFAO!

Don't try to out-elohel me dude. LOL!"


You got it. You've earned it! ;)”

“LOL!”

“WTF, OMG????




..............and the bartender said, "well to start with you are sitting on the Mop Bucket."”

“Silly People. ;-)”