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.
By the way, just so there’s no confusion stoning was brought back after the death of Christ as the Christian sects broke off from Judaism. Just FYI.
And if you’re sincerely interested in knowing more about this and other passages, there’s a wonderful show on television that I encourage you to watch. Its called “Discovering the Jewish Jesus”. Its hosted by Rabbi Kirt Schneider and its a great way to be easily peer into the Jewish Jesus and how his upbringing and subsequent Rabbinical role impacted his teachings.
Anyway no hard feelings. We had some good zingers there for each other but I think in retrospect it was just like Mike said some mis-communications.
No. And Jesus never said it was.
He was not extolling the virtue of every jot and tittle. I’ve explained it as clearly as possible.
And I explained it in three comments to make it clear obviously. Not to obfuscate so can we stop with the character attacks? Ok, maybe you believe what you’re saying, I don’t know. You seemed like a smart man so obviously I didn’t think you were really that confused about it but clearly you are.
Jesus was referencing the Law of Moses. He was quoting it. Your confusion stems likely from you not being aware several key points.
1. It was how the Rabbis spoke back then when referencing Mosaic law. “Is it not written” or “Has it not been said” or “Did not Moses say” were all common prefixes to quoting scripture.
Thats common knowledge among anyone who studies the bible so I invite you investigate and you’ll see that is correct. Perhaps even Mike Spindell might help you with that.
But that’s the way they talked. It wasn’t just commonplace its literally how a scripture was referenced in public.
2. Stoning was not practiced during the time of Jesus. Due to arguments by many Jewish leaders the practice was slowly abandoned over time.
Additionally, Jesus was born under Roman occupation. Under Roman occupation Israel did not have power to execute people. Capital punishment was reserved solely for Roman authority hence Jesus would not have been literally suggesting it anyway. It was long since abandoned as a barbaric practice to begin with and it was illegal under Roman occupation.
3. Nothing in Jesus life suggests he endorsed the practice. In fact it was in direct opposition to all of his teachings and examples. One obvious example is the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery who was brought before Jesus to see whether he felt she should be stoned under the Law of Moses. Of course its important to point out that scholars since Farrar have made it abundantly clear this was merely a mock question posed to Jesus. No one actually planned on stoning the woman as the practice had long since been abandoned, and of course was illegal under Roman law.
Jesus had the opportunity to hold the people accountable if as your unfounded claim is that Jesus taught we should stone people. He did not. He in fact challenged the hypocrites by declaring “he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone”. And we all know the rest of the famous story.
Had Jesus been the hard line Mosaic dictator you would like to paint him as then he’d surely called for her stoning there, as with other violations of Mosaic law which he encountered on a daily basis who’s punishment under the old law, the very old law, called for stoning.
The fact is there is not one shred of evidence, not one instance where Jesus ever during his 3 year ministry called for anyone, at anytime, for any reason to be stoned.
Thus your claim is completely and utterly unfounded.
And the passage refutes your claim as well as a quick reading will show that he simply was referencing the law of Moses to draw a contrast to the practice of Corban and the original “spirit” of the Law.
Jesus made it clear he had not come to condemn the Law (as a Rabbi this is the only way he’d be taken seriously among the Jews) but to “FULFILL” the law. And in doing so he gave his set of “NEW COMMANDMENTS” which if you’d read the rest of the book you would know.
He changed the Law of Moses dramatically, removing all the harsh punishments sacrifices and retributions.
He removed the time proven “eye for an eye” and replaced it with a kind and gentle law.
He removed the sacrifices of beating ones self and animal sacrifices in exchange for a “broken heart and a contrite spirit”.
And he taught that the highest law was in how we treat our fellow man, no matter whether they be friend or foe, family or stranger.
That’s what the Gospel Jesus taught consisted of.
Your perversions of it to paint Jesus as some kind of psychotic Mosaic law tyrant who wanted kids stoned to death for disobeying their parents would be laughed off the stage at any serious biblical scholarly seminar, debate or research group.
Or even any childrens Sunday School class because it is just not even remotely accurate.
30%’er:
That it takes you three posts to obfuscate the simple point that Jesus was extolling the virtue of “every jot and tittle” of Mosaic law even as he criticized the Pharisees for cashing in, takes you from delusional to obscurantism. Peddle your sophistry and unfalsifiable philosophy somewhere else.
I can read and no amount of historical context or biased interpretation will take away the simple statement of your savior: “Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved. So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God’s laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. Matt. 5:17-20 NLT
It was emphasized by Paul in his missive to the Galatians: “Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the commands that are written in God’s Book of the Law.” This a direct reference to the Second Law of Moses found in Deuteronomy 27:15-19 which states ““But if you refuse to listen to the Lord your God and do not obey all the commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come and overwhelm you:
16 Your towns and your fields
will be cursed.
17 Your fruit baskets and breadboards
will be cursed.
18 Your children and your crops
will be cursed.
The offspring of your herds and flocks
will be cursed.
19 Wherever you go and whatever you do,
you will be cursed.”
A little free advice from a lawyer: If you’re going to play fast and loose, don’t write it down. You get more room to maneuver when its just your Word.
So I ask you again: Is it morally permissible in your religion to kill those who curse their parents?
Thus by changing the passage and removing the first half where we see it was a Rabbinical quote of the Law of Moses rather than simply a directive you mislead.
It was not a directive as you presented it.
And there is no evidence that Jesus endorsed the original practice of stoning. In fact many scholars believe the addition of “the death” meant Jesus was referring to the spiritual death and not the stoning death that followers of the law of Moses interpreted it to mean. But that’s neither here nor there. Clearly we’re not going to be arguing any in depth issues like that if we can’t get past the nature of Mark 7:10.
You presented it and are still presenting it as if Jesus was simply calling for people to be stoned who dishonored their parents, and that’s just not correct.
He was quoting the Law of Moses to make a point with regards to the Pharisee’s and their corruption of the law with things like the practice of Corban. Thus drawing a stark contrast to the Law of Moses (whether calling for physical or spiritual death) and the practice of releasing children from parental obligations for an effective bribe, is a natural contrast to make.
Its one I’d use. It’s one anyone would use. It doesn’t mean you endorse a practice, …simply because you reference it.
” Jesus could have said exactly what he intended had he left out the barbarism that was the death for dishonor rule. Had he simply said you cannot avoid Moses law of honoring your parents by paying tribute to the Temple, his point would still have been made. Instead, he added the death sentence and emphasized that he was there to stand up for the law of Moses.” -Mespo
If you understood the Rabbinical role of Jesus you’d understand that quoting the Law of Moses was the accepted way of discourse among the Pharisees, elders, etc. There was no necessary call here for children to be killed.
His purpose was to contrast the severity of the Law of Moses which the Pharisee’s had corrupted with the practice of Corban. By quoting the Law of Moses and its stiff penalties for dishonoring ones parents, and contrasting it to the practice of Corban he was exposing the degree to which the Pharisee’s had corrupted the law.
If I were criticizing a Muslim for his lack of piety by permitting his daughters loose morals and I said “doesn’t your Muhammad call for unchaste girls to be stoned? Yet you permit your daughter to stay out till 3:00 AM!”, I would not be endorsing the fundamental Islamic practice of stoning promiscuous girls.
I would be drawing a stark contrast to his departure from his current loose morals for his daughters life and the religion with which he was raised.
And that’s all Jesus was doing as is clear from the rest of the passage.
Answer? Its more like a confession.
“To answer you directly, I left it out because it was irrelevant to my point.” -Mespo
A more correct phrasing would be “I left it out because it didn’t coincide with my point”.
You presented a passage as a direct commandment from Jesus.
It was not.
It was Jesus, quoting the Law of Moses to make a point about how the Pharisee’s had corrupted the law.
Thus you removed the first half of the passage to make it appear to be a direct instruction from Jesus rather than his simply quoting Moses to make a philosophical point.
“The reality is there are many Evangelical and Christian elements that are fighting back against the Fundamentalist Crusade and the lack of recognition of this by those so disdainful of religious belief, does not serve the cause of freedom.”
***************
There’s precious little of that Mike S, and what there is is impeded by dolts like 30%’er who apparently neither read nor comprehend. You may want to cozy up to this guy, but seeking rapprochement with someone so stubborn that he refuses to even acknowledge that his question been answered twenty posts before his repetitive bleating about it not being answering doesn’t make him too Irish, rather too cretin.
In my mind, religious dogmatists, arguing about whether Jesus quoted Moses approvingly or not, serves neither freedom nor any other useful purpose. I think I’m on firm ground here since I didn’t come up with freedom’s natural antagonism to the “God firsters; Country seconders.” That’s Jefferson’s thought when he famously said: “History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes. (Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813).
That’s my beef too–the lowest grade of ignorance–spouted in support of a fantasy which appeals neither to my intellect nor my moral compass.
I can’t disagree with anything you’ve said Mike. My responding to juvenile taunts was juvenile as well. I know I should have just walked away when the attacks began but I struggle when it comes to walking away from a fight. Its the Irish in me I guess.
But you’re right. I’ll try to let it go and walk away but if I do falter and allow myself to be drawn back in please forgive me.
I never said I was a “good” Christian.
For some reason which I can’t fathom WordPress has not been E mailing me follow up comments lately, so I missed the whole long dialogue after my last comment. 30%er continued to post and people continued to respond to him, the rhetoric escalating on both sides.
The comments towards him have escalated into your basic ridicule and he has responded in kind.
I’m sorry that nobody on the adverse side seemed to understand the basic point 30%er was making, which was it is important for all of us who believe in a better country to learn to make allies rather than chase people away. For 30%er’s side of this deal he became too hung up in making the religious distinctions and sharing his religious insights, than sticking with his original point. This diverted him from his basic insight.
The reality is there are many Evangelical and Christian elements that are fighting back against the Fundamentalist Crusade and the lack of recognition of this by those so disdainful of religious belief, does not serve the cause of freedom. In the end it’s all a crapshoot and while most of us here have strong beliefs, no one knows for a fact that their beliefs are true.
That’s what my 65 years on this planet have taught me, because as a highly intelligent person with much knowledge, I’ve lost track of the times I’ve been hoisted on my own petard philosophically. What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate.
Stop lying Stoop.
Here’s the truth.
I said the gospels aren’t what Pat Robertson teaches.
You responded with lies and stooping to changing scriptures.
And you got caught.
And you aren’t man enough to own up to it which is why you cannot resist coming back to try to conceal your shame.
That’s why your name is now “Stoop”.
Fits nicely don’t you think?
I’ll check in periodically to confront or reprint your lies and bigoted nature until you summon enough courage to confront them yourself.
But don’t fret Stoop. Even spineless worms like yourself have a purpose in life.
Bait.
bdaman:
Understood it’s just nice to see that a defense need not be an irrational knee-jerk kind like the one offered by 30%’er. There’s lots to say in favor of tempered Christianity, it’s just that 30%’er hasn’t said any of it.
Byron:
14 days. I’ll take the under.
Mespo:
the over under isnt on posting, it is on when 30%er is taken away by the guys in white coats.
Mespo I wanted to clarify my position. I appreciate immensely 30%er defending the gospels. God has worked for me. But at the same time I can not defend irrational behavior. I think, as Mike S has pointed out, 30%er not only tows the line, he anchors it and I must agree.
30%er I have just stood behind you in your defense on the gospels, however the way in which you do it, led me to the two questions I had for you.
One, are you bipolar, and two, do you have long conversations in the mirror? I am serious about those questions!!!!
“Should you two get together and share body fluids or something and produce something similar to a spine, let me know.”
************
We shall know they are Christians by their love. Here it comes … LOL!
That it?
No more cheap shots LEO?
Ok, well thanks for confirming your intentions.
As much as I’d like to trade insults with you two low lifes all night I really do have better things to do. (go figure)
Should you two get together and share body fluids or something and produce something similar to a spine, let me know.
I’ll be happy to watch you two siblings become men and own up to your bigotry. And of course for mespo, owning up to your lack of integrity would be a huge step for you.
But for now you two Bob’s just need to remember ….baby steps.
Except the light they left on would have likely been red.
No Leo, the place you describe is more likely a description of where you were conceived.
30%r wrote:
“Just think of me like Motel 6.
We’ll leave the light on for you.”
__________________________________
Your silly beliefs are more in line with an even lower hostelry located throughout the bible belt states—The Dew Drop Inn—‘we saves ya money and your soul at one low price whilst garanteein’ ya ‘see the light’ a’fore noon checkout time…
The “overs” have it paying 3 for 2. Re-up your bets please. Table closes at midnight!