Nuts, or Revolutionaries

[John McAdams]

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/30/were_the_tsarnaevs_nuts_or_revolutionaries/

.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Bud]

On Apr 30, 5:40 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> http://www.salon.com/2013/04/30/were_the_tsarnaevs_nuts_or_revolution...

>
> .John
> --
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

That was interesting, but I prefer to pigeonhole these whackjobs as
"whackjobs". I think their uncle summed it up nicely when he said that
they couldn`t fit in and hated everyone else because they could. He
also said they weren`t fit to walk the Earth.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <51803a0d....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>
>
>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/30/were_the_tsarnaevs_nuts_or_revolutionaries/
>
>.John

Interesting take on things and I mostly agree with him. We should never
underestimate these terrorist by writing them off as "whack jobs".

Regardless of how noble they think their reasons a terrorist is a cowardly
and murderous evil person. They should be dealt with accordingly.

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

That's certainly easier than admitting that they were part of a
terrorist group. That's the standard way that WC defenders deny ANY
conspiracy. Oh, just some lone nut.

[Bud]

On May 1, 12:19 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 4/30/2013 10:30 PM, Bud wrote:
>
> > On Apr 30, 5:40 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> >>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/30/were_the_tsarnaevs_nuts_or_revolution...
>
> >> .John
> >> --
> >> The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> >    That was interesting, but I prefer to pigeonhole these whackjobs as
> > "whackjobs". I think their uncle summed it up nicely when he said that
> > they couldn`t fit in and hated everyone else because they could. He
> > also said they weren`t fit to walk the Earth.
>
> That's certainly easier than admitting that they were part of a
> terrorist group.

By all means show they were acting as the agents of some group.

> That's the standard way that WC defenders deny ANY
> conspiracy. Oh, just some lone nut.

Of course it was a conspiracy, there were two of them. The level of
sophistication shown doesn`t require others, so they shouldn`t be
assumed.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/1/2013 12:19 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> In article <51803a0d....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>>
>>
>> http://www.salon.com/2013/04/30/were_the_tsarnaevs_nuts_or_revolutionaries/
>>
>> .John
>
> Interesting take on things and I mostly agree with him. We should never
> underestimate these terrorist by writing them off as "whack jobs".
>

That's what we did with Osama bin Laden when he declared war on us. Ever
see the movie The Mouse That Roared?

> Regardless of how noble they think their reasons a terrorist is a cowardly
> and murderous evil person. They should be dealt with accordingly.
>

That's not a nice way to talk about George Bush.

> Bill Clarke
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

The Soviets suspect a link to militants who met at a mosque.

MAKHACHKALA, Russia � Russian agents placed the elder Boston bombing
suspect under surveillance during a six-month visit to southern Russia
last year, then scrambled to find him when he suddenly disappeared after
police killed a Canadian jihadist, a security official told The
Associated Press.

U.S. law enforcement officials have been trying to determine whether
Tamerlan Tsarnaev was indoctrinated or trained by militants during his
visit to Dagestan, a Caspian Sea province that has become the center of
a simmering Islamic insurgency.

The security official with the Anti-Extremism Center, a federal agency
under Russia's Interior Ministry, confirmed the Russians shared their
concerns. He told the AP that Russian agents were watching Tsarnaev, and
that they searched for him when he disappeared two days after the July
2012 death of the Canadian man, who had joined the Islamic insurgency in
the region. The official spoke only on condition of anonymity because he
was not authorized to speak to the news media.

Security officials suspected ties between Tsarnaev and the Canadian � an
ethnic Russian named William Plotnikov � according to the Novaya Gazeta
newspaper, which is known for its independence and investigative
reporting and cited an unnamed official with the Anti-Extremism Center,
which tracks militants. The newspaper said the men had social networking
ties that brought Tsarnaev to the attention of Russian security services
for the first time in late 2010.

It certainly wouldn't be surprising if the men had met. Both were
amateur boxers of roughly the same age whose families had moved from
Russia to North America when they were teenagers. In recent years, both
had turned to Islam and expressed radical beliefs. And both had traveled
to Dagestan, a republic of some 3 million people.

The AP could not independently confirm whether the two men had
communicated on social networks or crossed paths either in Dagestan or
in Toronto, where Plotnikov had lived with his parents and where
Tsarnaev had an aunt.

After Plotnikov was killed, Tsarnaev left suddenly for the U.S., not
waiting to pick up his new Russian passport � ostensibly one of his main
reasons for coming to Russia. The official said his sudden departure was
considered suspicious.

Plotnikov's father told the Canadian network CBCNews on Monday that his
son had broken off contact when he returned to Russia in 2010 and he had
no way of knowing whether his son knew Tsarnaev.

In an August interview with the Canadian newspaper National Post, Vitaly
Plotnikov said his son, who was 23 when he died, had converted to Islam
in 2009 and quickly became radicalized. But he said he fully understood
what his son was up to in Russia only when he received photographs and
videos after his death.

In one photo, a smiling William Plotnikov is shown posing in the woods,
an automatic rifle slung over his shoulder and a camouflage ammunition
belt around his waist. In the videos, which the National Post reporter
watched with the father, the younger Plotnikov talked openly of planning
to kill in the name of Allah.

Plotnikov had been detained in Dagestan in December 2010 on suspicion of
having ties to the militants and during his interrogation was forced to
hand over a list of social networking friends from the United States and
Canada who like him had once lived in Russia, Novaya Gazeta reported.

The newspaper said Tsarnaev's name was on that list, bringing him for
the first time to the attention of Russia's secret services.

Novaya Gazeta, which is part-owned by former Soviet President Mikhail
Gorbachev and wealthy businessman Alexander Lebedev, has regularly
criticized the Kremlin. One of its best known reporters, Anna
Politkovskaya, angered the Kremlin with her reporting from Chechnya, and
her 2006 murder in a Moscow elevator was widely presumed to have been in
connection with her journalistic work.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <5180a470$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

The terrorist I am familiar with belonged to the Vietnamese Communist
Party. Last time I looked they belonged to the LEFT.

Pol Pot? Another LEFTY.

The millions Stalin terrorized and murdered? The LEFT.

The Cultural Revolution with its terror and death? The LEFT.

Gee Marsh, looks like your side has caused more terror and death than you
will ever admit. Rather self righteous of you, don't you think? I have
found the left to be self righteous and intolerant to a fault.

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/1/2013 8:31 AM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 4/30/2013 5:40 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>
>> http://www.salon.com/2013/04/30/were_the_tsarnaevs_nuts_or_revolutionaries/
>>
>>
>> .John
>> --
>> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>
>
>
> The Soviets suspect a link to militants who met at a mosque.
>

> MAKHACHKALA, Russia ? Russian agents placed the elder Boston bombing

> suspect under surveillance during a six-month visit to southern Russia
> last year, then scrambled to find him when he suddenly disappeared after
> police killed a Canadian jihadist, a security official told The
> Associated Press.
>
> U.S. law enforcement officials have been trying to determine whether
> Tamerlan Tsarnaev was indoctrinated or trained by militants during his
> visit to Dagestan, a Caspian Sea province that has become the center of
> a simmering Islamic insurgency.
>
> The security official with the Anti-Extremism Center, a federal agency
> under Russia's Interior Ministry, confirmed the Russians shared their
> concerns. He told the AP that Russian agents were watching Tsarnaev, and
> that they searched for him when he disappeared two days after the July
> 2012 death of the Canadian man, who had joined the Islamic insurgency in
> the region. The official spoke only on condition of anonymity because he
> was not authorized to speak to the news media.
>

> Security officials suspected ties between Tsarnaev and the Canadian ? an
> ethnic Russian named William Plotnikov ? according to the Novaya Gazeta

> newspaper, which is known for its independence and investigative
> reporting and cited an unnamed official with the Anti-Extremism Center,
> which tracks militants. The newspaper said the men had social networking
> ties that brought Tsarnaev to the attention of Russian security services
> for the first time in late 2010.
>
> It certainly wouldn't be surprising if the men had met. Both were
> amateur boxers of roughly the same age whose families had moved from
> Russia to North America when they were teenagers. In recent years, both
> had turned to Islam and expressed radical beliefs. And both had traveled
> to Dagestan, a republic of some 3 million people.
>
> The AP could not independently confirm whether the two men had
> communicated on social networks or crossed paths either in Dagestan or
> in Toronto, where Plotnikov had lived with his parents and where
> Tsarnaev had an aunt.
>
> After Plotnikov was killed, Tsarnaev left suddenly for the U.S., not

> waiting to pick up his new Russian passport ? ostensibly one of his main

3 more arrests today. All college roommates or friends, destroying
evidence and lying to authorities. I think they should be expelled from
college. They are being held on immigration violations. It looks more and
more like the explosives used were ordinary fireworks. So for the
denialists who never want to admit any conspiracy lets just call this a
fraternity prank by some misguided college students. Just like the good
old days when we pledges would trash the fraternity house and set off
fireworks. Anyone ever see the movie Animal House?

[Anthony Marsh]

As always you argued with a double standard. When it is a group you want
to discriminate against you are quick to call it a conspiracy. But when we
point out that two weapons were used in Dealey Plaza from two different
directions then you WC defenders claim it could have just been a
coincidence, not proof of a conspiracy. I realize that you guys do not
like to talk about conspiracy, so that is why my first message was titled
"Coincidence or Conspiracy?" To give you guys a way out. I have even
constructed a scenario to allow you to call it just a typical Spring Break
fraternity prank.

[Research]

"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:51803a0d.2356859610@news.supernews.com...

Had someone shot and killed Hitler or chairman Mau or Sadamn. Would they
be murderers or heroes? If they had been caught, well they would have been
hung, at the least.

Had they got away with it they'd be heroes.

[John Fiorentino]

I don't think they're mature enough to be true revolutionaries, nor would
I simply say they were "nuts."

Right now, it isn't very clear what the motive was.

John F.

"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:51803a0d.2356859610@news.supernews.com...
>

[Robert Harris]

They're good kids just doin what their holy book tells em to do.

We should be thankful that the Christians don't follow the instructions
in their good book.





Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/1/2013 6:11 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> In article <5180a470$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>
>> On 5/1/2013 12:19 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <51803a0d....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.salon.com/2013/04/30/were_the_tsarnaevs_nuts_or_revolutionaries/
>>>>
>>>> .John
>>>
>>> Interesting take on things and I mostly agree with him. We should never
>>> underestimate these terrorist by writing them off as "whack jobs".
>>>
>>
>> That's what we did with Osama bin Laden when he declared war on us. Ever
>> see the movie The Mouse That Roared?
>>
>>> Regardless of how noble they think their reasons a terrorist is a cowardly
>>> and murderous evil person. They should be dealt with accordingly.
>>>
>>
>> That's not a nice way to talk about George Bush.
>
> The terrorist I am familiar with belonged to the Vietnamese Communist
> Party. Last time I looked they belonged to the LEFT.
>

Justify calling Pol Pot a terrorist. No need to be a terrorist when you
are the leader of the country. BTW, as always US intelligence supported
Pol Pot just as they groomed Ho Chi Minh.

> Pol Pot? Another LEFTY.
>
> The millions Stalin terrorized and murdered? The LEFT.
>
> The Cultural Revolution with its terror and death? The LEFT.
>

Geez, how about The Terror of the French Revolution? Was Genghis Khan a
lefty?

> Gee Marsh, looks like your side has caused more terror and death than you
> will ever admit. Rather self righteous of you, don't you think? I have
> found the left to be self righteous and intolerant to a fault.
>

Not my side. Adolf Hitler was not on our side.

> Bill Clarke
>
>

[Bill Clarke]

In article <5181497c$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

Boy howdy, that must have been very exciting, Marsh.

Bill Clarke

[Bud]

On May 2, 12:03 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 5/1/2013 8:24 AM, Bud wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 1, 12:19 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 4/30/2013 10:30 PM, Bud wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 30, 5:40 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> >>>>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/30/were_the_tsarnaevs_nuts_or_revolution...
>
> >>>> .John
> >>>> --
> >>>> The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> >>>     That was interesting, but I prefer to pigeonhole these whackjobs as
> >>> "whackjobs". I think their uncle summed it up nicely when he said that
> >>> they couldn`t fit in and hated everyone else because they could. He
> >>> also said they weren`t fit to walk the Earth.
>
> >> That's certainly easier than admitting that they were part of a
> >> terrorist group.
>
> >    By all means show they were acting as the agents of some group.
>
> >> That's the standard way that WC defenders deny ANY
> >> conspiracy. Oh, just some lone nut.
>
> >    Of course it was a conspiracy, there were two of them. The level of
> > sophistication shown doesn`t require others, so they shouldn`t be
> > assumed.
>
> As always you argued with a double standard.

As usual you are going to ignore what I said and erect strawmen.

> When it is a group you want
> to discriminate against you are quick to call it a conspiracy.

Now you say I am quick to call it a conspiracy. A day ago you were
saying that since I am a LNer I must deny conspiracy. What will be
your position tomorrow?

> But when we
> point out that two weapons were used in Dealey Plaza from two different
> directions then you WC defenders claim it could have just been a
> coincidence, not proof of a conspiracy.

If you could show this rather than just claim it you might have
something.

> I realize that you guys do not
> like to talk about conspiracy, so that is why my first message was titled
> "Coincidence or Conspiracy?" To give you guys a way out. I have even
> constructed a scenario to allow you to call it just a typical Spring Break
> fraternity prank.

Are you upset because you didn`t realize that since there were two
people involved it must be a conspiracy?

[John Fiorentino]

That's ludicrous Robert.


John F.



"Robert Harris" <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:J6ednZ8YJM2TUBzM...@earthlink.com...

[Anthony Marsh]

What? Animal House or the terrorist bombing that killed 3 people?

> Bill Clarke
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Oh, but they did and they do.
Ever hear of the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Salem Witch trials.

You might also consider some of the terrorist attacks and mass killing
by some cults, although I don't really consider them Christians.

>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/2/2013 12:14 AM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> I don't think they're mature enough to be true revolutionaries, nor
> would I simply say they were "nuts."
>
> Right now, it isn't very clear what the motive was.
>
> John F.
>

Right, so you think all revolutionaries are 21 and older.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <51828c4f$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

You and your frat-rat buddies trashing the frat house and set off
fireworks. Whew boy!

Bill Clarke

[Bill Clarke]

In article <5181d746$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>
>On 5/1/2013 6:11 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> In article <5180a470$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>>>
>>> On 5/1/2013 12:19 AM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>>>> In article <51803a0d....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/30/were_the_tsarnaevs_nuts_or_revolutionaries/
>>>>>
>>>>> .John
>>>>
>>>> Interesting take on things and I mostly agree with him. We should never
>>>> underestimate these terrorist by writing them off as "whack jobs".
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's what we did with Osama bin Laden when he declared war on us. Ever
>>> see the movie The Mouse That Roared?
>>>
>>>> Regardless of how noble they think their reasons a terrorist is a cowardly
>>>> and murderous evil person. They should be dealt with accordingly.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's not a nice way to talk about George Bush.
>>
>> The terrorist I am familiar with belonged to the Vietnamese Communist
>> Party. Last time I looked they belonged to the LEFT.
>>
>
>Justify calling Pol Pot a terrorist. No need to be a terrorist when you
>are the leader of the country.

So you are saying that when these terrorist become "leader of the country"
they no longer use terrorism to keep the population in check.

You continue to amaze me, Marsh.

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

I was not talking about my self. No matter what I say you turn it into
personal attack on me. If I say the Sun rises in the east, you'll say,
"Oh so you like to burn innocent little Japanese children."

[Bill Clarke]

In article <51830a70$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

You said, "WE". Do you know what "WE" means.

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

I am saying you are misusing words to push a political agenda.

[John Fiorentino]

Try making some lucid posts and stop putting your 2 cents in on every
thread on the board.

Perhaps then, you'll be taken seriously and viewed in a different light.

John F.





"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:51830a70$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[Anthony Marsh]

I know what WE the people means. Do you?
I defined a class.

[BT George]

On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 11:19:47 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote: > John
McAdams wrote: > > >
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/30/were_the_tsarnaevs_nuts_or_revolutionar

ies/ > > > > > > .John > > > -- > > > The Kennedy
Assassination Home Page > > > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm >
> > > > > > They're good kids just doin what their holy book
tells em to do. > > > > We should be thankful that the Christians
don't follow the instructions > > in their good book. > > >

Yes. We wouldn't anybody following what the Christian Holy Book says in
the New Testament/Covenant. (You know the covenant that CHRISTIANS
actually believe is 100% in force today.) Why all the world's wars and
outrages were caused by people actually following the "hateful"
"intolerant" speech incited in that covenant such as "Love your enemies
and pray for those who spitefully use you." (Matt. 5:44) Or such other
exhortation as: To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if
he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap
burning coals on his head.” (Rom. 12:20) (...Oh, better scratch
that...I'm sure Robert Harris---ignoring vs. 21---will think that
OBEDIENCE to that passage means that Christians actually are being incited
in the NT to burn their enemies at the stake.)

BOTTOM LINE: I challenge Robert Harris or anyone else to find ONE verse
or passage in FULL CONTEXT in the NT that incites Christians to hate or do
any violence to others, even those who hate them. BE VERY CLEAR. I am
not challenging you or anyone else to find cases where Christians (alleged
Christians in many cases) have actually done evil things in DIRECT
contradiction to New Testament/Covenant teaching. I am challenging you to
find where their Holy Book incites New Testament/Covenant Christians to
wrongdoing.

I eagerly await the in-context quotations for Christian violence and
hatred.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris

[everet...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, April 30, 2013 2:40:03 PM UTC-7, John McAdams wrote:
> http://www.salon.com/2013/04/30/were_the_tsarnaevs_nuts_or_revolutionaries/
>
>
>

> .John
>
> --
>
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

I imagine it's just a matter of time before some Hollywood agent
approaches one of the three with a lucrative book/movie deal.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <5183e2df$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

But you didn't say WE the people. You said "WE". As in you and your
frat-rat buddies.

Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/3/2013 8:44 PM, BT George wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 11:19:47 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote: > John
> McAdams wrote: > > >

> http://www.salon.com/2013/04/30/were_the_tsarnaevs_nuts_or_revolutionar=

> ies/ > > > > > > .John > > > -- > > > The Kennedy
> Assassination Home Page > > > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm >
>>>> > > > They're good kids just doin what their holy book
> tells em to do. > > > > We should be thankful that the Christians

> don't follow the instructions=20 > > in their good book. > > >

>
> Yes. We wouldn't anybody following what the Christian Holy Book says in
> the New Testament/Covenant. (You know the covenant that CHRISTIANS
> actually believe is 100% in force today.) Why all the world's wars and
> outrages were caused by people actually following the "hateful"
> "intolerant" speech incited in that covenant such as "Love your enemies
> and pray for those who spitefully use you." (Matt. 5:44) Or such other
> exhortation as: To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if
> he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap
> burning coals on his head.” (Rom. 12:20) (...Oh, better scratch
> that...I'm sure Robert Harris---ignoring vs. 21---will think that
> OBEDIENCE to that passage means that Christians actually are being incited
> in the NT to burn their enemies at the stake.)
>
> BOTTOM LINE: I challenge Robert Harris or anyone else to find ONE verse
> or passage in FULL CONTEXT in the NT that incites Christians to hate or do
> any violence to others, even those who hate them. BE VERY CLEAR. I am
> not challenging you or anyone else to find cases where Christians (alleged
> Christians in many cases) have actually done evil things in DIRECT
> contradiction to New Testament/Covenant teaching. I am challenging you to
> find where their Holy Book incites New Testament/Covenant Christians to
> wrongdoing.
>

I see your point, but your challenge is not framed well. You won't find
a new testament verse which explicitly tells Christians to go out and
murder. Because many of those books were left out of the Bible and most
books of the New testament were written by Jews for Jews. Christianity
was not yet an official religion. Constantine first established
Christianity was a state religion after he won a major battle by seeing
a vision and praying to the Christian God.
The popes would always cite Old Testament versus to justify the
Crusades. Jesus said little which could be used to justify violence,
except when he said, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth;
I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man
against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a
daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be
the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me
is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is
not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow Me is
not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has
lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34–39 NASB)

He is even more explicit in Luke:

"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over
them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'" (Luke 19:27)

The problem is not that Jesus explicitly talked about violence.
The problem is that Christian leaders misused the Bible to endorse
violence. And political leaders use religion to justify violence.

[Anthony Marsh]

"We" defined the class. As opposed to "You."

> Bill Clarke
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/3/2013 7:48 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Try making some lucid posts and stop putting your 2 cents in on every
> thread on the board.
>
> Perhaps then, you'll be taken seriously and viewed in a different light.
>
> John F.
>
>

Did I ask for your permission?

[John Fiorentino]

It's a good thing you didn't.

John F.

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:5185...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[BT George]

Of course, in the above Jesus is not talking about the violence believers
would do to non-believers. Rather, His context is the division among
families and sometimes persecution of Christians that can often be
expected when one converts to Christianity or seriously begins to practice
Jesus teachings. This is simply another way of saying that, despite His
peaceful commands there will be opposition to His religion and the
prospective Christian is expected to "tighten up his/her chinstrap" and
not expect a walk in the park.

>
> He is even more explicit in Luke:
>
>
>
> "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over
>
> them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'" (Luke 19:27)
>
>

Yes. As I think you below post allows, Jesus is hereby speaking of Divine
judgement, not judgement at the hand of Christians. The Christian
position is that God, Who gives life, is always authorized to take it, but
has not in the New Testament conferred that right to Christians to take a
life unless it is in the course of law enforcement or duly authorized and
legitimate criminal justice.

>
> The problem is not that Jesus explicitly talked about violence.
>
> The problem is that Christian leaders misused the Bible to endorse
>
> violence. And political leaders use religion to justify violence.
>
>

Yes. I agree that Christian leaders (and some non-leaders) have MISUSED
Jesus' words for violence and misused Old Testament commandments to
justify acts that the New Testament/Covenant specifically enjoin
Christians against doing. My whole point, is simply that it is not correct
to say that the Scripitures that the majority of Christians today receive
nd believe to be canonical (i.e., a rule from God) and as binding on their
conscience can be reasonably and in context made to incite violence or
hatred.

The debate about whether certain "Scriptures" were "excluded" (or simply
never INCLUDED) is a long one and well off topic from my point here.
Suffice it to say that few Christians today, would seriously consider
using something from "The Gospel of Thomas" or The Gospel of Peter" (or
whatever "excluded" book one might have in mind) as a guidebook for their
actions.

Having said that, I fully appreciate your observations Tony. Even if we
differ somewhat in our understanding and beliefs on certain points your
analysis is fundamentally fair as to how certain passages have been
*misused* in the past to "justify" outrageous behavior that clearly are at
odds with how Christians are supposed to behave. While some today tend to
exaggerate these excesses or to tend to act like the Inquisitions happened
last year, the reality is that such actions were a black mark that is
hopefully never repeated. (I can guarantee they will not be repeated by
any Christians actually OBEYING what their canonical NT commands.)

[Ace Kefford]

On Tuesday, April 30, 2013 10:30:10 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> On Apr 30, 5:40 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>
> > http://www.salon.com/2013/04/30/were_the_tsarnaevs_nuts_or_revolution...
>
> >
>

> > .John
>
> > --
>

> > The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>
>
> That was interesting, but I prefer to pigeonhole these whackjobs as
>
> "whackjobs". I think their uncle summed it up nicely when he said that
>
> they couldn`t fit in and hated everyone else because they could. He
>
> also said they weren`t fit to walk the Earth.

The uncle put it best, "LOSERS!"