Beheading of children in Iraq?

[Blessedj01]

Not to mention that they changed their name quite a while ago (most likely because didn't want to get related to what they to must believe to be a demon or something like that because of the abreviation of their english translated name)

Just a thought. They can change their name as many times as they want though, the demonic origin of their faith is quietly hiding in the background.

 

[Nithavela]

Sure, demons. Right. Whatever it gets you to want to fight them, instead of sitting back and praying for the end times.

 

[Blessedj01]

Sure, demons. Right. Whatever it gets you to want to fight them, instead of sitting back and praying for the end times.

I don't sit back and pray for the end times.

 

[Senator Cheese]

It's pretty simple: when you're slaughtering the innocent, raping, looting and murdering, you're not praying to the God above but to the God below.

(Obviously, this goes for violent "Christians", too, although they really don't have much of a scriptural basis. Unlike the Bible, which has a clear hierarchy that puts the New Testament first as a pacifist fulfillment of the old law, the Quorans verses aren't even chronologically ordered and only show the development of a deranged psychopath prophet who began waging war after he was laughed at by those who didn't believe his prophetic ramblings)

In general, before the entire debate explodes about how evil witchhunts and crusades were, I think it's important to note that you can't judge an ideology by its supporters and instead must judge it by its scriptural basis.
Since we're dealing with faith and therefore an area for which there is no scientific basis, the truth can only be defined in intervals.

Those who follow the teachings of the New Testament would therefore be in an interval between (at worst) following the pacifist teachings of a great social reformer of his time and (at best) following the teachings of the embodied divinity.

Those who follow the teachings of the Quoran would therefore be in an interval between (at worst) following the teachings of a warlord who waged war after people didn't buy his prophecy, had relationships with a woman who was under ten years old and who advocates the killing of "unbelievers" and (at best) the prophet of a slaveholding God whose kindness is won only if you "submiss" your soul to him by worshipping him 5 times a day and hold a strict diet to please his smothering wish.

 

[Senator Cheese]

<< Staff Edit >>

I don't cheer on the deaths of innocents. I find them tragic, to be honest, and I wish that every Muslim, Jew, Christian, Buddhist, Atheist, Hindu and anyone else on this world would live in peace and harmony. I do not cheer when the innocent die.

In fact, I do not cheer when Hamas fighters die, either. It's tragic to see them grow up in a region where this ideology is planted so deeply in their brain that the only way they can free themselves from these smothering beliefs is by firing rockets and blowing themselves up. You don't think that's tragic? It -honestly- disgusts me and brings tears to my heart.

That doesn't change the fact that you have a duty to protect the innocent from aggression - and if this can't be done through peace and dialogue, then it is necessary to halt this aggression by force. We pray for those who persecute but we also do not solely watch as innocents are butchered for no reason at all.

No military operation goes without casualties. And I do hope that any transgression in which IDF forces either deliberately or recklessly endangered lives is uncovered and those who are responsible brought to justice.

And I think that's what seperates those who support terror from those who support national defence.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Senator Cheese
It's pretty simple: when you're slaughtering the innocent, raping, looting and murdering, you're not praying to the God above but to the God below.

<< Staff Edit >>
The God of the Hebrews in the OT was pretty ruthless.......

Perhaps both Israelites and Arabs take this as being a command today:

Genocide in the Torah - My Jewish Learning

In 2006 Conservative Rabbi Jack Reimer, Bill Clinton's rabbinic counsel during his presidency, created a stir when he associated Islamic fundamentalism with the biblical nation of Amalek.

"I am becoming convinced that Islamic Fundamentalism, or, as some people prefer to call it, 'Islamo-fascism,' is the most dangerous force that we have ever faced and that it is worthy of the name: Amalek.

According to the book of Exodus, Amalek is the nation that attacked the weakest among the Israelites as they fled from Egypt. This transgression was not to go unpunished.
The Torah has a harsh prescription for Amalek: annihilation.
"It shall be that when Hashem, your God, gives you rest from all your enemies all around, in the Land that Hashem, your God, gives you as an inheritance to possess it, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under the heaven. Do not forget it!" (Deuteronomy 25: 19; also see Exodus 17:14 and Numbers 24:20)

Blotting out the memory of Amalek was no mere psychological activity. The Israelites were expected to kill every Amalekite--man, woman, and child. But was this just a theoretical imperative or was it meant to be carried out?

The book of Samuel implies that it required actual fulfillment: "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox, and sheep, camel and ass,"(Samuel I, 15:3).
King Saul struck down Amalek as he was commanded but he then took mercy upon King Agag and upon some of the Amalekite animals.
God and the prophet Samuel harshly criticized Saul for not fulfilling God's word.

What the Bible says about Genocide


And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. Deuteronomy 2:34
And we utterly destroyed them, ... utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. Deuteronomy 3:6
And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them. Deuteronomy 7:2
And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them. Deuteronomy 7:16
Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. Deuteronomy 13:15
But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. Deuteronomy 20:16-17
And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. Joshua 6:21
So smote all the country ... he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. Joshua 10:40 Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. 1 Samuel 15:2-3

The point, of course, is that an invocation of Amalek is serious business. Rabbi Reimer wasn't issuing a literal call to arms, but by associating "Islamo-Fascists" with Amalek, Rabbi Reimer was referencing the Jewish tradition's genocidal instincts. Jewish authorities have struggled with this commandment for centuries, but the issue is perhaps even more urgent now.


.

 

[Blessedj01]

Got me thinking. Remember the herd of swine? Did God command to kill the animals too because the evil spirits of these cultures could seek refuge and return within them?

 

[Senator Cheese]

The God of the Hebrews in the OT was pretty ruthless.......

Perhaps both Israelites and Arabs take this as being a command today:

The point, of course, is that an invocation of Amalek is serious business. Rabbi Reimer wasn't issuing a literal call to arms, but by associating "Islamo-Fascists" with Amalek, Rabbi Reimer was referencing the Jewish tradition's genocidal instincts. Jewish authorities have struggled with this commandment for centuries, but the issue is perhaps even more urgent now.


.

Thank you for your post. I am very uninformed about the Old Testament and still don't know what to make of it. Sometimes I feel like the NT is "setting the record straight" although I also know that Jesus said he is here to fulfill, not contradict the law.

I don't quite know what to make of your post (also the one in the Dawn Massacre thread). Could you elaborate what you are trying to say? I don't know much about the scriptural background and always appreciate a bit of englightenment.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Thank you for your post. I am very uninformed about the Old Testament and still don't know what to make of it. Sometimes I feel like the NT is "setting the record straight" although I also know that Jesus said he is here to fulfill, not contradict the law.

I don't quite know what to make of your post (also the one in the Dawn Massacre thread). Could you elaborate what you are trying to say? I don't know much about the scriptural background and always appreciate a bit of englightenment.

Beheading wasn't mentioned much in the Bible except for John the Baptist in the Gospels and those beheaded in the Jewish/Hebrew book of Revelation.
Tis an intersting topic me thinks.............

http://www.christianforums.com/t3683190/
Beheading of St. John the Baptist

Matthew 14:
7 Therefore he promised with an oath to give her whatever she might ask.
8 So she, having been prompted by her mother, said, "Give me John the Baptist's head here on a platter."
9 And the king was sorry; nevertheless, because of the oaths and because of those who sat with him, he commanded [it] to be given to [her.]
10 So he sent and had John beheaded in prison.

Hebrew 11:37
they were stoned, they were sawn-asunder/eprisqhsan <4249>, they were tried; in the killing of the sword they died;
they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins--being destitute, afflicted, injuriously treated,

Revelation 20:4
And I saw Thrones and they are seated on them.
And judgement was given to-them and to-the souls of the ones having been beheaded/ pepelekis-menwn <3990> because of the testimony of Jesus and because of the Word of the God

Conan the Barbarian Beheading - YouTube

.

 

[DaisyDay]

I really don't think Obama cares...

I know if I were President I'd be ordering in airstrikes on ISIS, tomahawk missile strikes, etc. in support of the Kurds (whom seem to be about the only competitent military force in Iraq that isn't a bunch of fanatics).

Substitute "him" for "whom" - if the sentence doesn't make sense, then you're using "whom" when you should use "who".

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL I really don't think Obama cares...

I know if I were President I'd be ordering in airstrikes on ISIS, tomahawk missile strikes, etc. in support of the Kurds (whom seem to be about the only competitent military force in Iraq that isn't a bunch of fanatics).

Substitute "him" for "whom" - if the sentence doesn't make sense, then you're using "whom" when you should use "who".

http://www.christianforums.com/t7483715/
Basic Grammar for GT/CF, Courtesy of Mel and GCC

Nothing ruins your argument and credibility more than a poorly phrased post. If your post looks like a 2nd grader wrote it, it doesn't matter how good your argument is. I'm far, FAR less likely to take you seriously. So, because I'm a grammar freak and twitch and die a little every time somebody confuses your and you're, a basic grammar (and posting) lesson for all the denizens of GT:

1. your and you're
your = possessive. I have your book.
you're = you are.
Correct: You're a nice person.
WRONG: Your not listening.

2. there, their, and they're
there = location. My book is over there
their = possessive. I have their book
they're = they are. They're right here = They are right here.
Correct: They're over there.
WRONG: There over there.

(GCC's contributions start here)

3. To, too, and two.
To' is a word that goes in front of an indirect object, that is, a noun that receives the action of the verb. In the sentence "I gave a monkey to Tommy," the monkey is the thing you gave, but Tommy was the recipient of the monkey. Thus, to Tommy. 'To' can also be used on the front of a verb in order to make that verb into a concept or idea, and thus a thing or noun. Thus, in 'I want to give,' 'want' is the verb, and 'to give' is the thing you want to give. It is the direct object of the verb.
'Too' just means 'also.' "I want to give a monkey to Sally, too," means that you want to give a monkey to Sally as well as Tommy.
And two is the number 2. "I want to give two monkeys to Tommy and to Sally, too.

(GCC's contributions end here)

4. Punctuation. Seriously, a period goes a long way. A sentence should have a subject, verb, and a few phrases or clauses separated by commas. A general rule of thumb: unless you have really mastered the art of punctuation, a sentence should not be more than two lines. If I go five lines without seeing a period, something is seriously wrong.

5. Spell Checker. Now, because I'm nice, I'm not demanding that everyone learn how to spell. I'm just asking you to use a spell checker. Remember: every time a word is spelled incorrectly, GCC kills a kitten, because he's mean like that. (Current pet peeve: it's "literal," not "litteral.")

6. Colors. Just...don't. The only color I should see in your posts is black. If there is any red, purple, green, yellow (let's not even mention pink), I will pretend your post never existed. And go easy on the bold, italics, and underlining. If there is more of those in your post than plain text, I won't read it either. Go easy on my poor eyes.

 

[Blessedj01]

Seriously?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Substitute "him" for "whom" - if the sentence doesn't make sense, then you're using "whom" when you should use "who".

I wish I could remember this! It's so annoying when I get who and whom wrong.

Seriously, thanks for posting this.

 

[mindlight]

Are you saying that the Yazidis should be killed then, because there not Christian, are non-Christians allowed to not be exterminated?

My prior concern is for the people I will spend eternity with. But helping These Yazidis is something I also support as a witness to Gods concern for all those he has made in his image. Also ISIS kill in the name of a false ideology that blasphemes Gods name and it is no witness to truth to stand by and let them get on with it if you can do something about it.

 

[mpok1519]

I think the air strikes were a little late but better than never.

 

[Nithavela]

My prior concern is for the people I will spend eternity with. But helping These Yazidis is something I also support as a witness to Gods concern for all those he has made in his image. Also ISIS kill in the name of a false ideology that blasphemes Gods name and it is no witness to truth to stand by and let them get on with it if you can do something about it.

Shouldn't your concern be for those who you won't spend eternity with?

I mean, just following your theology, those that you'd spend eternity with.. if they get killed, they get their eternity (with you) and everythings more or less dandy. All tears dried and so on.

But those that would not spend eternity with you could still find your god, and could be kept from doing so by being killed by ISIS.

Correct me if I got something wrong.

 

[GarfieldJL]

Substitute "him" for "whom" - if the sentence doesn't make sense, then you're using "whom" when you should use "who".

Okay so I made a typo...

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by mindlight

My prior concern is for the people I will spend eternity with. But helping These Yazidis is something I also support as a witness to Gods concern for all those he has made in his image.
Also ISIS kill in the name of a false ideology that blasphemes Gods name and it is no witness to truth to stand by and let them get on with it if you can do something about it.
​

They believe Christians and Jews follow a false ideology/theology.
I mean, let's face, OC Judaism is an outdated religion according to much of Christianity, so who can blame Islam for thinking the same?

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary

John 10:33
The Judeans answered Him saying, "About a good work not we are stoning Thee, but about blasphemy, and that Thou, being a man, are making thyself a god".
[Romans 2:23/Reve 16:11,21]

Romans 2:23
Who in law are boasting through the transgression of the Law, the God thou are dishonoring
24 'For the Name of GOD is being blasphemed in the nations' according because of ye,' according as having been written.
[Psalm 74:10]

Reve 16:11
And they blaspheme the GOD of the heaven out of the miseries of them, and out of the sores of them, and not they reform out of the works of them




.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I think the air strikes were a little late but better than never.

Yes.
Tho it is comparable to having modern jet fighters battling jap zeroes in WW2............

F-14 Tomcat Scenes from "The Final Countdown" HD Part2 - YouTube


.

 

[mindlight]

Shouldn't your concern be for those who you won't spend eternity with?

I mean, just following your theology, those that you'd spend eternity with.. if they get killed, they get their eternity (with you) and everythings more or less dandy. All tears dried and so on.

But those that would not spend eternity with you could still find your god, and could be kept from doing so by being killed by ISIS.

Correct me if I got something wrong.

No you are correct and i did not say that as well as I could have. Andrew White - the Vicar of Baghdad is a better example of what I meant. Christians should also be concerned for those who are being saved and indeed seek to make disciples of all nations.

Since its not as though the dammed wear a clear red bar over their heads nor an identifiable mark of the beast at this time it would be impossible for me to even declare these baby killers as citizens of hell.