As I mentioned here Bob is given Joan Peterson of the Brady Campaign a beat down of…may I say “Biblical Proportions”? (And no, Bob isn’t making the rivers turn to blood, or turning people into pillars of salt…wouldn’t that be cool? FYI Bob, I’m rather partial to the raining of Frogs!) But Joan’s thrashing cries of submission are just too awesome.
Yes, Bob, all right. Killing happened in Biblical times. God tested some people by asking them to kill to see what they would do. I am not a literal interpreter of the Bible. I can see that you are. Please, stop asking me this. Go look after those little ones. There’s nothing better than that on a Sunday afternoon.
Let’s just pick at it a bit, because I was so amused by what was said here. First she openly admits that God Condoned killing in the Bible…but somehow implies that this no longer applies today. Does she belive that God no longer tests people? Or maybe God tests people only on more trivial levels, like to see if they’ll give the cashier back money when given improper change? She says she’s not a literal interpreter of the Bible, but she quotes this.
“The problem with Gundamentalism is that it is a distortion of the Biblical message. Gundamentalism creates suspicion and divides us one against the other. Rather than seeing every person as a child of God, created in God’s image and worthy of our respect and love, Gundamentalism encourages us to see each other as ‘the other’ someone against whom we must be armed, someone against whom we must be protected.”
Given that people in the bible DID walk around armed, and DID defend themselves from attack, as well as engage in war, and there is certainly no part of the bible that says these Biblical heros were in the wrong, who exactly is misinterpreting the Bible’s message?
Then comes the passive-aggressive nature of the Pro-Igorance Anti-Freedom lot. She doesn’t actually address Bob’s question, and In my opinion contradicted herself, then asks him not to ask again, and tells him he SHOULD be enjoying his Sunday afternoon away from her blog.
…but she approved his comment (as well as several others) and penned her response (As well as several others) on a Sunday Afternoon. Heh!
Every now and then; Joan lets the truth slip out.
She just doesn’t say the intolerance is on her part.
Notice how she never explains those ‘good reasons’ nor explains how my anonymous comments get through. If they are written by me, then they should fall under the same ‘good reasons’. Obviously, her intolerance and not my comments is the issue.
And when I list those she comes back with some nonsense about God testing people with a command to kill. To my knowledge there is only one time God did that — Abraham.
Sorry Joan, you can have your own opinion but not your own facts.
It is also important to mention that only only did they engage in war, they engaged in war at God’s command.
There is also the entire First Born of Egypt being killed directly by God – kinda hard to say that God doesn’t condone killing there isn’t it?
“For I am the Lord, I do not change.” – Malachi 3:6
“The eternal God is your refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms; He will thrust out the enemy from before you, and will say, ‘Destroy!’” (Deuteronomy 33:27
I love how she cites not one scripture to support her views. Isn’t that something a Christian should do? Show where her faith derived?
(Thanks for letting me say over here what she won’t approve over there.)
“There is also the entire First Born of Egypt being killed directly by God – kinda hard to say that God doesn’t condone killing there isn’t it?”
Not to mention those poor Bastards in Sodom and Gomorrah. What happened in those cities made the Egyptian Plagues look like a fucking picnic!
“(Thanks for letting me say over here what she won’t approve over there.)”
No Worries. Hell I have no blocks in Place with Joan herself. I also currently am allowing comments from Balder Odinson, but if he pulls another MikeB Stick-and-run troll (Stirring up discussion and abandoning the post) he’ll be banned as well as the patent holder of that troll-strike. 🙂
Didn’t mention Sodom and Gomorrah because of the evil nature of those two cities. Since there were so few honest men in town, it could be perceived as a case of justified homicide.
Not so with the Egyptians, God killed all the First Borns — from old men to babes in swaddling clothes.
Maybe I should rename (and reactivate) my Troll of the Day award in honor of MikeB302000. I could call the statute (if I ever photoshopped up one) the “Sparky”
Hey, and in Luke 22:36, Jesus tells the disciples to sell their cloaks and buy swords. No one’s going to mess with a naked guy who has a sword!
And the sword was the Assault Rifle of its time. The Roman Army also used pikes, and javelins, but those weapons were only effective when the unit stayed in a phalanx. If ranks were broken, there was nothing better for warfare than the Gladius, at the time.
Luke 22:36, that is a favorite topic of mine whenever a gun controller decides to play the God card. Jesus didn’t say knife or axe, items that have some possible utilitarian purpose other than being used as a weapon. He said sword, and a sword has but one purpose. Killing, in either attack, or defense.
Here is Matthew 26: 50-54
50 And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him.
51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out [his] hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest’s, and smote off his ear.
52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?
I’m no theology professor, but it seems to me Jesus stayed Peters hand because his destiny was at hand, not because using force in defense is forbidden. Not that it matters. We have freedom of religion in this country and even if you attend a church with a pacifistic interpretations, it has no bearing on me.
Dave,
That is another excellent reference to use.
I’ve heard it explained that verse #52 is not in reference to the disciple but the the slave and his master.
Verse 55 continues: At that time Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out with swords and clubs, to arrest Me as you would against a robber? (BQ)Every day I used to sit in the temple teaching and you did not seize Me.
And the other aspect; if a Jesus was supposed to be non violent, why would 12 legions (a very specific military term) be available to him?
Surely the angels wouldn’t come down and tickle the armed opponents to death?