ABC has a truly bizarre and disturbing story. Brian Ross reports that a military contractor has encoded hidden New Testament Bible passages on high-powered rifle sites. The contractor is Trijicon, which apparently confirmed the practice.
The biblical references appear as, in one case, 2COR4:6 — an apparent reference to Second Corinthians 4:6 of the New Testament, which reads: “For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”
The company received $660 million under a contract to supply 800,000 sights to the Marine Corps. It has other contracts with the Army.
U.S. regulations prohibits proselytizing of any religion. Moreover, such additions to military equipment should violate the contract which presumably did not ask for biblical citations with gun sights.
The use of biblical citations will only reaffirm the view of many that the U.S. went into Iraq and Afghanistan on a “crusade.” This view was magnified by Bush calling its a crusade and later citing Biblical passages to convince other leaders that this was a worthy, if not divinely ordained, effort. His subordinates appeared to keep Bush in a Biblical mindset by adding prominent quotations from the Bible in reports on the war, here.
In my view, this raises serious legal questions that should result in a review of this contract. As a minimum, the contractor should have to pay for the removal of the citations. We have to able to trust contractors not to carry out their hidden or religious agenda as part of a contract with the American people. Just imagine if these were citation to the Koran. If the company wishes to proselytize it should do so with theocratic governments. Perhaps the Swiss Guards that the Vatican need a few sights and citations.
For the full story, click here.
The only ones capable of defining the word Christian authoritarively were of course, the FIRST CHRISTIANS.
Not Websters dictionary.
Not gyges.
Not the New Life Holy Roller Evangelical Warmonger church.
No one other than the original Christians can provide an authoritative definition of the word, other than the original Christians who first used it to define themselves.
Kind of obvious, right?
You’d think.
But not when your intent is to attack someone.
Then you can play semantic games.
See the question was over the MEANING of the word “CHRISTIAN”.
Since the word comes from a language other than English, saying that “I meant when the word appeared in English” means nothing.
It is utter nonsense.
The word isn’t an English word.
It was TRANSLATED into English like EVERY SINGLE WORD WE HAVE IN ANY ENGLISH BIBLE.
“I also brought up that the word Christian, while derived from older Greek and Latins words (as 30%er correctly pointed out) is only about 500 or so years old. There was some confusion as to whether I meant the original Greek and Latin words, or the English, so I clarified that I was talking about the English words.” -Gyges
Back to playing games I see?
See this is the problem.
Now, any honest reasonable individual knows that ALL words we have from the bible come from languages other than English.
Why you ask?
Well, one reason might be because the English language did not yet exist.
“I was terse, and confrontational in my tone.” Gyges
You’re starting to get there.
But there was more than “terse” in your tone.
Bellicose is more like it.
An “axe to grind” is probably spot on.
“Gyges 1, January 21, 2010 at 7:39 pm
30%er,
Just out of curiosity, are you also going to bring up that part where you said that I accused you of playing a semantics game when in fact I said “this is about semantics?”
I enjoy a good recap as much as the next guy, I’m just wondering how in depth you’re going to go.”
Ahh, the drones are restless.
Well, if by indepth you mean arguing the meaning of the word “is” with you for another night, sorry to burst your bubble but that won’t be happening again.
I indulged your nonsense that day out of basic courtesy however your comment speaks for itself.
Your bellicose tone right out of the gate challenging me when I simply made a comment that was polite and reasonable demonstrates your nature and intent.
When you can account for your attacks, you let me know.
So there you have it Micheal.
Not all of the insults and bigotry expressed that night of course, but enough to dispel the distortions attempted by those involved.
Now of course it is time for the bigots to pilot fish their way back in to ridicule me for still being here and try and rewrite the events all over again.
And when they do, I’ll be here to set the record straight.
So we see that the truth is much different from the revisionist tales told by those who erudite superiority has been threatened in the light of their own ugly religious intolerance.
Later he tried to claim that he meant only “many Christians” as he added this pathetic excuse for a clarification;
“Stephen Pitt 1, January 20, 2010 at 12:21 am
The inquisition was self-inflicted by intractability. Yes, you sabotaged yourself. It had nothing at all to do with us. The fact stands that Christians supported the Third Reich. Not all but too many. Enough to give Hitler what he wanted: Legitimacy.”
Then he proceeded to act as if he had never said the original comments and attacked me for hours on end.
Later, neoconservative trolls chimed in in an attempt to sway my positions to a debate on global warming, which I semi complied with.
And then the discussion carried on, as more people joined in in this thread like Steve Pitt who likened Christians to Nazi’s.
Observe.
“Stephen Pitt 1, January 19, 2010 at 7:08 pm
Well that didn’t work. Anyway, Christians supported Hitler. How in the world could they rationalize that behavior?”
and ….
“Stephen Pitt 1, January 19, 2010 at 11:58 pm
No, we may not be interested at all in a religious perspective. Religion is a pox. It has been made abundantly clear that religious intractability produces war and discord. No, I don’t expect you’ll ever learn, just like the Christians who supported Adolf Hitler.”
So here we see this drone twice comparing me, my family, my friends and relatives, and millions of decent, honest Americans to Nazis or Germans who supported Adolf Hitler.
Then when the debate continued in this thread, he slithers in like a little pilot fish to gobble up the crumbs from Steve Pitts mouth.
Seeking to get a quick “kick” in as I am exiting the thread.
Never bothering to even address his own deception and unwarranted attacks.
30%er,
Just out of curiosity, are you also going to bring up that part where you said that I accused you of playing a semantics game when in fact I said “this is about semantics?”
I enjoy a good recap as much as the next guy, I’m just wondering how in depth you’re going to go.
Just to clarify: I say that 30%er engages in the true Scotsman fallacy by his insistence that certain groups that call themselves Christians aren’t really TRUE Christians. My argument is that since the definition of a Christian (as provided by Websters and other dictionaries) is someone that professes to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ any arguments about their actual adherence to those teachings is moot.
I also brought up that the word Christian, while derived from older Greek and Latins words (as 30%er correctly pointed out) is only about 500 or so years old. There was some confusion as to whether I meant the original Greek and Latin words, or the English, so I clarified that I was talking about the English words.
I was terse, and confrontational in my tone.
So we see not only did he dishonestly and deceitfully alter Mark 7:10 to change its meaning in order to make it fit his argument, but his response to my detailed and painstaking effort to answer him was simply to insult me and call me names and dismiss with a flick of his wrist a half dozen detailed and sincere responses to his questions.
Then when I pointed out how he had edited that scripture to suit his argument, he disappeared.
Poof.
30%er:
I love you, you are great. A more noble defender of the faith I cannot think of. Personally I was testing you to see if you were actually the real deal. It appears that you are.
How can I be of service?
When confronted with this and all of my answers (which I won’t repost for time considerations) which were detailed, specific and accurate, how did Mespo respond?
Remember, I had spent over an hour responding to his slew of disingenuous questions.
And caught him editing scripture to boot.
And here was his erudite response to all of my answers to him.
“-mespo727272 1, January 15, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Sorry Mike S. but I see 30%’er as the classic bobber and weaver not a TKO specialist. The Bible is either the unerring word of the Creator or it’s not.
If it is, it expressly sanctions slavery, sexual slavery, child killing, misogyny, and all manner of religious retribution. 30%’er promulgates the myth that words don’t mean what they say and context can make a word means its opposite.
Sorry no sale here. Religionists all have the same flaw and the same burden: they allow that no evidence can falsity their beliefs. When one refuses to accept or even acknowledge contray evidence, their views should be weighed accordingly.”
Here is how Mespo posted the scripture.
“Jesus also wasn’t too fond of disrespectful brats either:
“Whoever curses father or mother shall die” (Mark 7:10 NAB)”
And here is how the scripture actually reads;
– Mark 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
And note one other thing.
See that scripture he quotes to me from Mark 7:10?
Notice its a little shorter than it appears in your bible?
That’s because he removed part of it to make it appear as if Jesus was dictating a commandment.
He wasn’t.
He was referencing the Law of Moses in an attempt to show the Pharisees how they had corrupted the Law for their own purposes, using Corban as an example.
Observe.
I responded to this post in a non confrontational manner and the discussion proceeded with a reasonable level of civility.
Until Mespo came in.
Then he barraged me with a laundry list of loaded questions.
Observe;
– “mespo727272 1, January 14, 2010 at 11:21 pm
30%’er:
Gee I got to the theology debate too late. 30% tells us the Gospels are full of “love, compassion, mercy and faith.” Let’s see:
Jesus said: “The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)
Jesus also wasn’t too fond of disrespectful brats either:
“Whoever curses father or mother shall die” (Mark 7:10 NAB)
How’d Jesus look upon those who rejected his teachings:
“And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.” Mark 6:11 (KJV)
Not too compassionate there by JC what with all that city-wide destruction and beating and killing of kids and all. Maybe ol’ crazy Pat had a point after reading Mark.
But 30%’er tells us “no” so let’s look further in the New Testament. Surely slavery is rebuked!
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
Well that crazy old Roman Paul was a convert anyway, so maybe he just doesn’t feel it like 30%’er does.
30%’er wants us to look only at the Gospels, because according to him, that’s where the law is. Stubbornly, Jesus doesn’t agree:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17 NAB)
Obviously the problem is that I haven’t properly interpreted the damn thing. You really must know the correct scholarly interpretation as 30% tells us:
“Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.” (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)
Gee that doesn’t work either since every word comes from the Holy Spirit and no interpretation is needed.
Yeesh this religion stuff is hard 30%’er.
Maybe you can explain it to me.”
Note once again the smug, arrogant dismissive tone. The obvious disrespect of my beliefs and the outright interrogatory nature of his laundry list of questions.
Note the smug “Yeesh, this religion stuff is hard 30%’er”, and the overly sarcastic “maybe you can explain it to me”.
It took 12 minutes for the comments to start coming.
Here is the first response to that comment.
“Gyges 1, January 14, 2010 at 1:53 pm
30%er,
Why do you get to choose who’s religious, and who’s Christian? Those you claim aren’t real Christians would no doubt say the same of you.
For every “love thy neighbor” there’s a “If anyone does not hate his father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, and yes, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” The difference is in which part you choose to ignore and which you choose to follow. I’d hope people would choose to follow the nobler ideals, but those who follow the baser are still following Christian doctrine.
”
Note the immediate bellicose tonality.
“Why do you get to choose”
“Those you CLAIM”.
and so on.
Note how I never “chose” anything for anyone. Simply pointed out that what Pat Robertson teaches are not Christian doctrine.
Note how this bellicose drone calling himself gyges, claims it is. Which obviously anyone who’s read the gospels knows it isn’t.
So we see not only is he wrong in his response but his bellicose tonality is apparent from the onset.
Even though I had said nothing to him and nothing deserving such a dismissive and smug tone.
FFLEO said, “although you elicit enough comments to extend threads past 200 entries.”
I’m not sure “elicit” is the correct term when the overwhelming number of entries have been provided by the same person. In terms of counting entries, that’s stacking the deck.
Here. I’ll even help you get started.
My first comment in the thread where this began.
–
” ThirtyPercenter 1, January 14, 2010 at 1:41 pm
“I couldn’t have said it better. In fact that is the reason I have never been religious. ”
Pat Robertson is many things but religious is not one of them.
What he does is equivalent to a traveling salesman in the old west, selling the “curative”. Snake oils and liniments. With a lot of pomp, show and splendor around it to get the people to give generously.
Robertson’s an entertainer who placates to an ultraviolet extremist non Christian crowd. That they call themselves Christian is merely a ruse. Much like the Snake Oil salesman of the old west used to call himself a Doctor, or Medicine Man.
What they sold wasn’t medicine (unless you were suffering from a hangover) and they weren’t doctors. And Pat Robertson and those who follow him worship guns, violence and hatred. But they are not Christians. Don’t let the name fool you.”