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.
Ok, maybe way down the road lol.
Anyway I think we’ve taken this one as far as we can, don’t you?
Jesus wasn’t endorsing stoning. I think we’re straight on that now.
Jesus did not teach a cruel, tyrannical gospel but one that contrasted the early Law of Moses. I think we’re straight on that as your earlier comment to that effect made clear.
So that pretty much wraps it up.
We started off wrong. We left off a little steam. Some here still harbor ill will, that’s obvious but I think as far as you and I go we’re good. I appreciate your sincere comments tonight and your willingness to discuss it rationally. I think perhaps we could become friends down the road.
As for your comment on how hard I “researched”, you’re joking here right?
I’ve been reading the bible for over half a century. I know the 4 Gospels intimately and no research other than cutting and pasting a passage of scripture I’ve probably read somewhere in the neighborhood of a 1000 times.
I read Farrar’s Life of Christ back in 1971 if that makes it any clearer.
“Here we disagree. Would you have really researched and argued so passionately if your sensibilities weren’t offended?” -Mespo
Here you err again.
My sensibilities were not offended. I was responding to incorrect information.
I never bring those things which I hold sacred into a discussion with strangers on the internet.
If you’ll pardon the expression it is not my practice to “cast my pearls before the swine”. I just would not discuss such personal matters with people who do not respect the sacred beliefs of others. Instead I seek to correct misinformation, like your misrepresentation of a famous passage in the New Testament to suggest Christ was endorsing that errant children be stoned.
Personal faith is not an item for discussion in this sort of venue. Its just not something I would ever do. Nor should you.
“The point was that both Jesus and Pharisees should have been running, not merely straying, from that obvious barbarism.” Mespo
Ok but that was not the arguments of yours I was responding to.
You said Jesus wanted this done in your very first comment and persisted in that definition throughout. You said he didn’t like the kids or something like that, remember? I can repost it if you need. I’m just saying that’s not the point I ever argued.
Now to that point.
Jesus did run from that obvious barbarism, as we saw with the woman caught in adultery. He refuted it and showed them a new way.
And his gospel also ran from that with his “turn the other cheek”, “do unto others” and “I came to heal the sick, not the well”.
He made it clear his was a gospel of compassion which was my original statement that you attempted to refute and that’s what I argued against.
They were challenging him and his disciples for not observing the Law of Moses with regards to cleansing.
He responded by calling them hypocrites and pointing out that even though the Law of Moses calls for stoning for not honoring ones parents the Pharisee’s practiced Corban.
The passage is a famous one and its meaning is not obscure.
What I am saying is a commonly referenced by scholars across the board.
In fact I am confident that you will find you are unable to produce one single solitary scholar who claims Jesus was calling for stoning under Mosaic law in that passage.
It is just completely incorrect.
The point was that both Jesus and Pharisees should have been running, not merely straying, from that obvious barbarism.
“My point was simply that Jesus,like you, was painted into the position of defending the indefensible since any rational” -Mespo
I understand that’s your point but its wrong.
Jesus was not painted into any corner, he was the one directing the discourse and steering the Pharisees where he wanted to go.
In fact it was his disdain for the traditions spawned from the Law of Moses that brought the Pharisee’s to him that morning.
See Jesus was caught not observing the Law of Moses.
And he a Rabbi.
He and his disciples were not observing the Mosaic cleansing laws and thus the Pharisees hoped to trip him up. He in turn tripped them up by pointing out that even though the Law of Moses called for stoning for failure to honor ones parents, they practiced Corban.
So we see Jesus was not selling the Law of Moses. He was defying it at the time of this event and defending his defiance by pointing out how far the Pharisees had strayed themselves from the Mosaic law.
“Anyway I think its important to not mock that which a person holds dear.”
*************
Here we disagree. Would you have really researched and argued so passionately if your sensibilities weren’t offended? Did you not feel some duty to your position to raise your game when it was pointedly attacked? Wasn’t the debate more engaging when the antagonists were at the top of their game? It may be less than civil, but was it not, conversely, more enlightening? It’s a technique as old as Socrates, and what we lawyers cut our teeth on. Sorry, but like the Scorpion said to the Frog: “It’s my nature.”
“To those of you who would call me closed-minded about religion and that I should accept 30%’er, I would say to you—go live with Sarah Palin, attend her church, break bread with her witchdoctor, and then I will at least give %er the time of day.
Therefore Mespo, 30%’er is all yours because I spent 20 years of my young life living such foolish imprudence and I cannot bear to read his nonsensicalness’ again.
S.J. Gould paraphrased, “Religion is about the Rock of Ages while geology (science) is about the Ages of Rocks.’” LEO
See? This is a prime example of the sort of what can only be called prejudice that I and millions like me face in liberal crowds today. This is what I’m talking about.
Likening me to Sarah PALIN?
I mean come on.
Its the far reaching character assaults like this by individuals professing to be scholarly but who’s arguments are based on broad generalizations and rampant prejudice against an entire group of people over the actions of some.
“Of course Jesus wasn’t calling for the stoning of wayward children so I’m still I guess a little confused as to why you tried to make that point, particularly given your editing of the scripture to make it appear thus.”
****************
My point was simply that Jesus,like you, was painted into the position of defending the indefensible since any rational, compassionate person knows that Moses’ law was barbaric. He did alter the law as much by actions with the woman “taken in adultery.” John 8:1-11 (To me the most important scene in the New Testament: “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”).
There Jesus takes the Mosaic bull by the horns and expressly violates the law in an episode of profound compassion for a societal pariah. I find this incredibly human, and remarkable.
By the way, ideas are never free from attack, or as I like to say, intellectual challenge. Like fire on metal the process proves them, in the sense of assaying their quality. I learned that from some rather feisty dons in Cambridge, and while their lessons left me smarting, they also left me smarter.
Well never mind. We don’t need to drag that out if you don’t want to. Besides I’d like to address this comment.
“IMHO where Christians run into trouble is not in their insistence on the compassion of their savior but on their insistence on his divinity — a concept that was not accepted by many of the early followers of the religion. I find nothing in what he said or did incompatible with an Iron Age man subscribing to an enlightened, if not unique, world view. For that he should be celebrated, but not worshiped by sacrificing our critical thinking skills to his memory. “- Mespo
First lets be clear. I made no attempts to profess or sell anyone on his divinity. All of my arguments had to do with historical and biblical accuracy.
Secondly its important to point out that determining his divinity is a personal matter that falls under the individuals spiritual boundaries. It is not something open to interpretation by scholarly minds in secular discussion. It is a sacred matter to the believer thus to demean or diminish it is callous at best. I’ve learned to respect all faiths with regards to the sacred nature of an individuals relationship with their God and faith.
So I think that’s a sentiment I felt coming from you in your first comments that also put me on the defensive. After all its one thing to discuss the details of a religion, scripture, etc. And it is one thing to criticize blatant religious hypocrisy, such as using Christ to sell war, or hatred of a specific people. Which is why I so strongly defend against such distortions when the neoconservative Christians like Robertson go on the offensive with their hate speech in the name of Christ.
Anyway I think its important to not mock that which a person holds dear. In liberal blogs throughout the web Christians are likened to children believing in Santa Claus. In fact they often say just that, that we believe in Santa Claus. Or the “Purple People Monster” or whatever it is. Genies. Fairy Tales.
As if we were all insane fools.
And that’s a hard place to start a coherent conversation from.
Mike Spindell,
I must admit that I am too aligned with the likes of Dawkins to deal with the likes of ThirtyPercenter. Over the last decade-plus I read most—and purchased many—of the books regarding the creationism/atheism divide trying to be completely acceptable/tolerant of religious belief. However, George Bush/Palin et al. have convinced me that the religion I once considered on the balance as good for humankind, is now worthless and profoundly dangerous without any redeeming qualities whatsoever. As a once devout Southern Baptist for 20 years, I am ashamed to admit that I could have been so stupid as to ‘believe’ in such gibberish, to include an anthropomorphic god who watched my every move and to whom I prayed for guidance, even before cottonpickin’ football games!
Some of my favorite books that I own are by E.O Wilson, Stephen J. Gould—on the conciliatory, give religion a break side—to the works of Darwin in the Harvard Classics, most of Dawkins’ books, and those of great evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr.
To those of you who would call me closed-minded about religion and that I should accept 30%’er, I would say to you—go live with Sarah Palin, attend her church, break bread with her witchdoctor, and then I will at least give %er the time of day.
Therefore Mespo, 30%’er is all yours because I spent 20 years of my young life living such foolish imprudence and I cannot bear to read his nonsensicalness’ again.
S.J. Gould paraphrased, “Religion is about the Rock of Ages while geology (science) is about the Ages of Rocks.’
According to this statement, your old argument would not make sense.
“Jesus stands as an important historical figure whether he existed as Biblically depicted or not. That his legacy came to temper the barbarism of the early Hebrew faith certainly makes him a world-class humanitarian.” – Mespo
Agreed. But then I struggle to understand your arguments trying to paint him as a cold dictatorial tyrant preaching the outdated Law of Moses. I saw your point but it made no sense.
Of course Jesus wasn’t calling for the stoning of wayward children so I’m still I guess a little confused as to why you tried to make that point, particularly given your editing of the scripture to make it appear thus.
Can you see why I felt attacked now?
Also I’d like to address something you said in your response a while back about how either the bible is the inerrant word of God or it isn’t.
It isn’t.
It is important to remember at the time these books were written, there was no bible.
Period.
None of the authors were aware of the other authors of the New Testament. There was the Torah and other Jewish documents like the Mishnah Tractate for example, but there was no “New Testament”.
Thus it is impossible that the authors of any given book of the Canon were endorsing the rest of the New Testament.
It simply did not exist yet.
By the way I am no “hater’ of Christians. I simply expect them to rationally support their beliefs, just as I would any other person making extraordinary claims. Jesus stands as an important historical figure whether he existed as Biblically depicted or not. That his legacy came to temper the barbarism of the early Hebrew faith certainly makes him a world-class humanitarian. I understand his desire to change the primitive faith he saw from within and what better way to start than by saying he was there to fulfill the law rather than to soften it.
IMHO where Christians run into trouble is not in their insistence on the compassion of their savior but on their insistence on his divinity — a concept that was not accepted by many of the early followers of the religion. I find nothing in what he said or did incompatible with an Iron Age man subscribing to an enlightened, if not unique, world view. For that he should be celebrated, but not worshiped by sacrificing our critical thinking skills to his memory.
“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.” – Mespo
Its important to mention here that this is Paul, not Jesus talking. The Gospel of Christ is contained in only 4 books that we know of. Matthew, Mark, Luke (the Synoptic Gospels) and John.
Paul was a Jew but more he was a learned old school Jew and thus there were constant arguments between him and the other apostles on how to govern the church.
Obviously arguments between two people in a series of letters are not a basis for the Christian gospel but merely historical documents for us to peruse.
The Gospels, wherein is the only place that Jesus’ “good news” or Gospel is found.
Agreed. I just felt originally your questions seemed to be attacking as there were so many, and the sarcastic tone made me feel as if you wanted to attack me more than my position.
But its all good, like I said no hard feelings.
“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.”
***************
Please do not mistake pointed replies for personal animus. They quicken the pulse, invite passionate response, and make the debate of interest for the other readers. Strong minds make strong arguments.