Violence Of God

[SJRod55]

[quote]Go here: [url="http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fide...7/02/index.html"]http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fide...7/02/index.html[/url] and read his Feb 1 posting on violence in the OT.[/quote]

Good write up worth reading

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1194433' date='Feb 14 2007, 12:35 AM']
here you don't get many accusing christians of blodshed and how God can't be of the bible, as it's too barbaric. i thought i'd give this, which is an apologetic, albeit a weasly one it seems.
so what are your thoughts on the violence God has done and commanded to do, especially in the OT.
(also think about how christians have done many crusades aginst muslims.. muslims have done none)
[/quote]
I don't know how many times this has to be repeated on here, but learn your history!

The Muslims don't have Crusades because "crusade" comes from the word for "cross."
Muslims do have Jihad (holy war) however, and the Crusades were called originally because of Muslim agression against Christians. The Muslim Turks had taken over the Holy Land, and were persecuting Christians there, as well as threatening the Christian Byzantines.
And let's not forget that Islam was originally spread by violent military conquest. In a few centuries, Mohammed's followers conquered almost all of the Middle East, North Africa, and Spain, and got as far as France, before being driven back. Much of this territory was formerly Christian, and Christians that did not convert to Islam were taxed heavily and often persecuted.

The idea of war-mongering Christians vs. peaceful Muslims is a lie.

[dairygirl4u2c]

oh yeah. i forgot in african history class, they taught us about how islam spread by force at first.
my bad....

[Aloysius]

This execution of man, woman, and child is referred to as "the Ban".

All archaeological evidence points to the idea that, though the Bible says God commanded it, the ban was NEVER enforced.

In fact, even the bible attests to the fact that the ban was never enforced. It lists many people of local pagan heritage, including in the geneology of David himself. if the ban had been enforced, such people would have been killed.

All evidence from both the biblical text itself and the archaeological record is that the ban did not mean a literal killing of man, woman, and child. It meant to discontinue the old pagan culture absolutely... killing man and woman is the conversion of the pagan's past and present; killing the children was ending their future.

the reason for the ban was that the pagan culture sacrificed their own children. the jewish tradition saw this as them forfeiting their future. they were not so internally inconsistent as to think that they should kill the children in order to stop the pagans from killing their children.

It was a great semitic hyperbole and it makes perfect sense in the semitic mind to use the phrase "kill every man woman and child" to mean "put an end to their culture"

of course, the crusades were a defensive war. and while the conquest of America was not entirely perfect, the Aztecs forfeited their future and their right to the land by the practice of sacrificing their children. anyway, it always happens that the more civilized (city-centered and property-centered) societies displace the less civilized ones. The only civilized (city-centered) societies in the Americas were the ones which were sacrificing their own children and thereby forfeiting their right to continue as a civilization.

When it comes to Islam, they made conquest and war against civilizations. Mohammad, of course, being the first general to make war. They provoked civilizations which were legitimate (provoking, for instance, the crusades by their constant threats against Christendom and Christian pilgrims) and conquered them. They had no legitimate claim to the conquering of North Africa or Spain... these were legitimate civilizations which did not sacrifice their own children and their own futures and made peace with their neighbors for the most part.

there is a certain beauty to the final outcome of the conquest of South America... there was certainly blood shed (against evil empires which sacrificed their own children) but in the end their culture was preserved and crowned with Christ.

I truly believe in the principal that any civilization which sacrifices its own children does not have the right to exist. (make your own inferences about what I am saying about modern civilization which kills its own babies. personally, so long as there are forces within the society working to change it I would not support the conquest of the society... unless it was a re-conquest by the rermnant of Christendom.)

[Paddington]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1195621' date='Feb 15 2007, 03:26 AM']
.....(make your own inferences about what I am saying about modern civilization which kills its own babies. personally, so long as there are forces within the society working to change it I would not support the conquest of the society... unless it was a re-conquest by the rermnant of Christendom.)
[/quote]

Aloysius,

"unless it was a re-conquest by the remnant of Christendom."

Um...could you say a little more about that?

Paddington

[Aloysius]

if the pope called for a crusade to retake western civilization and put an end to the murder of babies in the womb, I would support it whole heartedly. that's probably the only way I could support such a thing and that itself is a huge stretch... very unlikely it'd ever happen.

but our murder of our own children disqualifies our civilization from having a legitimate claim to our own land and our own future and because of it, it would be legitimate for someone to topple our civilization because we have forfeited our right to our future.

perhaps if Latin America pulled together with the intention of stopping our in-the-womb infanticide such a conquest could be justified.

I put that in as a theoretical afterthought for a situation that is never gonna happen.

[SJRod55]

[quote]The idea of war-mongering Christians vs. peaceful Muslims is a lie[/quote]
Media hype - review the history as to why the Crusades took place and what the crusaders were actually trying to accomplish it was not the slaughter of the Muslim but the reclamation of certain physical sites and objects.