Witch nearly beheaded in OK by Christian

[brewmama]

no more than abortion clinic bombings...
or oklahoma city bombing (McVeigh was a professed christian)

No he wasn't, he was a professed agnostic.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Thoughts?

Psychological problems impact all walks of life, including believers.

This very much ^^^

It's possible his religion affected his insanity. It's not possible to have caused it. If he's indeed crazy, then that's really all there is to it. If he's not...well...then we have something to discuss.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

It's hard to see how “heavy drug user” and “religious zealot” go together. It's seems early for speculation since they don't have a motive yet, but the guy definitely seems deranged.

Religious delusions aren't too uncommon for people who are addicted to drugs (particularly drugs like methamphetamine that can trigger stimulant psychosis or excited delirium). That said, if it's persistent outside of the period when the person is high, then there's a good chance that the religious zealotry and the drug use are both the result of an underlying mental illness.

In either case, even as an atheist I would say that religion didn't cause this. Drug abuse or, more likely, a combination of drug abuse and mental illness caused this. Religion might have given the direction for it (or it might not have, since his motivation isn't established). Even if it did, though, it could have just as easily been something else.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Does the bible say to kill witches?

 

[Brigid48]

Why does everyone jump the gun when the motive is not established?

Were you making these posts two months ago on the thread about the Muslim dude that beheaded his coworker? Didn't think so.

 

[bhsmte]

This very much ^^^

It's possible his religion affected his insanity. It's not possible to have caused it. If he's indeed crazy, then that's really all there is to it. If he's not...well...then we have something to discuss.

I agree. Religious beliefs do not cause insanity, but radical religious beliefs can be a vehicle for insane people.

 

[RDKirk]

I agree. Religious beliefs do not cause insanity, but radical religious beliefs can be a vehicle for insane people.

So can German Shepherd dogs.

 

[brewmama]

Were you making these posts two months ago on the thread about the Muslim dude that beheaded his coworker? Didn't think so.

Why so hostile? I'm not on all the time. Was the Muslim dude indeed found to be insane or not?
The one point you see unable to see is that when Muslims do it, other Muslims don't declare the person insane, they just mumble about not being true to Islam, and not so much at that. It's obviously insanity in this case and Christians call it that. What is your problem with it?

 

[RDKirk]

Were you making these posts two months ago on the thread about the Muslim dude that beheaded his coworker? Didn't think so.

I was. If not on this forum, then on another I frequent. It didn't seem to me that the guy woke up that morning and decided to behead a Christian for Islam.

Of course, we won't know his true motivation because he was killed.

 

[seashale76]

Three things:
1) It's all speculation at this point. 2) If we take a tack which is the direct opposite from the ax the OP wants to grind- we could say that undiagnosed mental illness must be rampant among Muslims. 3) Or- one religion actually has a lot of adherents that encourage certain acts of terrorism on a regular basis, whereas a certain other one doesn't- but let's not get bogged down with facts or anything.

It's a terrible tragedy- and the one who killed the other was/is sick. It sounds like mental illness- especially considering my religion doesn't preach killing others (even witches). New Testament, not under the law, yada yada yada. I've not seen or been to a Christian church yet that preaches killing. You know it and I know it.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus or the apostles teach to kill unbelievers.

Christians are taught to love the unbeliever, to love our neighbors as we love ourselves.

If a so called person calls themselves christian but do not love, they are liars and are not of Jesus.

Ans this is the crux of the difference between this guy who the media calls Christian Zealot and the Muslim who beheads another person.

Christianity does not teach that we are to kill witches.

Islam, however, DOES teach to kill unbelievers.

Were you making these posts two months ago on the thread about the Muslim dude that beheaded his coworker? Didn't think so.

He was Muslim and his religion teaches to behead. It's pretty simple, when you aren't looking at with your anti-Christianity glasses.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

no more than abortion clinic bombings...
or oklahoma city bombing (McVeigh was a professed christian)

I doubt the bombings had anything to do with him being raised catholic. He was mad at the government . He never said anything about being involved in his religion, when he bomb those people.

 

[cow451]

Ans this is the crux of the difference between this guy who the media calls Christian Zealot and the Muslim who beheads another person.

Christianity does not teach that we are to kill witches.
Islam, however, DOES teach to kill unbelievers.

He was Muslim and his religion teaches to behead. It's pretty simple, when you aren't looking at with your anti-Christianity glasses.

So the Old Testament doesn't count? Many non-Christians accuse us, and rightly so, of having two faces re: the Old Testament.

Exodus:
32:26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD's side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.
32:27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour. </B>32:28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

 

[seashale76]

So the Old Testament doesn't count? Many non-Christians accuse us, and rightly so, of having two faces re: the Old Testament.

Exodus:
32:26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD's side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.
32:27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour. </B>32:28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

It is important to understand that the entire Old Testament prefigures Christ. Everything that occurred was in preparation for our salvation. All of the Jewish feasts and festivals have been transfigured by the Christ. Christians believe that the Old Testament can only be understood in a New Testament way, in the light of the Church. The Old Testament contains the preparation for the coming of Christ, promises, prophecies, and types or antitypes of Christ. The events of the OT being the shadow and the events of the NT being the truth and fulfillment. A big example of this is Isaac being offered as a sacrifice (that was rejected) points directly to Christ's death on the Cross.

Here are just a few other examples:

Adam and Christ
Eve and the Mother of God
Earthly paradise and Heavenly paradise
Sin through Woman and Salvation through the Virgin
Eating the fruit bringing death and partaking of the Holy Gifts bringing life
The forbidden tree and the saving Cross
The serpent/deceiver and Gabriel preaching good tidings
Woman told she will bring forth children in sorrow and the women at the tomb are told to Rejoice
Salvation from the flood in the ark and salvation in the Church
The three strangers with Abraham and the Holy Trinity
Jacob's ladder and the Mother of God (the ladder of the Son of God's descent to earth)
The sale of Joseph and Christ's betrayal
Slavery in Egypt and the spiritual slavery of man
Crossing the Red Sea and Holy Baptism
The burning/unconsumed bush and the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos
The Sabbath and the day of Resurrection
Circumcision and Baptism
Manna and the Lord's Supper
The Law of Moses and the Law of the Gospel
Sinai and the Sermon on the Mount
The tabernacle and the NT Church
The Ark of the Covenant and the Theotokos
The serpent on the staff and Christ nailed to the Cross
Aaron's rod and our rebirth in Christ

 

[cow451]

It is important to understand that the entire Old Testament prefigures Christ. Everything that occurred was in preparation for our salvation. All of the Jewish feasts and festivals have been transfigured by the Christ. Christians believe that the Old Testament can only be understood in a New Testament way, in the light of the Church. The Old Testament contains the preparation for the coming of Christ, promises, prophecies, and types or antitypes of Christ. The events of the OT being the shadow and the events of the NT being the truth and fulfillment. A big example of this is Isaac being offered as a sacrifice (that was rejected) points directly to Christ's death on the Cross.

To non-believers, that looks like poppycock. If parts don't apply, perhaps we should publish Bibles with disclaimers on those "rejected" passages. And then there's that "All scripture is profitable..." thingy.

We cannot quote-mine the Quran and then complain when someone does the same for the Bible. Well, we can, but don't expect credibility.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

To non-believers, that looks like poppycock. If parts don't apply, perhaps we should publish Bibles with disclaimers on those "rejected" passages. And then there's that "All scripture is profitable..." thingy.

We cannot quote-mine the Quran and then complain when someone does the same for the Bible. Well, we can, but don't expect credibility.

One doesn't need to quote-mine the Quran, though. It's pretty much consistent in terms of what to do with the infidels.

And no one is rejecting passages. If a state has a law that it's illegal to ride a motorcycle without a helmet but then changes that law to make it legal, how many people will scream and holler and point to the old law and say "that's the law!!"

 

[cow451]

One doesn't need to quote-mine the Quran, though. It's pretty much consistent in terms of what to do with the infidels.

And no one is rejecting passages. If a state has a law that it's illegal to ride a motorcycle without a helmet but then changes that law to make it legal, how many people will scream and holler and point to the old law and say "that's the law!!"

I didn't catch that motorcycle reference in scripture. Maybe one of the "Lost Gospels"?

 

[RDKirk]

To non-believers, that looks like poppycock. If parts don't apply, perhaps we should publish Bibles with disclaimers on those "rejected" passages. And then there's that "All scripture is profitable..." thingy.

We cannot quote-mine the Quran and then complain when someone does the same for the Bible. Well, we can, but don't expect credibility.

The annoying double-mindedness is where some Christians pick out parts of the OT to direct behavior (usually someone else's behavior) when they don't see what they want in the NT--while at the same time denying that the OT is wholly directive on them.

This does not mean that the OT is not profitable for training in righteousness--just as a military general studies the great military failures of history as well as the successes or just as a student of American political history studies the Articles of Confederation as well as the Constitution.

The first declared heretic of Christianity was Marcion, who declared 'way back in 140 AD that the entire OT should be thrown away...and not only the OT, but even the gospels and "memoirs of the apostles" that depended too much on the OT. He pretty much only liked Acts and the Pauline epistles.

Marcion gained a lot of traction, but his proposal was ultimately rejected by the distributed bishops of the Church.

The fact that the idea of throwing out the OT entirely did get substantial traction, though, suggests to me that Church at the time must not have been using it very much to guide daily behavior and doctrine. It suggests to me (as well as do the works being quoted by the writers of that time) that the Church was almost wholly using the "memoirs of the apostles" for doctrine.

Moreover, the collected rationale of the Church for retaining the OT was a rather weak, "Without the Old Testament, how can we teach the origins of the New Testament?" In other words, the early Church retained the OT for its historical value, not for its directive value.

 

[seashale76]

To non-believers, that looks like poppycock. If parts don't apply, perhaps we should publish Bibles with disclaimers on those "rejected" passages. And then there's that "All scripture is profitable..." thingy.

We cannot quote-mine the Quran and then complain when someone does the same for the Bible. Well, we can, but don't expect credibility.

You obviously misunderstand what I'm saying. Scripture is profitable if you know what it is attempting to convey. There is only one truth and lots of deviation from it. We aren't supposed to do the whole bibliolatry thing- which is exactly what occurs when people treat the scriptures in the way you suggest. The Church interprets scriptures. However, try convincing all the solo scriptura folks they shouldn't make up their own interpretations as they go along- which is really the problem here. This is why I do Christianity out of the liturgical framework. Anything less isn't worth it.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Some Christians could do with a heap of study on ceremonial law versus moral law, as well.