Bootie reads the bible....

RUCKSACK CHRISTIANS

In his true book "Baptism of Fire" about his life in the SAS regiment, Frank Collins tells how they were surprised to find a small well-thumbed Bible among the contents of a colleagues rucksack who'd been killed in action, because none of them suspected he was into Jesus.
The moral for all of us is that you DON'T have to go to church or be baptised or any razzmatazz like that to be a Christian.
Just quietly carry Jesus around with you in your mind (rucksack) and you'll be as good a Christian as anybody else.
Incidentally Collins himself later left the SAS to become a clergyman but killed himself later, he was a troubled guy all his life and had already tried to kill himself as a child by swallowing a bottle of aspirins...
He was one of the SAS team that busted the siege of the Iranian Embassy in London in 1980, i get tears in my eyes every time i see him and his mates in old news footage putting their lives on the line to rescue the hostages (below)-



Frank Collins
fcol.jpg
 
zaraza said:
Of course we are nervous.
When you debate with somebody who shows ultimate ignorance, absence of logic and absence of rational thinking it's natural you get nervous.
Click to expand...

OK, but how would you describe a person who believes (!) that life on earth came to be under circumstances which we can only reproduce in a laboratory, and which life developed from an amino acid to all the myriad of lifeforms which have lived and are living on earth ?

Gullible springs to my mind....
 
Zaraza quote- You may think god had influence in creating universe and it's laws. But anything after that is not in gods hands.

POS reply- Jesus says differently- "My Father is always working" (John 5:17), so who shall we believe, you or him?..:)
 
I have started to clean up my sword and shine my shield, this is the sort of stuff that old England went on crusade's to prove the point of christianity and the reason the world as it's troubles at the moment, religion doesn't tell you to fight in fact it is the complete opposite, believe in what you want and no one else should query what a person believe's in, all religions should be able to sit with each other and be proud of them selves, not trying to kill each other and slagg each other of
 
Mitsuo Fuchida led the air attack on Pearl Harbor, and Jake de Shazer was a bomb aimer on the Doolittle Raid.
Here they meet after the war when they became Christian evangelists.

fuchida-deshazer.jpg
 
Ex-WW2 tank commander Archbishop of Canterbury Robert Runcie poses with his new gargoyle at St. Alban's Abbey-

garg.jpg


WIKI- "He earned a commission in the Scots Guards during World War II, serving as a tank commander and earning the Military Cross for two feats of bravery in March 1945: he rescued one of his men from a crippled tank under heavy enemy fire, and the next day took his own tank into an exceptionally exposed position in order to knock out three anti-tank guns. As a result, he is unique among modern Archbishops of Canterbury in having personally killed fellow human beings"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Runcie[/QUOTE]
 
Chaplain Charles J. Watters, posthumously awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, Dak To, Vietnam 1967

Charles_J_Watters.jpg


Citation- "For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. Chaplain Watters distinguished himself during an assault in the vicinity of Dak To.
Chaplain Watters was moving with one of the companies when it engaged a heavily armed enemy battalion. As the battle raged and the casualties mounted, Chaplain Watters, with complete disregard for his safety, rushed forward to the line of contact. Unarmed and completely exposed, he moved among, as well as in front of the advancing troops, giving aid to the wounded, assisting in their evacuation, giving words of encouragement, and administering the last rites to the dying.
When a wounded paratrooper was standing in shock in front of the assaulting forces, Chaplain Watters ran forward, picked the man up on his shoulders and carried him to safety. As the troopers battled to the first enemy entrenchment, Chaplain Watters ran through the intense enemy fire to the front of the entrenchment to aid a fallen comrade. A short time later, the paratroopers pulled back in preparation for a second assault. Chaplain Watters exposed himself to both friendly and enemy fire between the 2 forces in order to recover 2 wounded soldiers.
Later, when the battalion was forced to pull back into a perimeter, Chaplain Watters noticed that several wounded soldiers were lying outside the newly formed perimeter. Without hesitation and ignoring attempts to restrain him, Chaplain Watters left the perimeter three times in the face of small arms, automatic weapons, and mortar fire to carry and to assist the injured troopers to safety. Satisfied that all of the wounded were inside the perimeter, he began aiding the medics--applying field bandages to open wounds, obtaining and serving food and water, giving spiritual and mental strength and comfort. During his ministering, he moved out to the perimeter from position to position redistributing food and water, and tending to the needs of his men. Chaplain Watters was giving aid to the wounded when he himself was mortally wounded. Chaplain Watters' unyielding perseverance and selfless devotion to his comrades was in keeping with the highest traditions of the U.S. Army"

Chaplain Watters is one of seven chaplains to receive the Medal of Honor.

watters-grave.jpg


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_J._Watters
 
Stonewall Jackson

jacksnuj9.jpg


"My religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed. God has fixed the time for my death. I do not concern myself about that, but to be always ready, no matter when it may overtake me. That is the way all men should live, and then all would be equally brave"- Gen Thomas Stonewall Jackson

1st Battle of Bull Run

"There is Jackson standing like a stone wall!" - Gen Bernard Bee

firstbullrunhf4.gif


battleflag.jpg
 
Jackson was definitely fearless in battle, an incredible military leader.
 
Bootie said:
You didnt answer the question. Do you believe the laws set down in the bible are good moral ones to abide by... simple yes or no please?
Click to expand...

I know it wasn't directed at me, but you're asking for a blanket response to a whole heap of laws, many of which are despicable or plainly over the top and some of the rest are arguably immoral. There are, however, a few good moral guidelines along with the dross...but if you want a categorical yes or no from anyone the answer would have to be no otherwise they would be tacitly approving the various pieces of evil law.
 
An example of an evil law would be where a virgin girl who has been raped is forcibly required to marry her rapist, after her father has been compensated with money for the damage to his property...see Deuteronomy 22:28-29

As for the Ten Commandments, only one is really evil..some are irrelevant to modern life, such as must keep the sabbath holy or must not take the Lords name in vain or may have no other gods.

The evil commandment is where God promises to punish your children to the 3rd or 4th generation if you bow down to an idol. God is very keen on punishing innocent children for things they had no part in; it is one of the more reprehensible Christian philosophies. The whole doctrine of Original Sin is an example. Another example would be pain in childbirth....if you believe this stuff, it is all quite deliberately inflcited by God on women to punish them for Eve's decision millenia ago, which is quite abhorrent.

Two relevant ones are don't kill (murder) and don't steal.....which are hardly original and every society in existence has come up with them. What...murdering and stealing is bad? Who knew? It's just restating the obvious of what would already have been tribal law.

Honour your father and mother...no problem with that. Don't bear false witness...certainly no problem with that. No adultery...well, you shouldn't be having sex with married partners. However the harsher interpretation that locks people into unhappy or violent marriages and calls them adulterers if they ever leave and find another partner is in my opinion an evil one. As with many things in the Bible, it is subjective.

Don't go coveting other people's wives' (another example of women as property and the misogynistic culture of the time..why nothing about covetting husbands?) and possessions....this superficially seems fine but is actually an unworkable attempt at mind control and stick to beat everyone with in sermons. Who would never fall afoul of this? I can confidently say no one would suceed in following it.

In fact a bit of envy of what your neighbour has would usualy spark a very positive motivation to work hard and acquire whatever it is for yourself in good old capitalist fashion. Being utterly content with what you have would soon get the marketers of the world in a froth :)

Having said that, I think we can all see past the clumsiness to the potentially negative behaviour being warned about. I'll mark it a C-.

That's about it for the ten commandments apart from the evil jealous god stuff...essentially saying don't you dare worship anyone else or I will hurt your children..which is a filthy thing to say. The rest is statements of the obvious, and a couple of useful principles, but is a bit short when it comes to establishing a code to live your life by. You'd need a bit more than that.

Ethics/civics....badly needed core courses these days I suggest. Nevertheless I would disagree that the Bible, taken as a whole, is where people should be looking.
 
PoorOldSpike said:
Where shall we look then, to the Koran?..;)
Click to expand...

A very valid question. But because cultures and technologies evolve and make the world and the people in it different, I suggest that an unalterable book will find itself caught short....not in all respects, because "do unto others as you would have them do to yourself" is timeless and as valid now as it was 2,000 years ago, but in other respects where the world has moved on with respect to such things as women's rights, slavery, racism, sex before marriage etc.

Which is why I made a reference to civics and ethics....both of which are as subject to evolution as anything else. Ethics that help a society adapt and survive will proliferate, those that are crassly individualistic and selfish may lead to their societies demise. Everyone has some sort of ethical standards, even if theirs might be selfish ones.

I think secular humanism has a brand of ethics that are pretty good, but even so the trick lies not in spoon feeding a set of standards, but in making children think...about consequences, about empathy and respect for others; in helping them to subscribe to principles that contribute to the health of the society they live in. The problem is finding a teaching standard that is acceptable to everyone. Religions quite naturally consider that their book lays down all the foundations required and are suspicious of any secular organisation attempting to devise or teach ethics courses. A solution may be a long time coming.
 
Below is a good translation of the verse:

Deuteronomy 28 “If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.

First off, it does not condone rape. It must be put into context. A non-virgin, un-wed girl was a disgrace to the family and the community, and this was written for the girls protection. Let's take a look, first a dowrey was required to be paid to the father upon marrige. This is what the silver is for, it is to fulfill the marrige contract. The rapist also does not go free, he must take care of the girl that he has defiled for the rest of his life, and under no circumstances may divorce. You see, the girl's life is ruined, and the only way to even hope of saving her was to make a just woman of her through marrige. I don't know, but if I had to marry the first girl that I slept with, I would be pretty darn selective first.
 
But how cruel, making her marry the mongrel that raped her in the first place.
 
I didn't say it condoned rape, Ratski (but it does effectively lessen it to "property damage"). I said it forced the girl to marry her rapist.

You're looking at it from everyones point of view except that unalterable fact. Just think of it...you are a young virgin girl and get brutally raped. You are then deemed to have been "ruined" and to be a "disgrace" - in fact if you didn't cry out loud enough you are in real danger of being stoned to death (another Biblical law).

So what does God consider to be just in these circumstances? Answer: you are forced to marry your RAPIST. He can now rape her quite legally any time he wants for the rest of her probably short lifespan.

Just think about that for a while. That is an evil thing to do. You simply cannot whitewash it.

I do hope you find time to analyse and rethink your last para; it is deeply disturbing on a number of different levels.

Btw, it is not written for her protection at all; it is written for the protection of the men.....both the rapist and the girl's father. The rapist would otherwise be killed, so he gets off for fifty pieces of silver. The girl's father would otherwise be unable to palm her off in marriage, so she gets foisted onto her rapist AND he gets some money. The girl is at all times treated as subservient property with no interests of her own - for example, there is no question of her consent to the marriage being required. Her ownership is simply transferred from one male to another no matter how horrified she might be.

In addition, you are completely missing the point that it is supposedly God setting the rules here. If God wanted to, he could have easily decreed something quite different happen. Just off the top of my head: let's say something like..."If a man rapes a virgin girl he shall be put to death and all his possessions given to the girl for her dowry, and she shall be blessed in the sight of God for she has not sinned. In all things in God's sight she shall be deemed a virgin". Rapist dead; check. Girl with hopefully large dowry making up for non-virgin status - check. Religious proclamation that she still IS a virgin in the eyes of God - check. Sorted.

Instead we have what we have, and it is indefensible.
 
No, it is you that has it wrong, in biblical times, the custom was for the husband to pay money with which, in effect, he purchased his bride (Gen. 34:12). This ("bride-price") or mohar is still to be found in the Arab world, and it was traditional among Jews. The Bible speaks as to when money is to be payed, the amount going to his future father-in-law. If a man had sex with an unmarried woman, he had to marry her and pay her father the mohar (Ex. 22:15). From the context we are speaking to, it would appear that this mohar was a more of a penalty, but still falls under the rules of marrige. The fact of the matter is a man has sex with an unmarried woman he has to pay up in the form of taking care of her needs for the remainder of his life. Other forms of rape are with a penalty of death to the man.
So there is no difference in God's eyes between rape and hasing sex with an unmarried girl, both are sin and present a very serious issue. People always want to apply 21st century life styles and thoughts on the ancient Bible writings. Human beings are allowed to make their own choices, laws, customs and the like. What we have here is one of them. The cultural rules concerning sex before marrige, girl stoned to death. God's answer is the only one that makes sense. Man rapes girl, saves her life by marrige and is commited to look after her for the remainder of his life. Your way: Man rapes girl, man killed, girl either killed or put out of the house, unable to find job, dies slow death of starvation after being abused on the streets for who knows how long. You are showing a lack of understanding of Arab, Jewish culture and practice. You come up with a better solution that follows the law of sex before marrige that is presented. The problem with your way of thinking is why criminals wander the streets of today. You make a law, then start ammending it for different degrees of the offense, then give latitude for accidents, drug induced hazes and poor upbringing. After a while there is no law that one can find, just a huge grey area that is full of loopholes for criminals to slip through. Alot of ancient laws were very cut and dry, sex before marrige BAD, does not matter if it is rape teenage lust, out with the boys and drinking too much, sex addict,...ect., all equal under the law, BAD.
Yes God could have ZAPPED everything back to all is happy-happy, but there is this free choice thing that man has going for him, and God respects that choice, right or wrong. You have to understand the culture that the people lived, in order to understand God's solution.
 
Thanks for clarification on the dowry bit.

It's a bit of a leap to suggest my way of thinking leads to criminals wandering the streets. I'm pretty sure I was having the bloke put to death and restoring the position of the rape victim within the society while hopefully getting her a bit of an asset base. If putting rapists to death leads to criminals walking the streets then imagine the damage executing murderers would do!

It is immoral to suggest there is no other alternative to marrying the rapist when there are obvious alternatives such as the one I outlined in thirty secs of thought. God is the one that sets the laws, yes or no. You're acting like God cannot proclaim a law that was inconsistent with existing Jewish cultural practice, which is a nonsense. Why bother proclaiming anything at all if it made no difference? Obviously it did make a difference, so what the laws say or don't say is completely God's concern and God's standards, and certainly not subordinate to the standards of men, rapists or not.

But instead you are unwittingly implying a helpless, powerless God....unable to do anything that might offend the male heirarchy and having to think up the least worst solution.

It is immoral - nauseating actually - to suggest that God is respecting free choice for men....to rape or not rape...by failing to make any provision in the laws to in some manner restore the place of the rape victim in her society. Where is the freedom of choice for the rape victim, exactly? She gets raped and forced into marriage with her rapist. God as the champion of the free will of the rapist.....can't do anything for the rape VICTIM because this would infringe the free will of the RAPIST, which would be very naughty. That is an argument I hope you will have second thoughts about.

It is immoral to suggest there is no difference between sex before marriage and being raped, and I don't care what century you were born in. This bit:

sex before marrige BAD, does not matter if it is rape teenage lust, out with the boys and drinking too much, sex addict,...ect., all equal under the law, BAD.
Click to expand...

That piece of equating the rape of an unwilling victim with acts of consensual sex is one of the most offensive misogynistic posts I have ever read. If you actually subscribe to that then I have nothing more to say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom