Hate is a Four-Letter Family Value

But anyone who does not love does not know God--for God is love. God showed how much he loved us by sending his only Son into the world so that we might have eternal life through him. This is real love. It is not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as a sacrifice to take away our sins. ~ 1 John 4:8-10[/i]

Intrepid wrote:

xingu wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

How do you apply your theory to the American Civil War, xingu? Where brother was fighting brother.

Each saw the other as being, or at least accusing the other, of being atheistic. The South used the Bible as justification for their "particular institution". God of the Bible does approve of slavery. The North used religion to show that slavery was inhuman. Both sides saw each other as traitors.

The American Civil War was quite humane if you compare it to the wars of the twentieth century. Civilians, especially women, were, for the most part, treated with respect or at least tolerance. There were no bombings of civilian areas with the intent of killing large numbers of the civilian population as in WW II. And there was nothing like the terrorism that is currently being practiced by Israel and the Muslims fighting them. The only exception I can think of were the guerrilla wars fought in the Appalachians and in the Kansas-Missouri theater. Even the guerrilla warfare conducted by Col. Mosby was quite humane if you compare it to the warfare being conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Americans in the Civil War did not see the enemy in the same light the Israelis and Muslims see each other. Many of the generals that fought each other were friends prior the the war. They served together in the west and the Mexican War. There was a bond between the two that prevented this war from getting out of hand and degrading into the type of conflicts we have today.

Are you serious? Did you read what you wrote? You have now changed the topic to humane? You now compare the wars of today and yesterday? What does that have to do with what was being asked? Do you have facts and proof of the atheism accusations that you say were going on?

Perhaps you didn't read correctly. I said humane as compared to what is happening today. Would you care to dispute that?

Prior to the Civil War both sides used the Bible to justify their stand on slavery. The South, then as today, took a literal interpretation of the Bible. This interpretation endorsed slavery.

The North took a more liberal view of the Bible. Theirs was more in the spirit of the Bible rather than the literal interpretation. For them this meant slavery was evil. Humans of all kinds were to treat others with respect and dignity.

The accusation of atheist was hurled more from the South than the North. As today the conservative view is an intolerant and uncompromising view. As Bush would say your either with us or against us. If against you were blasphemous and at worse atheist. Blasphemous and condemnation to hell was the primary accucation of the South but the big A word was also used to emphasize their point.

Was the A word common? Probably not but it was there as it is today. What was the title of Ann Coulter's latest book?

The Godless North who will not believe Gods word. Slavery is natural. It is good.

Outside the tribe there are no humans. That's the crux to the whole thing, dehumanize your enemy and you can easily slaughter them without guilt. The Nazis looked upon Jews as non-human, as do the Arabs today. And the Jews view of Muslims is no different than that of the Nazi's view of Jews. As long as the attitude of dehumanization prevails then persecution and killing will naturally follow; follow without guilt.

So when a Christian soldier is killing an enemy he is, in essence, killing someone outside of his tribe. This would be especially true of Muslims, considering the differences in religion. Many conservative Christians already believe God is going to send Muslims to hell so why not speed up the process?

It is not as though this is coming from a world body or authority. It comes from a Baylor University publication. Not that I am saying it does not have some validity....just that it is only one of many such journals available today.

xingu wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

xingu wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

How do you apply your theory to the American Civil War, xingu? Where brother was fighting brother.

Each saw the other as being, or at least accusing the other, of being atheistic. The South used the Bible as justification for their "particular institution". God of the Bible does approve of slavery. The North used religion to show that slavery was inhuman. Both sides saw each other as traitors.

The American Civil War was quite humane if you compare it to the wars of the twentieth century. Civilians, especially women, were, for the most part, treated with respect or at least tolerance. There were no bombings of civilian areas with the intent of killing large numbers of the civilian population as in WW II. And there was nothing like the terrorism that is currently being practiced by Israel and the Muslims fighting them. The only exception I can think of were the guerrilla wars fought in the Appalachians and in the Kansas-Missouri theater. Even the guerrilla warfare conducted by Col. Mosby was quite humane if you compare it to the warfare being conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Americans in the Civil War did not see the enemy in the same light the Israelis and Muslims see each other. Many of the generals that fought each other were friends prior the the war. They served together in the west and the Mexican War. There was a bond between the two that prevented this war from getting out of hand and degrading into the type of conflicts we have today.

Are you serious? Did you read what you wrote? You have now changed the topic to humane? You now compare the wars of today and yesterday? What does that have to do with what was being asked? Do you have facts and proof of the atheism accusations that you say were going on?

Perhaps you didn't read correctly. I said humane as compared to what is happening today. Would you care to dispute that?

Prior to the Civil War both sides used the Bible to justify their stand on slavery. The South, then as today, took a literal interpretation of the Bible. This interpretation endorsed slavery.

The North took a more liberal view of the Bible. Theirs was more in the spirit of the Bible rather than the literal interpretation. For them this meant slavery was evil. Humans of all kinds were to treat others with respect and dignity.

The accusation of atheist was hurled more from the South than the North. As today the conservative view is an intolerant and uncompromising view. As Bush would say your either with us or against us. If against you were blasphemous and at worse atheist. Blasphemous and condemnation to hell was the primary accucation of the South but the big A word was also used to emphasize their point.

Was the A word common? Probably not but it was there as it is today. What was the title of Ann Coulter's latest book?

The Godless North who will not believe Gods word. Slavery is natural. It is good.

This all came about based on your following post

Quote:

Outside the tribe there are no humans. That's the crux to the whole thing, dehumanize your enemy and you can easily slaughter them without guilt. The Nazis looked upon Jews as non-human, as do the Arabs today. And the Jews view of Muslims is no different than that of the Nazi's view of Jews. As long as the attitude of dehumanization prevails then persecution and killing will naturally follow; follow without guilt.

So when a Christian soldier is killing an enemy he is, in essence, killing someone outside of his tribe. This would be especially true of Muslims, considering the differences in religion. Many conservative Christians already believe God is going to send Muslims to hell so why not speed up the process?

How did we get to slavery and atheism?

Jesus said, "The one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one."

Oh, I don't know. Sometimes conversations just wander. When I get to typing I wander from one subject to another. Nothing to get uptight about.

Quote:

Jesus said, "The one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one."

if this is symbolic as this paper ascertains, then i wonder how much a "spiritual sword" would cost these days......Would selling my "cloak" be enough to buy one......lol The eisegesis of this scripture is ridiculous....If this one verse is speaking of a spiritual sword why would Christ tell them to sell a material object to buy one........

Arella Mae wrote:

But anyone who does not love does not know God--for God is love. God showed how much he loved us by sending his only Son into the world so that we might have eternal life through him. This is real love. It is not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as a sacrifice to take away our sins. ~ 1 John 4:8-10[/i]

One of the great mysteries of life is how one can wrap their mind around such an illogical proposition. That the self described jealous and vengeful God of the Old Testament demonstrated his love by sending his son to save us from his own wrath, that he did this by sacrificing his son is a brutally gory way, that no matter how badly we have offended this easily offended god, the only condition to forgiveness and the gift of eternal life is that we BELIEVE this nonsensical story.

Quote:

Jesus said, "The one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one."

if this is symbolic as this paper ascertains, then i wonder how much a "spiritual sword" would cost these days......Would selling my "cloak" be enough to buy one......lol The eisegesis of this scripture is ridiculous....If this one verse is speaking of a spiritual sword why would Christ tell them to sell a material object to buy one........

xingu wrote:

kate4christ03 wrote:

mesquite that was the old testament and that was God calling the israelites to do that.....I m not an israelite nor do i live under the law....I honestly dont know why God commanded them to kill those people...IM not God and dont know all his ways.....But i do know that Christ told us to love everyone.....but i guess i can say that over and over again and some of you will believe what you want and judge us no matter what......which is sad............

By your belief Christ and God are one in the same. Therefore the God of the OT was Christ and Christ did order the slaughter of hapless victims.

I might also point out the Book of Revelation is in the NT. God is as much a butcher there as in the OT.

Let me repeat myself, if you do not understand the transition from the Old Testament to the New Testament I highly doubt you will understand this issue.

Quote:

Jesus said, "The one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one."

if this is symbolic as this paper ascertains, then i wonder how much a "spiritual sword" would cost these days......Would selling my "cloak" be enough to buy one......lol The eisegesis of this scripture is ridiculous....If this one verse is speaking of a spiritual sword why would Christ tell them to sell a material object to buy one........

John 2:14And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:

15And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;

16And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.

17And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

Arella Mae wrote:

xingu wrote:

kate4christ03 wrote:

mesquite that was the old testament and that was God calling the israelites to do that.....I m not an israelite nor do i live under the law....I honestly dont know why God commanded them to kill those people...IM not God and dont know all his ways.....But i do know that Christ told us to love everyone.....but i guess i can say that over and over again and some of you will believe what you want and judge us no matter what......which is sad............

By your belief Christ and God are one in the same. Therefore the God of the OT was Christ and Christ did order the slaughter of hapless victims.

I might also point out the Book of Revelation is in the NT. God is as much a butcher there as in the OT.

Let me repeat myself, if you do not understand the transition from the Old Testament to the New Testament I highly doubt you will understand this issue.

Good to see you again too AM. Once upon a time here you tried to tell me that "God is no different in the New Testament than He was in the Old Testament." Now you mention a "transition". Is that something like a personality make-over?

xingu wrote:

Oh, I don't know. Sometimes conversations just wander. When I get to typing I wander from one subject to another. Nothing to get uptight about.

I'm not uptight. It's just that it makes anything you say harder to accept as fact.