Jill, Derick and Israel- Part 16

[nst]

1 hour ago, barbecutie said:

Considering how confused everyone is about his comment on "radical jihadists" I'm going with Jill isn't preggos, and he's just terrible at arranging words into coherent sentences. 

EDIT: Upon reading the tweet, it does come across as that they are "trying" but again, Derrick is not the best with words.

don't forget when she was about to give birth - and he went on and on about the son had risen

so i tend to believe him if you read between his lines/lies 

derick is a grifter in the sense of he hides it to a degree and then shows it  at the last minute 

he is like DT that way

 

[Alicja]

9 hours ago, VelociRapture said:

Some Historians believe that Jesus comes across much more peaceful than he may have intended due to the great Diaspora of the Jewish people. You have to remember the historical and cultural context of when Jesus would have been alive - he was living under an oppressive Roman regime and he grew up in an area that was a hotspot for violent anti-Roman sentiments. He likely would have heard about travesties commited by the Empire and anti-Roman hate speech on a regular basis. Many people had tried raising rebellions against the Romans before and they all failed horribly. It's very likely that he may not have been as warlike as Muhammad was - but, again, you need to look at the historical and cultural contexts in which they lived. You can't judge a man who lived 2,000 years ago by modern standards (his followers are, of course, another matter.)

Here's an article you may find interesting (I did.) I'd be curious to get your opinion on it if you have time - if not no worries.

http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2014/04/30/the_myth_of_a_non-violent_jesus.html

I think a massive issue with both religious books is how open they can be to interpretation. You have people of both faiths pointing to the same passages and stating it clearly means X, while others see Y or Z or Q. And, as you said, radicals are oftentimes the most vocal about their beliefs - that's as true for Christians as it is for Muslims. 

just adding onto your comment to say that Mohammed was probably pretty violent/warlike because when Islam first came into fruition, Muslims were pretty severely persecuted. 

 

[foreign fundie]

10 hours ago, Alicja said:

just adding onto your comment to say that Mohammed was probably pretty violent/warlike because when Islam first came into fruition, Muslims were pretty severely persecuted. 

 

Having no succes early on in convincing the Meccans of his new revelations and being rejected by them may have made him turn to spreading his new religion through war.

However, Christians were severely persecuted from their very beginnings but nowhere in the Bible were they called to war. Jesus did not, nor did any of the apostles, who were nearly all violently killed in the early decades of Christianity. They taught the churches to bless their persecuters and love their enemies.

Christianity was in essence non-political as opposed to Islam, which was from the beginning about establishing a realm of power, religious, political and military. When later Christianity became caught up in political/ military power structures, it corrupted and it still does wherever this is the case.

Jesus preached a spiritual kingdom that would bring healing and transformation on earth, but that had no geographical boundries and no earthly ruler. In islam there is a clear geographical understanding of the house of Islam (those areas under islamic rule) and the house of war (those areas not yet under islamic rule), as well as a mission to make all of the latter areas part of the house of Islam. Jesus however kept insisting his kingdom was not of this world and avoided all connections and show downs with political leaders. 

One of the issues I have with Christian fundies, is the political ambition and the desire for power. They try to establish a Christian country. But biblically speaking there is no such thing. The kingdom Jesus preached can never be established by earthly power structures. It was always preached as a transformation from within, not from without.

Aiming to establish Christian laws in a geographical area, that type of thinking is much more Islamic than it is Christian. And for Islam it may work, since Islam has different goals. Islam means submission, and submission can be achieved through religious law. Christianity wants people to have a change of heart, which can and should never be forced. 

When Christians aim for submission, not just of themselves but of cities and nations, they will stray from their founder. Christian leadership should never be about power but about service. Like Jesus washed his diciples feet, and told them that the first would be last. 

Sorry for the rant. I do suffer from severe election allergies. I should go drink a cup of tea and enjoy the nice weather.

 

[foreign fundie]

21 hours ago, VelociRapture said:

 

Here's an article you may find interesting (I did.) I'd be curious to get your opinion on it if you have time - if not no worries.

http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2014/04/30/the_myth_of_a_non-violent_jesus.html

I think a massive issue with both religious books is how open they can be to interpretation. You have people of both faiths pointing to the same passages and stating it clearly means X, while others see Y or Z or Q. And, as you said, radicals are oftentimes the most vocal about their beliefs - that's as true for Christians as it is for Muslims. 

I'll read it through more carefully later! But after a quick scan it seems that they argue Jesus would not always reject any violence by anybody in any circumstance, which I think is correct.

In the Bible, violence is what governments may use to uphold justice, establish order and protect citizens. But Jesus did not come as a government leader. He proclaimed a kingdom of spiritual transformation, not based on earthly power. Under his kingdom principles, people were not to seek personal revenge. They were to overcome evil with good. 

The sermon on the mount is not a handbook for governments how to deal with those attacking them. It is a guidline for the followers of Jesus on how to live their lives as part of God's kingdom.

 

 

[VelociRapture]

1 hour ago, foreign fundie said:

I'll read it through more carefully later! But after a quick scan it seems that they argue Jesus would not always reject any violence by anybody in any circumstance, which I think is correct.

In the Bible, violence is what governments may use to uphold justice, establish order and protect citizens. But Jesus did not come as a government leader. He proclaimed a kingdom of spiritual transformation, not based on earthly power. Under his kingdom principles, people were not to seek personal revenge. They were to overcome evil with good. 

The sermon on the mount is not a handbook for governments how to deal with those attacking them. It is a guidline for the followers of Jesus on how to live their lives as part of God's kingdom.

 

 

That's what I thought about it too. I just found it interesting because so many people have this idea that Jesus was 100% about peace all the time. Given the cultural, historical, and political contexts of when he would have lived (if he lived at all) that would seem highly unlikely to me.

[foreign fundie]

48 minutes ago, VelociRapture said:

That's what I thought about it too. I just found it interesting because so many people have this idea that Jesus was 100% about peace all the time. Given the cultural, historical, and political contexts of when he would have lived (if he lived at all) that would seem highly unlikely to me.

My personal standpoint is this (though in real life the lines may be blurred). Violence should only be used to protect a vulnarable person/ group of people against the direct threat of an aggressor. It should not be used to control people, to further your own interest, to hurt others, prove yourself or to get what you want or to take revenge. I would also hesitate to use violence to protect myself, if there is another option of getting to safety. 

Mostly that means only law enforcement and armies have a 'right' to use controlled violence. And in exceptional situation normal people may have to do so to protect others. I can think of no situation in which terrorism could be acceptable however. 

So Christians may serve in the army, or protect others in emergencies, but are never to personally initiate violence and must rather suffer injustice than inflict it. Seeking justice for crimes is allowed, seeking personal revence is not.

The above is what I derive from the words of Jesus and the New Testament writings. If ever called to the test, I hope I will live by them. 

[Alicja]

Having no succes early on in convincing the Meccans of his new revelations and being rejected by them may have made him turn to spreading his new religion through war.

However, Christians were severely persecuted from their very beginnings but nowhere in the Bible were they called to war. Jesus did not, nor did any of the apostles, who were nearly all violently killed in the early decades of Christianity. They taught the churches to bless their persecuters and love their enemies.

Christianity was in essence non-political as opposed to Islam, which was from the beginning about establishing a realm of power, religious, political and military. When later Christianity became caught up in political/ military power structures, it corrupted and it still does wherever this is the case.

Jesus preached a spiritual kingdom that would bring healing and transformation on earth, but that had no geographical boundries and no earthly ruler. In islam there is a clear geographical understanding of the house of Islam (those areas under islamic rule) and the house of war (those areas not yet under islamic rule), as well as a mission to make all of the latter areas part of the house of Islam. Jesus however kept insisting his kingdom was not of this world and avoided all connections and show downs with political leaders. 

One of the issues I have with Christian fundies, is the political ambition and the desire for power. They try to establish a Christian country. But biblically speaking there is no such thing. The kingdom Jesus preached can never be established by earthly power structures. It was always preached as a transformation from within, not from without.

Aiming to establish Christian laws in a geographical area, that type of thinking is much more Islamic than it is Christian. And for Islam it may work, since Islam has different goals. Islam means submission, and submission can be achieved through religious law. Christianity wants people to have a change of heart, which can and should never be forced. 

When Christians aim for submission, not just of themselves but of cities and nations, they will stray from their founder. Christian leadership should never be about power but about service. Like Jesus washed his diciples feet, and told them that the first would be last. 

Sorry for the rant. I do suffer from severe election allergies. I should go drink a cup of tea and enjoy the nice weather.

 

well, no, early Muslims faced violence in pre-Islamic Mecca. Summayah bint Khayyat, one of the first Muslims, and her husband were tortured to death. The prophet was able to avoid violence because of his family, but early Muslims were in fact severely persecuted.

[nst]

On 6/16/2016 at 7:53 AM, nst said:

don't forget when she was about to give birth - and he went on and on about the son had risen

so i tend to believe him if you read between his lines/lies 

derick is a grifter in the sense of he hides it to a degree and then shows it  at the last minute 

he is like DT that way

 

I am starting to think he didn't hide in front of Jill or JB

[Alachantal]

On 6/9/2016 at 8:18 PM, Shadoewolf said:

Some US states on the Canadian border now have "enhanced" drivers licenses which have the chip embedded, it also serves as mini-passport and has everything about you contained on the chip. Kinda scary!

We have those here in BC. I don't know a single person with one however because the total fee to get it is only 10$ less than your 5 year passport, so really what's the point? Personally I don't trust it, I have this odd fear of people stealing my information even if they give you a protective sleeve for your EDL to prevent the RFID chip from being read when you’re not using it to cross the border.

But that's also coming from someone who pretty much only goes Stateside for work, and then I have a FAST Card and don't even bring my passport with me, so there's that lol.

[foreign fundie]

11 hours ago, Alicja said:

well, no, early Muslims faced violence in pre-Islamic Mecca. Summayah bint Khayyat, one of the first Muslims, and her husband were tortured to death. The prophet was able to avoid violence because of his family, but early Muslims were in fact severely persecuted.

Thank you for the more specific information. My argument was that though violent persecution may have turned Muhammed in a warlord who spread his religion through violence (which is your suggestion, but it may also be inherent in the teachings of Muhammed or his goal of building an Islamic sphere of power on earth) Jesus and his early followers were nearly all killed for their faith, and still there was never a hint of taking revence or biblical encouragement to spread the teachings through violence or force. Instead suffering persecution was a given in the very early church (and still in many countries). Jesus promised his followers that much. "They have persecuted me, they will persecute you also". And he asked God to forgive his killers when they crucified him, as did early martyrs (Stephen).

In times and places where later Christians have spread the teachings through violence or force, that was a clear departure from the words and example of their master and lead to a corrupted Christianity in need of reformation. 

Muhammed chose another path, either because of persecution or for other reasons. Many of his follower still choose to follow this path of violence against unbelievers although most don't. 

In my opinion it does not follow that Christians are better people than Muslims. But it is very possible that the danger of violent radicalization is greater in a religion whose leader modelled violence and told his followers to do like wise.

[VelociRapture]

10 hours ago, foreign fundie said:

Thank you for the more specific information. My argument was that though violent persecution may have turned Muhammed in a warlord who spread his religion through violence (which is your suggestion, but it may also be inherent in the teachings of Muhammed or his goal of building an Islamic sphere of power on earth) Jesus and his early followers were nearly all killed for their faith, and still there was never a hint of taking revence or biblical encouragement to spread the teachings through violence or force. Instead suffering persecution was a given in the very early church (and still in many countries). Jesus promised his followers that much. "They have persecuted me, they will persecute you also". And he asked God to forgive his killers when they crucified him, as did early martyrs (Stephen).

I mentioned this earlier, but the Diaspora likely had a massive role in this. The Jewish people were expelled from their homeland becaus they dared to rise up against Rome and they lost. Had the early Christians supported them in anyway, they would have been seen as a threat and faced the same treatment. They had to distance themselves from the Jewish people and the Old Testament - altering or editing things a bit to make Jesus appear much more peaceful than he may have really been (and far less critical of Rome) was an excellent way to do that.

Compare that to the early Muslims who literally had to fight for survival. They didn't have the option of being peaceful in the same way the Christians did.

Thats not to say we can't judge or condemn those members of both faiths who use holy works to justify heinous acts of violence in modern times. We can and we should. We live in a modern world where people are more than capable of knowing better. The same simply can't be said about people in the ancient world though. Times were extremely different and, for many people, there wasn't much of an option.

(And for clarity, I'm speaking about the earliest Christians - not those who faced persecution under Roman rule a bit later. These earliest Christians were the ones who purposely chose the extreme peaceful views that those facing persecution used to decide how to act under threat of extreme violence - just as Muhammad and he earliest Muslims were the ones who decided warfare was necessary to protect themselves and their followers.)

[Alicja]

11 hours ago, foreign fundie said:

Thank you for the more specific information. My argument was that though violent persecution may have turned Muhammed in a warlord who spread his religion through violence (which is your suggestion, but it may also be inherent in the teachings of Muhammed or his goal of building an Islamic sphere of power on earth) Jesus and his early followers were nearly all killed for their faith, and still there was never a hint of taking revence or biblical encouragement to spread the teachings through violence or force. Instead suffering persecution was a given in the very early church (and still in many countries). Jesus promised his followers that much. "They have persecuted me, they will persecute you also". And he asked God to forgive his killers when they crucified him, as did early martyrs (Stephen).

In times and places where later Christians have spread the teachings through violence or force, that was a clear departure from the words and example of their master and lead to a corrupted Christianity in need of reformation. 

Muhammed chose another path, either because of persecution or for other reasons. Many of his follower still choose to follow this path of violence against unbelievers although most don't. 

In my opinion it does not follow that Christians are better people than Muslims. But it is very possible that the danger of violent radicalization is greater in a religion whose leader modelled violence and told his followers to do like wise.

thank you for clarifying! 

[Suz8710]

Derick updated yesterday to say "no not yet" on his Twitter when asked again pabout Jill. I also think he's not good at expressing himself.

https://mobile.twitter.com/derick4Him/status/743900020324339712

 

[EmCatlyn]

9 hours ago, VelociRapture said:

I mentioned this earlier, but the Diaspora likely had a massive role in this. The Jewish people were expelled from their homeland becaus they dared to rise up against Rome and they lost. Had the early Christians supported them in anyway, they would have been seen as a threat and faced the same treatment. They had to distance themselves from the Jewish people and the Old Testament - altering or editing things a bit to make Jesus appear much more peaceful than he may have really been (and far less critical of Rome) was an excellent way to do that.

Compare that to the early Muslims who literally had to fight for survival. They didn't have the option of being peaceful in the same way the Christians did.

Thats not to say we can't judge or condemn those members of both faiths who use holy works to justify heinous acts of violence in modern times. We can and we should. We live in a modern world where people are more than capable of knowing better. The same simply can't be said about people in the ancient world though. Times were extremely different and, for many people, there wasn't much of an option.

(And for clarity, I'm speaking about the earliest Christians - not those who faced persecution under Roman rule a bit later. These earliest Christians were the ones who purposely chose the extreme peaceful views that those facing persecution used to decide how to act under threat of extreme violence - just as Muhammad and he earliest Muslims were the ones who decided warfare was necessary to protect themselves and their followers.)

This is an interesting speculation.  It brings to the fore a point about the "New Testament" that some Christians don't like to confront or admit--It was written and transcribed by men and reflect biases and some elements of propaganda. A good example is how Pilate ( shown in all  historical records to be a rather blood thirsty bastard) becomes in the Gospels a thoughtful man, who doesn't think Jesus is really guilty and tries to get him to save himself but is forced by Jewish outcry to condemn him. 

At the risk of offending some of the Muslims reading this, I am going to raise the possibility that the Qu'ran was also written/transcribed/edited by men.  Even if one accepts that Muhammed was inspired by God and that the Qu'ran represents God's message through His Prophet, there is no guarantee that later followers and scribes did not take the original text and alter parts of it to suit their own agendas and views.  

It is possible that just as Jesus was made to appear less political and nationalist by early Christians, some early Muslims may have made the message of the Q'uran more "aggressive" than what was first recorded by Muhammed.   Who knows?

Please note that I make this suggestion with all due respect.  I do not believe in Biblical inerrancy, so I find it hard to believe in Qu'ranic inerrancy.  

In any case, I don't think that the relative "bloodthirstiness" of a holy book necessarily reflect the worth of its followers.

[actuallyjessica]

Derick updated yesterday to say "no not yet" on his Twitter when asked again pabout Jill. I also think he's not good at expressing himself.

https://mobile.twitter.com/derick4Him/status/743900020324339712

 

What a way to beat around the bush.

[twinmama]

On 6/15/2016 at 5:59 PM, crazysnark said:

I know I am about to get teared apart for this but I have read the Quran and it is the most awful belief system. It's depictions of hell make the Bible look like a children's book, the treatment of women is deplorable and it DOES encourage the murder of non believers. I don't see how any one can agree with that belief system and be "moderate" about it because that would be discarding half of the book. At the same time I also know the Bible is flooded with a lot of sexism and violence as well, which is why we here at FJ disagree with the fundie lifestyle and Christian Fundamentalists. I know a lot of people who claim to be Muslim are not horrible people and are probably just like everyone else. However, I would question their actual belief in the Quran. I just can't see how someone who agrees or sympathizes with that hideous book to be a decent human.  

I know a lot of people here will disagree with me and this is okay but please do not accuse me of being ignorant because I am not on this subject. A few years ago I read the Bible, Quran and Book of Mormon because I am very interested in religion. 

I won't tear you apart, I think all religion is awful. I will never understand why some people want or need it.

[SilverBeach]

On 6/9/2016 at 7:17 PM, laPapessaGiovanna said:

Now I am curious though, why do you think in the USA this sort of document would be problematic and even a criminal's delight? 

The picture and SS number would be an identity theft cornucopia here. SS numbers used to be on drivers licenses and checks, but not anymore. I never carry my SS card, which don't have photos in the US. 

[HumbleJillyMuffin]

11 hours ago, Suz8710 said:

Derick updated yesterday to say "no not yet" on his Twitter when asked again pabout Jill. I also think he's not good at expressing himself.

https://mobile.twitter.com/derick4Him/status/743900020324339712

 

Wow, that's a bit presumptuous. I know she's a Duggar woman and likely has ovaries like a pair of AK-47s, but still, to just assume it's going to happen lickety split. Then again, I feel like this about pregnancy in general, don't tempt fate. It's like my uncle who bought my aunt a maternity dress just after they married, when they were 19. Many miscarriages later at 38 they finally had a child. So I tend to be leery of things like that. 

[MakeItSo]

17 hours ago, HumbleJillyMuffin said:

Wow, that's a bit presumptuous. I know she's a Duggar woman and likely has ovaries like a pair of AK-47s, but still, to just assume it's going to happen lickety split. Then again, I feel like this about pregnancy in general, don't tempt fate. It's like my uncle who bought my aunt a maternity dress just after they married, when they were 19. Many miscarriages later at 38 they finally had a child. So I tend to be leery of things like that. 

maybe it's just me but I also think it's weird when people talk about other people's bodies like that. Like, let her tell...

[2manyKidzzz]

Jilliemuffin should be preggars by now.

They are sinners.

 

[Cleopatra7]

On 6/15/2016 at 6:59 PM, crazysnark said:

I know I am about to get teared apart for this but I have read the Quran and it is the most awful belief system. It's depictions of hell make the Bible look like a children's book, the treatment of women is deplorable and it DOES encourage the murder of non believers. I don't see how any one can agree with that belief system and be "moderate" about it because that would be discarding half of the book. At the same time I also know the Bible is flooded with a lot of sexism and violence as well, which is why we here at FJ disagree with the fundie lifestyle and Christian Fundamentalists. I know a lot of people who claim to be Muslim are not horrible people and are probably just like everyone else. However, I would question their actual belief in the Quran. I just can't see how someone who agrees or sympathizes with that hideous book to be a decent human.  

I know a lot of people here will disagree with me and this is okay but please do not accuse me of being ignorant because I am not on this subject. A few years ago I read the Bible, Quran and Book of Mormon because I am very interested in religion. 

The problem with simply reading the Qu'ran and assuming that that's what Muslims believe is that Islam, whether Sunni, Shia, or any of the smaller sects, does not operate from a "sola scriptura" perspective. If you want to understand how Islam actually functions at a societal level, you (you in the general sense, not you in particular) have to ditch the "Protestant googles," and look at the hadith and Islamic jurisprudence, among other things.  I am not an apologist for Islam by any means, but reading the Qu'ran on your own without any context is not very helpful in trying to understand how Islamic beliefs and practices are actually lived on a daily basis.

[Arix]

23 hours ago, HumbleJillyMuffin said:

Wow, that's a bit presumptuous. I know she's a Duggar woman and likely has ovaries like a pair of AK-47s, but still, to just assume it's going to happen lickety split. Then again, I feel like this about pregnancy in general, don't tempt fate. It's like my uncle who bought my aunt a maternity dress just after they married, when they were 19. Many miscarriages later at 38 they finally had a child. So I tend to be leery of things like that. 

That's awful. I'm so sorry for your aunt.

[Imrlgoddess]

I mentioned this over in the Anderson's thread...

Being brought up, I was taught that to be Christian meant you followed the teachings of Christ therefore the New Testament.  Why is it that preachers like PP and families such as the Duggars rely so heavily on the Old Testament?  That's one I've never been able to reconcile...

[season of life]

"No, not yet."

Lmao, way to be open about your sex life. I've got a feeling they aren't using contraceptives and are abstaining, and Derick is just shrugging his shoulders to say, "Lol, I dunno, I'll let nature take its course."

I surely would not want my spouse to inform the public of any potential pregnancies via Twitter, of all places. 

[manda b]

It could have been worse. He could have said we've been practicing though. :shudder: