Osama, you want a duel, you'll get one

[Slickster 0]

Here's the deal: if I win, Al Qaeda is disbanded-forever. If you win, then you can set the head of a Knight Templar on a pike outside your tent, and you can claim that you slew the chief of all Crusaders in the United States.

Is it just me, or is that a really lame stip on the Knight's end? I assume that Osama doesn't see some guy who says he's a Knight Templar as "the chief of all crusaders in the US"...that has to be Bush.

 

Plus, even if Osama lost, Al Qaeda would break up and then pretend to join the Knights only to turn on them in a shocking swerve, reforming as Al Qaeda 2: Electric Boogaloo.

What else can he put up against the billions of dollars that Osama and his associates have more than his own life?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Seems like almost anyone in fit shape with even a small knowledge of fighting could take down Osama in a one-on-one fight. He's sickly and thin. Saddam, on the other hand, is a different story. He WAS a hired killer.

Having watched the President throw out the first pitch enough times, I'm pretty sure he could take out Osama with a hand grenade and a clear view. I'd have to forever let his "Bring it on" stuff slide if he did that personally, though.

 

I challenge you to meet me with scimitar or sword, to be pitted against myself and a holy sword consecrated to our Order-a sword that was forged to destroy evil.

 

Isn't that kind of unfair? It's like saying that Luke gets the Darth Maul lightsaber and Vader gets a pointy stick, No Force Allowed.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

So there you are, both sides are not innocent. Too bad high schools and universities only present one side--bad, intolerant Christians against the noble Muslims. That was my experience in college.

But at the end of the day when all the smoke is cleared, it STILL all just means "my God's cock is bigger than your God's cock." Who cares who's lame view is represented when all the views are lame? It doesn't make the conflict any less pointless.

 

These historical jihads are the largest example of much ado about nothing being taken seriously that I've ever seen, and the sad thing is that is has some very real ramification. People might as well have killed each other mercilessly over whether the glass of water is half-empty of half-full.

[Guest JMA]

Having watched the President throw out the first pitch enough times, I'm pretty sure he could take out Osama with a hand grenade and a clear view. I'd have to forever let his "Bring it on" stuff slide if he did that personally, though.

No doubt. Bush could take out Osama with one punch (especially now). Personally, I'd like to see 80's Reagan vs. 80's Saddam in a no weapons, bare fisted brawl to the death. SMELL THE RATINGS~!

[Guest jpclemmons]

Having watched the President throw out the first pitch enough times, I'm pretty sure he could take out Osama with a hand grenade and a clear view. I'd have to forever let his "Bring it on" stuff slide if he did that personally, though.

No doubt. Bush could take out Osama with one punch (especially now). Personally, I'd like to see 80's Reagan vs. 80's Saddam in a no weapons, bare fisted brawl to the death. SMELL THE RATINGS~!

put it on PPV.

[Guest wrestlingbs]

In related news, my God's cock is bigger than your God's cock.

And yet, is it possible for God to have such a big cock that not even he himself could lift it?

 

Whoa...

[Guest SP-1]

These historical jihads are the largest example of much ado about nothing being taken seriously that I've ever seen, and the sad thing is that is has some very real ramification. People might as well have killed each other mercilessly over whether the glass of water is half-empty of half-full.

In your opinion. Which you are more than entitled to. The supernatural experiences that those who fought based their decisions on were all too real to them.

[Firestarter 0]

Oh, for Christ's sake. Must we go through this shit again?

 

Y'know, when I said I was wondering where you were, I didn't really mean it.

[Swift Terror 0]

Back to this James R. Reese fellow--has anyone attempted to find out if there is such a thing as a "Grand Prior of the U.S."? I've tried searching and came up with nothing other than the Pakistan Christian Post article. I did find a reputable web site on the Templars and sent off an email to them. I'm sure they would love to interview this guy.

 

I know there are Masons who claim an ancient tie to the Templars, but I've never heard of a Mason actually claiming to be a Templar, let alone a "Grand Prior."

[Firestarter 0]

Got the same results as you when I tried to research it, ST. Didn't write to the OSMTH-SMOTJ people if that's whom you're referring to, but let us know if they reply.

[Swift Terror 0]

I found two organizations, both claiming to be "The" official Templar governing body. One, SMOTJ, has no ties to the Masons. The other, the "The Grand Encampment of Knights Templar of the United States of America " is indeed affiliated with the Masons. Neither web site has Reese's name anywhere (the SMOTJ site has not been updating since 2001!). Looks as if the Templars have fallen on hard times if they can't update their site.

 

Still waiting for the email reply... (not holding breath)

[chaosrage 0]

The "thou shall not kill" commandmant is the English translation, which is a very long time removed from the original. It is actually the idea of "Thou shall not commit Murder." A devoted Jew or Christian is perfectly within his rights--and not commiting sin--to use lethal force to defend himself/herself if attacked by someone wishing to kill them, or in time of war.

The hebrew word ratsach translates to kill, not murder. Includes killing in self defense, murder, and accidental killing.

[Swift Terror 0]

The hebrew word ratsach translates to kill, not murder. Includes killing in self defense, murder, and accidental killing.

 

If that is true, then a devoted Jew or Christian who kills someone in self-defense or by pure accident is committing sin. The Christian will end up in Hell if he/she dies before they can ask for forgiveness/confess.

 

"Thou shall not Accidentally Kill"? That doesn't compute.

[Guest MD2020]

I found two organizations, both claiming to be "The" official Templar governing body. One, SMOTJ, has no ties to the Masons. The other, the "The Grand Encampment of Knights Templar of the United States of America " is indeed affiliated with the Masons. Neither web site has Reese's name anywhere (the SMOTJ site has not been updating since 2001!). Looks as if the Templars have fallen on hard times if they can't update their site.

 

Still waiting for the email reply... (not holding breath)

Everyone knows that the Knights Templar are busy battling underground forces that would love to start a new order, enslaving us all.

 

I mean, Deus Ex explained it pretty clearly...

 

Don't trust FEMA. They're not on our side.

[Guest SP-1]

The "thou shall not kill" commandmant is the English translation, which is a very long time removed from the original. It is actually the idea of "Thou shall not commit Murder." A devoted Jew or Christian is perfectly within his rights--and not commiting sin--to use lethal force to defend himself/herself if attacked by someone wishing to kill them, or in time of war.

The hebrew word ratsach translates to kill, not murder. Includes killing in self defense, murder, and accidental killing.

Interesting. I will have to check my notes and ask him again, but I seem to plainly remember my Old Testament professor (who has a doctorate in Old Testament Studies and studied at Hebrew Union) explaining that it didn't apply in war-time or self-defense.

[Justice 0]

The "thou shall not kill" commandmant is the English translation, which is a very long time removed from the original. It is actually the idea of "Thou shall not commit Murder." A devoted Jew or Christian is perfectly within his rights--and not commiting sin--to use lethal force to defend himself/herself if attacked by someone wishing to kill them, or in time of war.

The hebrew word ratsach translates to kill, not murder. Includes killing in self defense, murder, and accidental killing.

Link

 

"Rasah did not cover the subject of killing in war or capital punishment, which were done only at the command of God; thus, they were not in the same category as murder."

[Swift Terror 0]

but I seem to plainly remember my Old Testament professor (who has a doctorate in Old Testament Studies and studied at Hebrew Union) explaining that it didn't apply in war-time or self-defense.

 

 

Is that the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati?--I live close to that fine institution. Perhaps I could convince one of the scholars there to get on this board and...ah, never mind.

 

Thanks for the link, Powerplay.

[chaosrage 0]

Link

 

"Rasah did not cover the subject of killing in war or capital punishment, which were done only at the command of God; thus, they were not in the same category as murder."

But from the same site..

 

link

 

Ratsach (root word of Rasah)

raw-tsakh' Verb

 

Definition

to murder, slay, kill

 

1. premeditated

2. accidental

3. as avenger

[Justice 0]

I was only covering war, which was what was originally in question, so the point you make is moot.

 

Edit: Found another quote from the same site.

 

Some of these commands deserve further comment. As several modern versions indicate, the King James Version's "Thou shalt not kill" is too broad to convey the sense of the Hebrew of the sixth command. The word used is harag [g;r'h], which does not refer to killing in general, but to the premeditated murder of one person by another. Thus, it is not proper to build a case against war or capital punishment upon the basis of this verse. These activities may indeed be condemned on biblical grounds, but this verse should only be a tertiary part of the evidence.

[Guest SP-1]

Aye, same place. You could, of course, convince a professor from there who is likely a practicing Jew and not a Christian to come and argue against Christianity. But it's so much more fun if you simply do the research yourself.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

These historical jihads are the largest example of much ado about nothing being taken seriously that I've ever seen, and the sad thing is that is has some very real ramification. People might as well have killed each other mercilessly over whether the glass of water is half-empty of half-full.

In your opinion. Which you are more than entitled to. The supernatural experiences that those who fought based their decisions on were all too real to them.

Oh come on. I'll die and go to heaven/hell/purgatory/limbo/whatever. Sure. I might as well say I awaken from The Matrix.

[chaosrage 0]

I was only covering war, which was what was originally in question, so the point you make is moot.

Only if this war didn't happen to have any killing in it.

 

Edit: Found another quote from the same site.

 

Some of these commands deserve further comment. As several modern versions indicate, the King James Version's "Thou shalt not kill" is too broad to convey the sense of the Hebrew of the sixth command. The word used is harag [g;r'h], which does not refer to killing in general, but to the premeditated murder of one person by another. Thus, it is not proper to build a case against war or capital punishment upon the basis of this verse. These activities may indeed be condemned on biblical grounds, but this verse should only be a tertiary part of the evidence.

 

It's ratsach not Harag, like the same site said in your last quote, which is too general to mean only murder. It means kill. In Leviticus 24:17, the commandment is repeated with the word nakah meaning kill, "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death." And in Exodus 21:12 with Nakah again, "He that smiteth a man so that he die, shall surely be put to death." The commandment translates to kill, not murder. Sorry you don't like it, but there it is.

[chaosrage 0]

Aye, same place.  You could, of course, convince a professor from there who is likely a practicing Jew and not a Christian to come and argue against Christianity.  But it's so much more fun if you simply do the research yourself.

at SP talking about research...

 

Did you ever finish looking up Evolution?

[Justice 0]

I was only covering war, which was what was originally in question, so the point you make is moot.

Only if this war didn't happen to have any killing in it.

 

Edit: Found another quote from the same site.

 

Some of these commands deserve further comment. As several modern versions indicate, the King James Version's "Thou shalt not kill" is too broad to convey the sense of the Hebrew of the sixth command. The word used is harag [g;r'h], which does not refer to killing in general, but to the premeditated murder of one person by another. Thus, it is not proper to build a case against war or capital punishment upon the basis of this verse. These activities may indeed be condemned on biblical grounds, but this verse should only be a tertiary part of the evidence.

 

It's ratsach not Harag, like the same site said in your last quote, which is too general to mean only murder. It means kill. In Leviticus 24:17, the commandment is repeated with the word nakah meaning kill, "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death." And in Exodus 21:12 with Nakah again, "He that smiteth a man so that he die, shall surely be put to death." The commandment translates to kill, not murder. Sorry you don't like it, but there it is.

But the thing is, it doesn't. The New American Standard Bible says "Thou Shalt Not Murder" specifically.

 

Link to New American Standard Bible

 

And it even seems that they interpretted it similar to premeditated murder anyways. Another quote.

 

Discernment in Homicide Cases. The death penalty was posed for one who killed with premeditation, but not for accidental manslaughter (Exod 21:12-13; Lev 24:17; Deut 27:24). In fact, premeditated murder did not require a trial (Exod 21:14; Num 35:19; Deut 19:11-13). Thus, the Old Testament saw a fundamental difference between the two types of homicide (Deut 19:1-13; Joshua 20:1-7), providing two levels of meaning for rasah [j;x'r].

[Guest SP-1]

Using the NASb won't help much. While it's an accurate word-for-word translation, you'd need to dig into the Hebrew.

 

By the way, chaos, your sarcasm will get you nowhere. Simply because I haven't come back to that discussion with a rebuttal doesn't mean I haven't been working on it. If YOU want to make half-assed attempts in your discussions, feel free, but I'll operate on my time-table and attempt to discuss it right.

[chaosrage 0]

By the way, chaos, your sarcasm will get you nowhere. Simply because I haven't come back to that discussion with a rebuttal doesn't mean I haven't been working on it. If YOU want to make half-assed attempts in your discussions, feel free, but I'll operate on my time-table and attempt to discuss it right.

That wasn't sarcasm, I was only messing with you. I just found the idea of someone not believing in evolution and talking about research kind of funny. That's all. I don't care when you respond, or even if you do. It's not a big deal. Working on it? You make it sound like it's a school assignment.

[Firestarter 0]

On a semi-related note, my father-in-law (who's a Baptist minister, natch) recently gave me and my wife an eleven-volume set of books entitled Messages and Papers of the Presidents, published in 1909 by the Bureau of National Literature and Art in accordance with an act of Congress. It covers over a century, from 1789 to 1908 - all the "annual, special, and veto messages, proclamations, and inaugural addresses" of the Presidents from George Washington to Theodore Roosevelt, including William Howard Taft's inaugural address, and countless other documents of significance to our country. I was, of course, absolutely delighted, and I've spent at least a dozen hours with various volumes already.

Unfortunately, he also snuck into the same box The Christian History of the American Revolution and The Christian History of the Constitution of the United States of America. They burned my hands when I touched them by accident, and I've had to lock them away in a dank cupboard for now - the sight of the covers makes me feel ill. You want 'em, SP?

[Guest SP-1]

nah. We both know that politics isn't generally my area.