Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Hey! I'm a "barbarian". Use a better term... Like "Psycho-islamist nutjobs".

You insult Attila, Genghis, and Charlemagne when you misuse "barbarian".

Don't think for a minute that this type of 7th century justice can't come here either. CAIR and their Democrat enablers in D.C. spend every waking moment pushing Sharia law into every orifice of our lives.

Still not convinced?. Think back ten years ago and try to imagine the same bastards that killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11 building a victory mosque in NYC.

It's coming.

OakRidgeStars wrote:Don't think for a minute that this type of 7th century justice can't come here either. CAIR and their Democrat enablers in D.C. spend every waking moment pushing Sharia law into every orifice of our lives.

And the various Christian groups that want us to be a "Biblical" society aren't pushing for 1st century justice? Plenty of groups and their Republican enablers working hard here to make the Bible the law of the land. Leviticus and Deuteronomy have some real trivial offenses that merit death. Hope you like being immobile on the Sabbath from sunrise to sundown.


Personally I'm cool with stoning as a method of execution, its just the hypocrisy that when the Muslims do it its barbaric, but if the Christian fundamentalists had their way it'd be...well....koshers not a good word...itd be okay.

Still not convinced?. Think back ten years ago and try to imagine the same bastards that killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11 building a victory mosque in NYC.

It never was a mosque. Not getting built anyway, last I head they're broke.

SHMIV wrote:No, no, Kreutz. While I don't doubt that there are a few fringe groups of Old Testament Christians that would gladly stone the adulteress, such activities do run contrary to the New Testament. Remember, in John 8, Jesus did save an adulteress from being stoned. He said something along the lines of "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

Its probably the best admonition against hypocrisy, how could I forget?

Love and forgiveness are at the core of Christianity. The majority of us Christians who would like to see a return to a Biblical foundation would not be inclined to stone loose women.

No disagreement, but the more, uhhhh...."eager" fundamentalist Christians draw heavily from the OT for social policy. The Gospels are ironically silent on much of the "hot button" issues for most socially conservative American Christians (never once mentions abortion or homosexuality, and only the Pauline letters mention the latter in passing).

As to stoning as a method of execution, for any crime... There are a few who pop into my mind as ones deserving of it, but that's the secular side of me. I prefer hanging. It's typically a swift (and, therefore merciful) death, and it's cost effective.

You're missing the point of stoning. its a community affair! Everyone gets to throw a rock! It meets a need for shared human vengeance and moral superiority.

I imagine that you will want to ask me how I can support executions with a heart of Christian love and forgiveness. The answer is that my love for my law-abiding neighbors far out-weighs my love for unrepentant, murderous, raping felons.

Wouldnt dream of asking it. None of my business.

EDIT: Do not take my posts as defense of Islam, which, while I am open minded enough to know most of them are peaceable enough, it is a religion I am hostile to given its historical tendencies to violence and fanaticism. Conversely I am grateful for their stewardship over the classical Greek texts while Europe was in the Dark ages.

Merely pointing out stateside American fundamentalist Christians have more in common with Wahhabi then they realize.

SHMIV wrote:Oh, no... I didn't have an impression that you were defending Islam, Kreutz. I just didn't want you to think that mainstream Christians were the type to be inclined to storm the local brothel armed with river rock, bomb the abortion clinics, or drag the gays behind our trucks.

Naw, thats why I put "fundamentalist" in there. Christian societies are more open minded than Muslim ones, which is why it amuses me to no end to see western Liberals bend over backward defending Islam, societies where their blathering about free thought would not end well for them.

Even the most Christian nation on earth (Vatican City) was only slightly oppressive in requiring women cover their bare shoulders, which IIRC was it in terms of having to conform to their ways.

No infidels were killed on sight, as I would have been had I visited Mecca.

Islam is hunky dory in their own lands, not sure if anyone here follows European news much, but man do their true colors show over there and I favor keeping a damned close eye and firm thumb on them here.

However kruetz I am not sure what group you are talking about when you refer to fundamentalists that have much in common with the homicidal Islamists. Are you talking about the Mennonites and Amish--they are as conservative Christian as you get. Are your talking about southern baptists--they are usually referred to as fundamentalists. These three denominations while quite conservative in calling sin sin still do not call for the implementation of Old testament law. There is a very good theological reason they do not and will not--but that is another topic for another time.

The only "Christian" group I know of that has values anywhere near them is the Westboro church--and they are basically one large family following their racists grandparent. Their theology is nowhere near even the most basic Christianity.

I shall end with a paraphrase from Toby Ziegler in the series the west wing. "there is nothing wrong with a religion that says you must have a beard or dress in a certain way, it is when it becomes becomes a a crime against the state to not do so instead of an offense against your parents that we have a problem.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

mamabearCali wrote:However kruetz I am not sure what group you are talking about when you refer to fundamentalists...

people that either think Jesus looked like (or should look like) this:



And don't pretend they're just a tiny minority, because if they were they wouldn't get their quadrennial BJ in Iowa.

( I also like this but too large to post: http://donjobson.files.wordpress.com/20 ... jeezus.jpg)

Huh? The pic you presented have so many straw men in them (expected as they are cartoons) that it would take too long of a post to deal with it. Primarily they seem to mock social conservatives.

So, in your opinion, (as evidenced by your reference to the social conservatives in Iowa as belonging to the same class of people as the fundamentalists I was trying to find) those who vote with their conscience/are socially conservative have a great deal in common with Islamo-facists? Really? If one believes that a person is a person at conception and cannot vote for a candidate who won't protect those tiny people from murder, they deserve to be put in the same box as a homicidal bomber. If a person believes that marriage has always been between a man and a woman and should remain thus, they get the same designation as those who murder women for the crime of being raped? Not a very rational argument to my way of thinking.

mamabearCali wrote:Huh? The pic you presented have so many straw men in them (expected as they are cartoons) that it would take too long of a post to deal with it. Primarily they seem to mock social conservatives.

So, in your opinion, (as evidenced by your reference to the social conservatives in Iowa as belonging to the same class of people as the fundamentalists I was trying to find) those who vote with their conscience/are socially conservative have a great deal in common with Islamo-facists? Really?

Take off your preconceived notions blinders and look at the two equally..

1) Both want a society with a system of laws based on a holy text.

2) Both have stringent gender roles.

3) Both have rigid (yet oft ignored but that's another subject) sexual mores

4) Both view international events as essentially divinely managed. If "we" crush them God loves America! If they repel the infidel invader, Allah has smiled upon them!

5) Both do have a historical tendency to settle theological debates with the sword

6) Both have a strong missionary aspect.

If one believes that a person is a person at conception and cannot vote for a candidate who won't protect those tiny people from murder, they deserve to be put in the same box as a homicidal bomber.

All conservative Muslims are homicidal bombers? Methinks you couldnt walk a foot in the Middle east without tripping over the body parts.

If a person believes that marriage has always been between a man and a woman and should remain thus, they get the same designation as those who murder women for the crime of being raped? Not a very rational argument to my way of thinking.

See #1. If the fundie Christians got their way, they'd be stoning them too. Can't pick and choose when interpreting a book literally (or we're not interpreting it literally are we?), gotta do it all.

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24


She was totally asking for it.

you can argue up the wall all you want, and I know you will because it must irk you, but you really do have alot in common socially and theologically with the "islamofacists".

Kreutz wrote:
Take off your preconceived notions blinders and look at the two equally..

1) Both want a society with a system of laws based on a holy text.

2) Both have stringent gender roles.

3) Both have rigid (yet oft ignored but that's another subject) sexual mores

4) Both view international events as essentially divinely managed. If "we" crush them God loves America! If they repel the infidel invader, Allah has smiled upon them!

5) Both do have a historical tendency to settle theological debates with the sword

6) Both have a strong missionary aspect.

Take off your anti-Christian blinders too then.

1. Laws are based on morality. Morality is usually based on a religion. Religion usually has a holy text. I am not sure where you want to go to avoid this. Even societies where the state tried to stamp out the predominant religion (Stalinist Russia)there was still a strange sort of "state worship" where the interests of the state were supreme. The difference is in the content of the text and how it is used. No matter how much you say otherwise I have heard of no major Christian denomination advocating a return to Old Testament Law. It would not even be appropriate as the Old Testament law was given to the Israelis at a specific time and place and was not given to us.

2. Gender roles are common throughout history. Every society has them. It is not a "religion" thing it is a human thing. The difference again is societal norms vs codified law.

3. Yes those terrible sexual morals, the things that protect us from so many ills. So because we say adultery is bad (destroys families and spreads disease), that sexual intimacy outside of marriage is most unwise (leaves new and pregnant moms with no support), and that God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve (the latter again tends to spread disease and has no next generational value) we are in the same boat as the idiots who want to stone/hang this woman. Saying something is bad is not the same as throwing stones at a person.

4. How do you know that international events do not have a God sized hand in them? If they do, He will have His own way and I need not interfere.

5. We are talking about modern times. How about we stick to say the last 200 years or so. You said that the voters in Iowa have alot in common with the Islamists in Iran. No bait and switch.

6. Well If I think you are doomed to a horrible eternity of suffering if you don't submit to the creator of the universe how much do I have to hate you to not try and tell you. However, if you want to see a difference look at the "missionary efforts" of say the last 100 years of each group and what they do to those who convert away from their religion.

Kreutz wrote:See #1. If the fundie Christians got their way, they'd be stoning them too. Can't pick and choose when interpreting a book literally (or we're not interpreting it literally are we?), gotta do it all.

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24


She was totally asking for it.

you can argue up the wall all you want, and I know you will because it must irk you, but you really do have alot in common socially and theologically with the "islamofacists".

Your hermeneutics are woefully lacking. You are quoting from Deuteronomy which was the law given to Israel at a specific time for a specific place. As we have no record of this standard actually being applied it is a non-issue. Additionally we have many instances of this standard not being applied--grace and forgiveness was extended instead even in this same time period. One verse does not make theology.

As for me being a conservative Christian and thus having alot in common with the Islamofacists. Well as you seem to be anti-religious and so were the Nazis and the communists in Russia and China, would it "irk" you if I said you had alot in common with homicidal murders that killed millions for no reason at all?

I bet it would

mamabearCali wrote:Take off your anti-Christian blinders too then.

Fascinating for simply pointing out similarities between you and "them" I am "anti-Christian". That really struck a nerve then I take it?

I have heard of no major Christian denomination advocating a return to Old Testament Law. It would not even be appropriate as the Old Testament law was given to the Israelis at a specific time and place and was not given to us.

One-Third of Americans Believe the Bible Is Literally True

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/onethi ... -true.aspx

"Belief in a literal Bible is strongly correlated with indicators of religion, including church attendance and identification with a Protestant or other non-Catholic Christian faith."


Do you really think I'm just sitting here making up factual observations?


No point in really responding to the rest. You and Mullah Shamalamadingdong should have coffee some time and talk about how much you guys really see eye to eye when it comes down to it.

Sorry Kreutz, Mamma Bear, and SHMIV are correct in the New Testament it's plainly stated that the laws of old are to be forgotten due to the new covenant in Christ's Holy Name.

Hence the phrase "turn the other cheek".

What I find fascinating is that I asked for an example of an even somewhat mainstream Christian fundamentalist group that has much in common with Iranian Islam. So far you have so far given me three political cartoons meant to insult social conservatives, an obscure verse from Deuteronomy, and bunch of bait and switch. But so far no doctrine from any mainline denomination that is anywhere near the insanity that reigns there.



Just because I believe that something is literal in the bible does not mean that it is applicable or even appropriate for today. Your hermuentics is again lacking.

As far as touching a nerve--I was merely trying to point to you that it is not polite to compare whole groups of people to murderous barbarians. Especially with as little evidence as you have presented.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]