Feb 28, 2012
Print This Post
They burned the Bible.
In 2008 American troops confiscated, threw away, and burned God’s Word at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. The Bibles were written in the Pashto and Dari languages, and the Defense Department was concerned the books might somehow be used to convert Afghans.
The incident became public in 2009. Lt. Col. Mark Wright told CNN such religious outreach could endanger American troops and civilians because Afghanistan is a “devoutly Muslim country.”
READ THIS ENTIRE ESSAY IN TODD’S NEW BOOK – DISPATCHES FROM BITTER AMERICA
But there was another reason the Bibles were confiscated. Military rules forbid troops from proselytizing in the country.
“The decision was made that it was a ‘force protection’ measure to throw them away because, if they did get out, it could be perceived by Afghans that the U.S. government or the U.S. military was trying to convert Muslims,” Wright told CNN.
So that might explain why the Bibles were confiscated and thrown away, but why burn the Holy Scriptures?
Lt. Col. Wright explained to the news network that troops at posts in war zones are required to “burn their trash.”
Trash.
Trash.
I can only imagine the anguished Christian soldiers who were forced to toss the Bibles into the roaring fire. I can only imagine what they were thinking as the blaze consumed verses like John 3:16 – “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
I can only imagine the heartache of the American church that collected the Bibles and sent them overseas to share the good news of Jesus.
So why not just collect the Bibles and send them back to the United States?
The military told CNN they considered doing that. But they worried the church would send them to another organization in Afghanistan, and that would give the impression the bibles were distributed by the U.S. government.
In other words, the only way to guarantee no Bibles would be found on Afghan soil was to destroy the books.
So how did the Obama administration respond to the 2009 revelation of such a horrific act?
They were silent.
There were no apologies, no condemnations from either the Bush administration in 2008 or the Obama administration in 2009. There was no condemnation from the State Department. There was no condemnation from the Pentagon.
Perhaps that’s to be expected from an administration that believes the United States is no longer just a Christian nation.
“Certainly the armed forces should be sensitive to people’s religious symbols or their text,” Lt. Col. Bob Maginnis (USA-Ret.) told One News Now. “Instead of burning the Bibles, there is no reason that they shouldn’t have returned them to those who purchased the Bibles. But we recognize that in a Muslim country, Christians are just not welcome. They hypocrisy is pretty well established. It is disconcerting.”
Even more disconcerting is the Obama administration’s blatant attacks on religious liberty –leaving many to wonder if this president considers Christians to be second-class citizens.
If you burn a Bible – silence. But if you burn a Koran, the Obama administration will send private letters of apology – and public condemnations.
When I was a small child, I developed a love for the Bible. I memorized dozens of passages of Scripture, tucking away treasured words from God in my heart. That’s why I’m so troubled by what happened in Afghanistan.
And that’s why I feel compelled to summarize this sad chapter of American history by sharing a passage from the New Testament — “Jesus wept.”
Related posts:
FOX News Talk
Heartbreaking
I'll tell you whats really heartbreaking,Sandi. Its the way religious believers use outdated and immoral beliefs to cause suffering worldwide. That is heartbreaking!
I know, those radical Muslim terrorists are ridiculous!
Sandi Lyn Bunch- They are a small example of how religious beliefs unhinge minds and give them justification for criminal behavior. Here in America,we face more of a threat to the American way of life from the followers of the bible.
Richard Notizia, proof of that would be? We stand against the killing of unborn children and fail to fall into the regime of tolerance toward true immoral behavior, so we are a threat to the American way of life? To be honest, and with all due respect, your line of reasoning is quite fascinating. If we are a threat to the American way of life by standing against immorality, than my nation has truly hit rock bottom.
Stormy Harbour – The proofs are evidenced daily. 1. Constant battles from creationists trying to inject superstition into public science classes as an alternative to legitimate science in the form of evolution. How is America supposed to maintain its position in the world if it cannot educate its youth ??? 2. Equal rights for all is an American value and yet followers of the bible are commanded to discriminate against gays. Again and again, pre 1st century mythology and folklore is used to justify hate and ignorance towards an entire group of Americans. These are but a couple of examples but overall the legacy of religion can be summed up simply: it thrives on keeping people ignorant and beholden to a set of mores than has no place in the 21st century and it contributes DAILY to human suffering. You dont want unborn children killed?? Great! Dont have an abortion then. Let other adults make their own decisions though.
Richard Notizia I am a Christian and I don't hate gays. And I don't think I'm a horrible person for not wanting unborn children to die. It is un-Christianlike to hate, so your statements about hate and ignorance against gays from Christians is misinformed and incorrect. If you are referring to the Westboro Baptists, they are not Christians, just as I'm sure the run-of-the-mill Muslim doesn't like being compared to the 9/11 guys. Don't be a hater.
Sandi Lyn Bunch – I think its laudable that you dont hate a whole diverse group of people based on their sexual orientation. You arent following the commands of your god though as described in Leviticus: Keep my decrees and follow them. I am the LORD, who makes you holy. If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head. If a man commits adultery with another man's wife–with the wife of his neighbor–both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads. If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. ************** Is amazing what you can do when you DONT adhere to 'god's' words.
Richard Notizia – If picking apart the Bible and throwing scriptures in Christian's faces helps you sleep at night, then go right ahead. I'm fine with my beliefs and I don't need your approval. It's your choice to be a hater.
If only you read the Bible for the GOOD it has to offer…instead of using it as fuel and ammo against the believers…too bad. Have a nice day!
Sandi Lyn Bunch – Is that how you reconcile the nonsense in your bible? You ignore the stupid stuff that you dont like and just go with the passages you approve of? I notice you dont condemn those passages do you? And why dont you go out and kill all adulterers,homosexuals,etc?? God commands it! The 'good' in your bible isnt original . Most people around the world follow a basic set of morality that your bible has no bearing on. This morality predates your bible and in fact all religious writings.There is a certain segment of dunces though who will justify crimes against humanity based upon religious writings. It is happening now. You call me with your simplistic term a 'hater' lol. I term it moral indignation.
Todd. Take solace in knowing that the Word of God is not just printed on pages, but IMprinted on the hearts of humans. The physical Word may be consumed by flames, but the spirit of those words lives on in US.
very disappointing…but to call it trash…irritating. I remember seeing a vision of a person in hell…she said "if I had a bible , any bible , i would have read it" If anyone has anextra bible they will no longer use or just had no need for it…give it to some one who may need it.
Yes. The thin paper is excellent for roll your own cigarettes.
very disappointing…but to call it trash…irritating. I remember seeing a vision of a person in hell…she said "if I had a bible , any bible , i would have read it" If anyone has anextra bible they will no longer use or just had no need for it…give it to some one who may need it.
speechless and trying to comprehend, however, as Louis said, the Word of God cannot be silenced by acts such as these…
speechless and trying to comprehend, however, as Louis said, the Word of God cannot be silenced by acts such as these…
To your point: "Perhaps that’s to be expected from an administration that believes the United States is no longer just a Christian nation." Hate to break it to you, but America is no longer just a Christian nation. 25% of us are something other than Christian, and that percentage is growing. Our diversity needs to be recognized and celebrated, not denied and detested.
That being said, the burning of the Bibles was insensitive and incorrect, and a better solution could have, and should have, been found. Calling it trash is equally offensive to those who use it as their holy book. And yes, if our president is going to apologize over burned Qurans (as he should have), then he also should have apologized for the burning of the bibles.
Better still would be NOT apologizing for the burning of either the bibles or the korans! Both are collections of superstitious stories which people have suffered and died for needlessly. If there are apologies to be made,it should be from religious believers for continuing to foist these books upon humanity.
Richard Notizia Well that is certainly your opinion that you are entitled to, but everyone who chooses to believe in a divine being is entitled to their beliefs as well. Your endless rants on this site are not winning any converts to your cause, they are making you look foolish. Likewise to the Christians who equally lash out at atheists. It works both ways.
Richard Notizia Well that is certainly your opinion that you are entitled to, but everyone who chooses to believe in a divine being is entitled to their beliefs as well. Your endless rants on this site are not winning any converts to your cause, they are making you look foolish. Likewise to the Christians who equally lash out at atheists. It works both ways.
Joe Gonzalez- Your key phrase is " …everyone who chooses to believe…". Let me try to make it simple and clear for you: if I chose to believe that a magical deity instructed me to hate left-handed people,to discriminate against men,to proselytize these beliefs and to wage war on those who didnt believe,to indoctrinate children into my beliefs,etc- would this be something you just stood by silently about or would you oppose me? And no one is making you read my comments btw. Looking 'foolish' in your eyes is meaningless since you are unable or unwilling to differentiate reality in the 21st century from pre-1st century folklore.
Richard Notizia, I hope for your sake that when you stand before my Savior on judgment day, you meet Him as Savior and not Judge. Revelations will come to pass, and it isn't going to be pleasant. I am seeing the death throws of my nation, wishing that I was born in better times. I pray that God shows you His love and His mercy. You are loved more than you know by One who died to know you.
Joe Gonzalez
But don't you think there should be some weight granted to the side with the preponderance of evidence? And the risk-reward ratio should also be considered. If the atheists are right, and there is no God, then at least the Christians have led a happy purposeful life of delusion. But if the Christians are right, the atheists are not only angry and deluded, but can look forward to an eternity of suffering for their arrogance.
Sounds like a reasonable decision to me!
Paul Robinson Again look up Pascal's Wager. Quit using worthless centuries old arguments. No one will become a a true believer on "I guess I'll hedge my bet" Duh.
To your point: "Perhaps that’s to be expected from an administration that believes the United States is no longer just a Christian nation." Hate to break it to you, but America is no longer just a Christian nation. 25% of us are something other than Christian, and that percentage is growing. Our diversity needs to be recognized and celebrated, not denied and detested.
That being said, the burning of the Bibles was insensitive and incorrect, and a better solution could have, and should have, been found. Calling it trash is equally offensive to those who use it as their holy book. And yes, if our president is going to apologize over burned Qurans (as he should have), then he also should have apologized for the burning of the bibles.
So enforcing a General Order established by the rabidly devout Bush administration in 2001 that was designed to protect our soldiers is somehow "godless" Obama's fault? What did you expect him to do? Recind the General Order? Tell them “Yeah we’re here to convert your people”? Don’t you care about our troops?
That fact will be lost by most people willing to blame Obama for anything. While I am no fan of either Obama or Bush (I am an independent), this act was clearly carried out under the Bush Administration. The underlying and very valid point of the article, that this act was no less insensitive than the Quran burning, is completely lost amid the jabs at Obama. Also, wanting all religions treated equally is not the same as treating Christians as second class citizens. While it may be a drop on the peg for those who consider themselves an elite majority deserving of special rights and priviledges, it is a step toward the cornerstone of the founding of our Republic – equal rights protected for all, even if your minority is only one person.
Joe Gonzalez
Frankly I doubt either Bush or Obama personally authorized the burning of either book. That decision was made at some field level by someone waaay down the chain of command.
The issue is the response of Obama to the burning of the Koran. It was unnecessary and inappropriate, and did nothing but publicize the issue. And why didn't he apologize to the Americans who were offended by the burning of Bibles?
Don't try to lay this at the feet of GB, as he probably left office without even knowing of it.
Joe Gonzalez
Frankly I doubt either Bush or Obama personally authorized the burning of either book. That decision was made at some field level by someone waaay down the chain of command.
The issue is the response of Obama to the burning of the Koran. It was unnecessary and inappropriate, and did nothing but publicize the issue. And why didn't he apologize to the Americans who were offended by the burning of Bibles?
Don't try to lay this at the feet of GB, as he probably left office without even knowing of it.
Paul Robinson You miss my point Paul. I'm not trying to lay this at anyone's feet. I'm sure neither president had anything to do with the decision. My point was, he is using this as an example to take shots at Obama rather than draw attention to the main point: why was the Quran burning worthy of apology and the Bible burning not? Personally, I think they were both worthy of apology. They both could have and should have been handled differently. In the case of the bibles, I agree with you that neither president was likely aware – so that alone answers why neither apologized. You can't apologize for something you don't know about. I can honestly say I have no memory of the Bible burning story, and I am a total newshound. If Americans were upset by it, it certainly wasn't made an issue to a major degree. As for the Qurans, it was made public to the point of being a disaster. Even though we have enemies there, the apology was the correct thing to do, morally and politically. Like I said, I am no fan of Obama either, I think our government overall is in a very sorry state. I can find fault with him on a number of things. This isn't one of them. And it is a stretch to be turning this into a Christian vs Muslim issue when the most likely reason for apology vs non-apology was logistics.
Joe Gonzalez
While I agree with most of what you said, and you present a compelling argument, I still feel the apology was misplaced, and the additional publicity attending it simply extended the time the issue was in the public eye. And more exposure means more attacks and more deaths.
If there had to be an apology, there should have been examples given of our support for the Arab nations, and an explanation as to why the Korans were burned in the first place. I'd bet most of the rioters who listened to the apology on Al Gezeer were unaware that they were already desecrated, and that's why they were destroyed.
When the bibles were distributed, Lt. Col. Gary Hensley, the chief of the U.S. military chaplains in Afghanistan, told his congregation that followers of Jesus Christ have a responsibility "to be witnesses for him."
"The special forces guys — they hunt men basically. We do the same things as Christians, we hunt people for Jesus. We do, we hunt them down," Lt. Col. Hensley says. "Get the hound of heaven after them, so we get them into the kingdom. That’s what we do, that’s our business."
These religious zealots are dangerous and put our troops at risk all because their fairy tale book compels them to do so. Just wish they would put the welfare of living troops before that of their zombie god.
Can you provide me with a citation for your comment?
And God is no zombie – although there are lots haunting his creation. And the books no fairy tale either – maybe you simply don't want to know, or you've never taken the time to investigate it, but your opinion is based on ignorance.
Read some books by others who thought it was a fairy tale but were honest enough to investigate – try the Case for Christ by former atheist Lee Stobel. There's lots of others, but he certainly had impressive credentials as an atheist. And an honesty to deal with what he found as a reporter.
Ask yourself this question – what's in it for them? We don't get paid by collecting scalps (or foreskins), and its certainly both costly and inconvenient. I think if you were honest you'd admit that Christians want to get the word out in the hopes that some number of people will spend their eternity in the nonsmoking, rather than the smoking section.
Why your animosity? at worst we're wrong or deluded. Our delusion harms no one. if there's no heaven, we've at least led a life of virtue and service to mankind.
What have Christians antagonists contributed to society? Just their constant whining about the good works and selfless lives of the Christians. Even Dawkins, who thinks Christians are all insane or evil, admitted that Christianity is probably a bulwark against something more sinister coming down the pipe.
Paul Robinson, There is a not a lick of evidence for the validity of the bible, but a mountain of evidence against it. There is no reason to believe that the biblical accounts are anything more than a fairy tale in that the laws of nature are never suspended and a book simply asserting that they were is simply that; an assertion without any evidence. It’s not about what’s possible, but about what’s probable. Why is it that you automatically reject the supernatural claims made by holy books?
Moving on, you recommendation to Paul for him to read books that don’t always agree with his already made up mind, also known as ‘confirmation bias’, is a valid suggestion. However, Lee Strobel is not an historian, nor a scholar of any kind. Given that science and other scholarly study is the best mechanism to distinguish fact from fiction, I suggest you read something by Bart Ehrman. Moreover, Lee Strobel didn’t have impressive credentials as an atheist. He converted to Christianity again as a teenager. He also makes out that he is a sceptic when he is not.
In addition, you claims of hell are simply that; claims. You have absolutely no evidence for such an evil proposition but you tell your children and mine that they will burn in a lake of fire for eternity, and all this for simply not believing. And you wonder why Paul and I are angry.
Finally, your delusion hurts lots of people: unfounded threats of hell to unknowing children, the mutilation of genitalia, the rape of children by catholic priests, the persecution of homosexuals, the selling of snake oil, the crusades, the inquisition, the case for slavery, the assertion to the credulous in Africa that condoms cause AIDS etc. etc.
Paul Robinson, There is a not a lick of evidence for the validity of the bible, but a mountain of evidence against it. There is no reason to believe that the biblical accounts are anything more than a fairy tale in that the laws of nature are never suspended and a book simply asserting that they were is simply that; an assertion without any evidence. It’s not about what’s possible, but about what’s probable. Why is it that you automatically reject the supernatural claims made by holy books?
Moving on, your recommendation to Paul for him to read books that don’t always agree with his already made up mind, also known as ‘confirmation bias’, is a valid suggestion. However, Lee Strobel is not an historian, nor a scholar of any kind. Given that science and other scholarly study is the best mechanism to distinguish fact from fiction, I suggest you read something by Bart Ehrman. Moreover, Lee Strobel didn’t have impressive credentials as an atheist. He converted to Christianity again as a teenager. He also makes out that he is a sceptic when he is not.
In addition, you claims of hell are simply that; claims. You have absolutely no evidence for such an evil proposition but you tell your children and mine that they will burn in a lake of fire for eternity, and all this for simply not believing. And you wonder why Paul and I are angry.
Finally, your delusion hurts lots of people: unfounded threats of hell to unknowing children, the mutilation of genitalia, the rape of children by catholic priests, the persecution of homosexuals, the selling of snake oil, the crusades, the inquisition, the case for slavery, the assertion to the credulous in Africa that condoms cause AIDS etc. etc.
Tim Gale
Let get started: (More than One part)
NO validity for the Bible – this is not a rational observation, but a personal bias. Where is that mountain of evidence against it? I have never seen one piece of incontrovertable evidence in my 50 or so years as a Christian. There's lots of claims, but they are just that.
For someone who makes a point that the laws of nature are never suspended, and then to say that life evolved is a contradiction. The law of biogenesis had to be suspended to have abiogenesis. The law of causality had to be suspended for the Big Bang to be considered. Both are antiscientific hypothesis taught as fact. If you can accept them, no miracle in the Bible should be difficult to accept.
I also didn't get your point about me not accepting supernatural claims of holy books? And I'm assuming you meant the Bible? I thought that was your position, not mine.
I don't know Strobel personally, but my recommendation was based on reading several of his books. Your reference to him is in error, according to his books, and according to Wickipedia:
“Strobel received a journalism degree from University of Missouri and a Master of Studies in Law degree from Yale Law School,[5] becoming a journalist for The Chicago Tribune and other newspapers for 14 years. He was an atheist for most of his life and began investigating the Biblical claims about Christ after his wife's conversion. As a result of the evidence he discovered in his investigation, he became a born-again Christian.[6] [7]”
I don't consider Wickipedia as authoritative, but its in keeping with what I know about him. Your mischaracterization of his shows either bias or ignorance. Unless you have a citation to support your position, its wrong.
RE Bart Ehrman: “In his books, he recounts his youthful enthusiasm as a born-again, fundamentalist Christian, certain that God had inspired the wording of the Bible and protected its texts from all error.[2] His graduate studies, however, eventually convinced him that one ought to acknowledge the contradictions in the biblical manuscripts rather than attempt to harmonize or reconcile discrepancies. He remained a liberal Christian for fifteen years but later became an agnostic after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering.[2] “
I did it again – I said once I'd never quote Wickipedia, but this is low hanging fruit. I have no idea what your point was in recommending him. He is a poor example whatever your point. He is as we would say a backslidden Christian. His problem seems to be that he cannot accept a God he cannot understand, and this is almost blasphemy. If he could understand God, he would be his equal. So because he cannot understand God, he rails against Him. I can understand his position though in the sense that he has rejected God, and HAS to take positions that accommodate his spiritual condition. Something like the line in Elmer Gantry when a reporter asks him if he really believed all that stuff? Although he claimed to, his lifestyle contradicted the words he spoke.
I make several assertions about the Bible: it is accurate in every detail as originally written. There's a number of issues that have come up in the process of translating it from Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek and Latin through several versions, and then into English. None of them are major issues, but are sometimes spoken of as contradictions. One easy example is the Aramaic for rope and camel are only one dot apart, and the verse in which Christ makes the statement that it harder for a rich man to get into heaven than it is for a camel to go thru the eye of a needle is an example. The correct word was probably rope, not camel. But the difference makes no impact on the statements validity. There are other examples.
Now I accept it as accurate. I have done years of research on the prophesies in the Bible, and their fulfillment. Any book able to predict the future is not the work of man. I also studied the life of Christ, and it is from His words that we get most of our references to hell. I believe he was either the Son of God, speaking with authority, or he was a raving lunatic. There's no third option.
So of course I have no evidence for hell. In 50 years or so, you may have. There's lots of philosophical reasons to accept the premise, there are the statements by Christ himself, and I think that is rather compelling. If he spoke more of hell than heaven, then I think there is an issue to be dealt with.
Its more than not believing. No sin will pollute heaven. And we all have sinned. So we cannot not go to heaven. Jesus lived a perfect life, proving that it was possible. And because of his perfect sacrifice, which was foretold for several millenia in the Hebrew traditions, we can be given his righteousness and allowed into heaven on his passport, so to speak. Frankly, I don't see any intellectual issue there. So its not a matter of believing, but of accepting and acting upon what you know to be true. But man is a rebellious beast, and is at war with God. Any excuse will do. For Ehrman it seems it is the issue of suffering, for which there is a very easy answer – and that is that this world was given to mankind to rule, and he subsequently gave it over to Satan to rule. Because of that there is suffering. And God isn't invited to take part in the events, so why blame Him?
My “delusion” hurts lots of people is an interesting statement. Lets suppose for a minute there is a hell. And there is a way to avoid it. Is speaking of its reality and the way to avoid it not an act of grace and kindness? So how do you know it does not exist? Are you certain? You are gambling your eternal soul on your opinion, based on a very great lack of facts. You are gambling with every soul you effect with your rhetoric.
Paul Robinson "You are gambling your eternal soul on your opinion" Try looking up Pascal's Wager. It's a decidedly unconvincing argument. Also if you want a citation on a quote try pasting it into a search engine and see what you get. You might want to try the Google. It's this amazing research tool you might not have heard of.
Your problem of suffering argument is insane. Satan rules this world because God gave it to him and now he is dis-invited from the world he created? WTF? Isn't he all powerful? Isn't he all loving? It's like you as an "all-loving" parent giving your kids to a known child molester to punish them for something you knew they were going to do. And then as you watch them be tortured and abused you say "Sorry rules are rules" "All loving" and "all powerful" parent my ass.
Tim Gale
Part 2
Man as a species is rebellious and self important – the concept that he might need to humble himself is basically repugnant. The fact that he may not in fact be the master of his destiny is rejected. Pride, arrogance, self will, all are conditions of the species that militate against God. The end of course, will be decided by the Judge of all the earth, and your beliefs will not have any bearing on the decision made regarding your rejection of His way of escape. If there was no hell to avoid, why did Jesus come to earth and suffer and die? If there is a hell, what are you doing to prepare for it?
You then go into a list of issues with Christianity, mostly specific to the Catholic church which I am not here to support. However, your issue of circumcision is a interesting point. The only people who have ever raised that issue to me have been homosexuals. Why so, I do not understand. And why God gave it to Abraham as a sign of his covenant I do not claim to understand. It certainly reminded those under the covenant several times a day of their relationship with God. I think it also makes for more spontaneous sex, and less transmission of disease in the medical literature. When you are on trial before God, as you surely will be, you may ask Him as art of your defence.
The rape of children by catholic priests is unforgivable, and unchristian. If I may digress here, it is unscriptural to ask celibacy of those doing God's work, for a number of reasons as written by Paul. So there is that unnatural setting for ministry. Second, at least one catholic seminary was almost totally given over to homosexuals, demonstrating that the concept of a chaste life was rejected long before the initiates were ordained. You and I have both witnessed the results, perhaps to differing degrees. But this is not an argument that can logically be raised in the discussion of God or hell. Certainly there will be a lot of those priests in hell.
Thirdly, there are a lot of people who are depending on their affiliation with the church for their salvation, and have no personal faith in God. Religion doesn't cut it with God. Paul lists a series of lifestyles that will prevent you from entering heaven, including homosexuals and drunkards, etc. But he goes on to state that “such were some of you”. The power of the Christian Gospel in its pure Biblical form is that it can transform a life, and change its motivation from the inside out. That is what these priests lack and why they can stoop low enough to harm children. Going to McDonald’s doesn't make you a McMuffin; going to seminary doesn't make you a Christian.
No one I know of is persecuting homosexuals. I may want them to keep their activity in their own bedroom and not attempt to make me affirm their lifestyle. They will answer to God for it, not me. Unfortunately, to the homosexual, anything short of affirmation is persecution, and I reject that as unreasonable. There are a number of GLBT people in my life. I neither persecute them nor hate them. We are friends. That is a far cry from telling them everything is going to be OK, cause its not, and deep down inside they know it. Why do you think suicide is so high among gay teens?
Personally, I've never seen anyone selling snake oil since I stopped watching Little House on the Prairie.
He only force in the world that abolished slavery was Christianity. To say anything different is to ignore reality. Slavery was a fact of life world wide, the gospel made no attempt to change reality, but DID tell the slave owners to treat them with kindness, that they were BROTHERS with their slaves if they were Christians. That was the best possible place for a slave to be if you had to be a slave.
Tim Gale
No Christian I am aware of is telling Africans that condoms cause AIDS. And my group has built and maintained several orphanages in Africa, where were train the kids in trades and farming, educate them, and give them a head start to be the leaders of tomorrow. But Condoms are a bandaid on a larger problem, and that is the view that sex outside of marriage is acceptable. It is not! And as long as there is promiscuity, condoms will continue to come off, break, etc. They are only partially effective against AIDS, and the proliferation of condoms gives a false sense of security that can have the effect of increasing sexual activity and therefor AIDS. If 5% of condoms break when 100 infected people are having sex, then you have 5 people at risk. But if the population believes the lie that a condom will make immorality OK and more people start being promiscuous, that 5% becomes 5% of a much larger group, and the AIDS numbers go up BECAUSE OF THE CONDOMS. Its simple math that seems to elude the pro-condom crowd. And let me be clear – AIDS is connected with anal sex, although the Politically correct crowd won't allow this to see the light of day. I can remember in the past 20 years when we made a major issue of HPV leading to Cancer, and were scoffed at and put down because of our unscientific scare tactics. seems society has caught up with us once again. And now the issue of abortion and breast cancer . . . but I digress.
I know, I know, you can get the virus from your dentists equipment. But the rectum wasn't designed by God for the beating a vagina can take. "Use at your own risk" should be tattooed on every bottom.
I'm not here to defend the crusades. That was a political thing with the Europeans. And since there were state churches in every nation, if the army went to war, so did the church. Its a red herring. I will say this, that much of the Crusades, from a political point of view were justified, as the Mohametans were far more brutal in taking the lands the Crusaders were trying to regain. Again, this was a issue of feudal Europe, and has no bearing on the reality of God, or the existence of hell.
The answer to this problem and paedophile priests is to stop having sex outside of marriage. Simple, isn't it?
Tim Gale
Sorry to belabor the point – but I just thought of an interesting example to refute your statement about the Bible just being mythology. The Bible was criticized for nearly two millennia for having made up the person of Pontius Pilate. There was no record of his existence other than the Bible. This of course gave the Bible scoffers a plank to walk on – at least far enough to make fools of themselves once more.
"In June 1961 Italian archaeologists led by Dr. Frova were excavating an ancient Roman amphitheatre close to Caesarea-on-the-Sea (Maritima) and unearthed this appealing limestone block. On the face is a tombstone inscription which is fraction of a bigger devotion to Tiberius Caesar which evidently tells that it was from "Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea." Subsequent to this, coins minted by him were also found. So again, one "proof" against the bible was simply ignorance or lack of evidence.
Contrary to your statement, there is not a lick of evidence against the Bible, and a mountain of evidence in its favor.
Paul Robinson, Sorry for the late reply, I had 3 episodes of Spartacus to watch back-to-back. This is the deal: If I make a valid point, I want you to acknowledge it, and I will do the same for you. I will respond to all you points, I've been here before and it is not beneficial you or I if we write long winded replies to one another. Okay, moving on. I said there was a mountain against the validity of the bible and here is some: The stars were not created after the earth, the earth is demonstrable older than 6,000 years, after a flood, 2 kangaroos did not hop all the way to Australia without leaving a fossil record along the way, The tower of babel does not explain the creation and proliferation of languages, but the study of linguistics does, the details of the life of Ramses the Great are literally written in stone and do not mention an exodus, Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus but did 80 or so years after his death – the original author probably thought that Nazarites came for Nazareth and proceeded accordingly. The so called eyewitnesses to the miracles of Jesus (the Jews) rejected the divinity of Jesus on mass implying that the aforementioned miracles never in fact happened.
Here are 2 contractions of many:
"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (MAT 27:5)
"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (ACT 1:18)
On which day does the bible state that Jesus died? According to the synoptic gospels, he died on or after Passover, but according to the gospel of John, he died before the Passover meal. which was it? If the bible is the inerrant word of god, why the contradiction?
Paul Robinson, So what if Pontius Pilate existed? Would you argue that the existence of New York is proof of Spider Man? Also, the thought that Pontius Pilate would free Barabbas, a convicted murderer of Romans, over Jesus is asinine. He simply didn't have the power or will to do it: FACT. If you don't agree with this point, tell me so. If you don't agree, write that Pontius Pilate had the power to free convicted murderers of Romans and there would be little or no repercussions from Rome.
Paul Robinson, Evolution is not a suspension of the laws of nature. Evolution is simply a change in the gene pool from generation to generation through mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. However, turning water into wine, although impressive and by far my favorite miracle, is a suspension of the natural order. Why would you accept the latter over the former? Do you also see the mutation of the common cold as a suspension of the natural order? Moreover, the big bang states that the universe expanded from a super hot single point in space. Nothing more. How do all this happen? The answer is "we don't know yet!" However, given that you do claim to know how it all happened, perhaps you could explain it to me here without resorting to "god did it".
Paul Robinson, Lee Strobel is not a scholar of any kind. He's a Christian who wrote a book. Bart Ehrman is highly regarded new testament scholar with a PhD. You are right in that Lee Strobel converted to Christianity due to his wife's convictions.
Paul Robinson, Why is it that prophecies are so vague. No names, no dates and so vague that they are reverse-engineer-able to mean just about anything at anytime. Didn't Jesus say that he would return in the lifetime of some of his disciples. what happened there? Why do you chose to ignore this failed prophecy? Cheery picking?
Paul Robinson, You write: "So of course I have no evidence for hell. In 50 years or so, you may have." So, according to the bible, as an apostate, I am destined for hell. Did you think I deserve it? An eternity of pain and suffering for the finite crime of simply not believing. Remember if there was sufficient evidence for this proposition of yours, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. So, my question stands: Do I deserve it? And by the way, if god wanted to save me, he could, so please don't claim that I'm sending myself there and god is so sad.
Paul Robinson , Christianity did not abolish slavery, it prolonged it. Slavery was ultimately ended in America to stop the South from exporting the slave trade to the West where the common man had no ability to complete with the low production costs of slave labor. Moreover, the bible gives very explicit instructions on who you can own and how they should be treated and punished. Prominent Christians justified slavery by arguing that the practice bought the knowledge of god to savages that would have otherwise be sent to hell. John Wilkes Booth stated just this in his letters which eventually lead to the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln. The truth is by the 1830s, and not before, the church is America was divided on the morality of owning people. Have I made my point?
Paul Robinson, If want to see someone selling snake oil, stick 'faith healer' into youtube.
Paul Robinson, So what if your group has built orphanages. Hamas does the same thing. The argument goes: Tell me one charitable act performed by a believer that can't be also achieved through secular means? And the catholic church tells Africans AIDS in bad but condoms are worse. People are going to have sex regardless of religion. Young Christians are more likely to have abortions than non-believers because they have never been taught about contraception and/or encouraged to use contraception if they decide to have sex. Due to the fact that abstinence doesn't work, having 5% of the population at risk is better than more than 5% of the population at risk, no? You write: "But the rectum wasn't designed by God for the beating a vagina can take." as if this is some reason to explain why HIV/AIDS is more prevalent in the gay community. How do you account for the fact that half the gay population are female and they are the least at risk? Finally, I don't think there is anything wrong with having premarital sex.
Paul Robinson, With regard to Bart Ehrman, the world, with all it's suffering, is exactly the way it should be if there was no god. If there was no god you would expect worldly suffering or success to be indiscriminate regardless of one’s good or bad deeds, and it is. Whereas, you need to jump through two hoops blindfolded and backwards to come up with some story about how this world was given to mankind to rule, but was subsequently given over to Satan to rule and because of that there is suffering. When you have 2 competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions holds the greater chance of being true and correct: lex parsimoniae.
Paul Robinson, In any context, the owning of another human being is morally repugnant. You cannot justify slavery under any context so please stop doing so with claims that the bible tells slave owners to be kind to their chattel etc.
It is sad the double standard in our nation toward the majority religion in our country. The anger from atheists and other faiths under this story that you would even mention this as offensive is ridiculous! Our Nation has always been predominantly Christian though there is a lack of conviction about those holy truths today. That the American government would burn the Holy Scriptures that a majority of it's constituents believe in and not apologize or see any evil in is a sad commentary on how our government does not understand what this war is about. Those Qurans they apologized for are filled with verses that are telling these people to attack us and bring us into bondage, not to love thy neighbor! When you begin a country with a Bible you get a free republic that respects others. When you begin with a Quran you get a repressive government that kills its own citizens and attacks and enslaves other faiths. COMMON SENSE NEEDS TO RETURN TO THIS NATION. I will pray to the True God of the Bible that it will.
Anger from atheists?? Since when did you conduct a poll of ALL atheists,Scotty? You seemed to have missed me. I didnt shed one fucking tear over those korans being burned and I sure as fuck wouldnt have apologized for it. I would have instead told the Afghans to come join us in the 21st century and if they had a problem with that I would have told them that religious nonsense is only keeping them ignorant and behind other civilized nations. As far as the bibles that were burned- cause they were trash-no, trash, as Todd repeats lol- so what? I dont like the idea of burning books but as Randy Morris points out- there are plenty more bibles and so what if they got burned? The reasons seemed clear enough and besides- the Afghans dont NEED more religious horseshit befuddling their brains. Your own comments about a free republic that respects others is just plain stupid,Scotty. Your bible is filled with its own stinky horseshit – try Leviticus for some that of that good ol 'respect' for homosexuals.
GOD gave everyone of us the choice to worship whom he or she chose. I practice this right. If I see or hear of anyone who would like to learn more about my GOD, the one who created the universe and everything in it. I would be happy to teach them, BUT I would not force one word on anyone. If they don't want to know, it is not my place to use force. I feel exactly the same way about Allah, atheist, or any other belief, I don't want it and do not expect anyone to try to change me. I know as much l about their beliefs as I want to know and would like to be left alone about it, exactly like I will let them alone with their beliefs.
Myrtle K Linder – You seem content in your ignorance,Myrtle. Thats great for you! However,you are incorrect to lump atheism- the lack of belief in deities- in the same category as religious beliefs. I would define atheism more clearly: the ACCEPTANCE that nothing supernatural exists- no ghosts,demons,gods,vampires,werewolves,etc. This acceptance is based upon the evidence ( or lack thereof) as analyzed by a reasonably educated person applying common sense and an understanding of human imagination.
All this article does is fan flames of hate and perceived victimhhood. The fact is that both the bible and koran are bound pieces of paper that are mass produced by printing plates and ink. Hardly a reason for such dramatic subjectivity. Same with the flags….they are textiles.
Now, if they were the original scripts I could understand the outcry but they were not and there are plenty more of each to go around. It is ridiculous from both sides to use these articles as symbols in this way to further promote hate and grievance. Religion and patriotism have the ability to blind people from seeing the right thing to do or the right way to behave. I love God but I cannot stand religion or some of his fan base.
So they burned a book of fairy tales. So what?
This is just pathetic evidence of a ridiculous double-standard. Korans are accidentally burned, and there is all manner of back-peddling, and politically apologetic callisthenics; even worse, innocent people pay with their lives from a vindictive Mob. A little earlier, though, Bibles are purposefully burned for reasons of potential "offence", and there's no official apology, or anything. Why didn't you just ship them home? Well, we forgive you (unlike others), but by your actions, we know that there's something amiss with your hearts.
Forgiveness is an important DAILY practice, is it not Pastor ?
Indeed, Stephen. But forgiveness is not silence, nor is it acquiescence, nor is it facilitation.
David MacKenzie Huh ? Forgiveness is not always having to get right up in someone's face and letting them have it either !! and i wasn't arguing about anything with you , if that is why you came back with the silence, acquiescence, facilitation thing. I was talking just about forgiveness. period. just forgiveness. Over and out….. i am beginning to think these reply/ opinion posts are just getting to be a waste of time. Right along with Facebook…..just my take………..
These reply posts are often adversarial, it is true. My apologies if I read more into what you were saying than was intended. Bless your day!
David MacKenzie And i was just trying to respect your position as a Pastor. The original post was just acknowledging your words, "Well, we forgive you". Did Jesus not say, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." ? Grace and Peace to you…..And this is my final post, as i will move on now.