/lit/ - Literature

For the purposes of 'theology', go with a translation faithful to the original languages. For American English, the New American Standard Bible is the one to read.

>>4606850
Thank you.

Joseph Smith translated the Golden Plates into American.

>>4606864
>From Egyptian

>>4606923
>By putting a stone in a hat and placing the hat over his face.

I'd recommend a couple of different versions; if you find a modern "study bible", use it, as it has comments, explanations and such pieces in the margins; combine that with another, uncommented translation of a different kind to appreciate how the language changes between them, and how that changes meaning of phrases or even sentences.

The Bible, throuh all its incarnations, is very organic in nature and should be treated as such.

>>4606811
Whatever you use as the translation, the Bible in itself is a bit opaque read. I suggest you also get your hands on some accompanying works. For the Old Testament, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible by John Collins is excellent.

NRSV New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha, 4th Edition, Black, Genuine Leather, Thumb-Indexed

The King James Version as it is published by the Oxford Press, unchanged and as unfaithful to the original material as any. No but really, just get an untempered print of the KJV and a copy of Strong's Concordance. Otherwise, learn Koine, Latin and Ancient Hebrew.

>I want to read theology
>Ask for a Bible translation

Any will do so long as it isn't an aberrant translation like the Jehovah's Witnesses NWT or the Mormon one.

PROTIP: A true word-for-word translation for anything doesn't exist. Novice linguists know this. Just read whatever translation you're comfortable with and don't sweat the debate on so-called literal Bible translations.

>>4606811
Start with the Greeks.

>>4606811
If you'll be reading Augustine and Aquinas, it would probably be a good idea to get a Challoner revised Douay Rheims. It is a translation of the Latin Vulgate which was used by Aquinas and is close to the Latin translations used by Augustine. There are a couple editions available that have the Douay Rheims side by side with the Vulgate.

King James for beauty and meter, Young's Literal for unwavering faithfulness.

>>4610816
>Black, Genuine Leather

Hey big spender. Seriously though, I used NOAB for a course on the wisdom texts and the annotations are indispensable. So yeah, I second this

>>4610856
But muh KJV!

I'm not OP but I have a question, I've absolutely fallen in love with the Everyman's Library hardcover King James bible, but I'm also interested in
>>4610816
this, would it be superfluous or just outright stupid to own two versions of the bible?

>>4606811
>Sorry for another of these threads
>makes the thread anyway
Why, anon?

>>4611485
The King James initially contained the Apocrypha, so that's worth considering. The Apocrypha is also referenced is some great English literature, since it was a part of the Bible (even though it wasn't strictly canon) for a long time.

>>4611464
Same, and seconded.

How many of you have actually read the entire bible? Were you a changed person afterward?

>>4606811
I read from the King James Version.

http://www.dyeager.org/blog/2008/03/why-kjv-best-bible-translation.html

http://www.dyeager.org/blog/2009/01/which-bible-translation-best.html

I would remind you to be grateful to have a bible to read from, and the freedom to read it.
Regardless which version you prefer.


I would also remind you we are on the internet.
You have access to most if not all translations.
http://www.biblegateway.com
http://biblehub.com/
http://www.biblestudytools.com/

>>4611485
>would it be superfluous or just outright stupid to own two versions of the bible?
Not in my opinion.
One being sufficient does, not mean more than one is excessive.
I could get by with one pair of shoes. Is owning more than one pair of shoes "superfluous"?
I suppose there would be a point in which it becomes an excess. In my opinion that point is when your bibles have become a collection.
When it is more important to get different versions, instead of enjoying the ones you have.

>>4611641
I am ashamed to say I have not.
I had no interest in the bible, until after the change occurred.
The gospel message did play a role in my change, but I heard it outside of the bible.

You have asked if reading the entire bible has changed us.
I would like to point out that reading the entire bible is not the requirement God has put forth.
As for the number of people that have changed. The CIA reports that roughly 1/3 of the world is Christian.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html


I find it curious that your question is the last post in the thread.
It's as if everyone remembered that they still need to finish reading, and set off to do just that.

Thanks for reminding us.

PS
If for some reason you do not know the gospel message is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfXybggH4Qo

>>4611641
i've read it, it's shit don't bother

>>4613170

If you have more than one pair of shoes, shouldn't you give them to a person who doesn't have any shoes at all?

>>4613170
KJV's the best.

>>4613208
I don't believe that you have read it.
I have always wondered why atheists care what Christians believe.
When I was an atheist, I could care less what other people were doing.
I considered them fools, and thought it best to leave them be.
As a Christian I now follow Christ. He said to spread the gospel message.
Who is it that has compelled atheists to spread doubt?

>>4613209
I have never claimed to be perfect.
Luckily for me, and for all sinners, I am not required to be perfect.
The bible does not say "be perfect, or burn in hell".
If that were the case. We would all be doomed.

To answer your question.
Yes
If I were to be more perfect. I would give all of my possessions to charity.

Ill be honest with you. I am lower middle class at best.
Most Americans would consider me poor. My possessions are nothing to brag about.

I happen to be extremely grateful for what I do have.
I have always had a place to stay. More than one place actually.
I have always had plenty of food to eat. More than enough most times.
I have electricity, running water, I have the internet.
I have my family, and friends. I have my health.
But the most precious thing I have is the gift of God. That is my own salvation. Eternal life through the work of Christ.

If I were to choose something to give to charity. Why not choose to give the knowledge of the gospel message?
I still keep my salvation, and you can have yours too. For it is the gift of God.
The gift of God is far greater than the entire wealth of the world. Why should anyone prefer shoes to salvation?
Perhaps you should spend less time worrying about my shoes, and more time worrying about your own soul.

>>4613254
I'm glad you agree.

>>4611464
Something about reading from a leather Bible makes it feel right. It'll also last him quite a long time.

>>4606811
Any translation made within the last 30 years

>>4606811
I'd recommend The Jerusalem Bible, The New Jerusalem Bible, Young's literal translation, or the New World Translation. I like these bibles because they all translate YHWH to either Yahweh or Jehovah, much better than just "LORD" or "the LORD", especially for smooth reading.

>>4614993
I believe the Jerusalem Bible now uses LORD due to a request from Pope Benedict XVI.

>>4615003
You believe wrong

>>4615003
>>4615005
http://www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=1&bible_chapter=2 read verse 4

>>4614993
>I like these bibles because they all translate YHWH to either Yahweh or Jehovah, much better than just "LORD" or "the LORD", especially for smooth reading.

Speaking of YHWH

YHWH in the original Hebrew when written vertically looks like (pic related)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton#Etymology


I find it quite interesting that we look like God's name.

>>4615392
>God has a pompadour

this is some serious shit

>>4606811
>go to bible study group
>this the first passage we read
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1%3A26-30&version=KJV
>my fucking face when
god damn it you try to give them a fair shake and they bungle everything instantly. also everyone there was wan, pale, and deathlike. fucking terrifying 0/10 will never return

>>4615392

If that is a human form, it is clearly a pregnant woman.

>>4615392

whoa it's almost like they made up the letters on purpose

>>4615410
>Reading KJV to study the Bible
What the fuck are you a faggot?

>>4615392
That is interesting, I never knew that.

>>4615398
The image represents a human, not God. I have said we look like his name. Not he looks like his name. I'm sorry for the any confusion you might have had.
I would also point out it may not be the most accurate representation of God's name. Perhaps he has many. I place no limits on God.
The name given in Exodus 3:14 used א (pic related)

>>4616173
I have heard of it from↓
http://www.yhwh.com/asimple.htm

Be advised. I do not specifically endorse the entirety of the site, but I do find it to be likewise interesting.

>>4616475
for the any

There goes my credibility.

>>4615392
>hebrew
>written vertically
>ever whereever never whoever
wut?
please study more hebrew
fucking prods and their batshit ideas, at least they could study my language first...

>>4615392
>>4616489
I should also mention that we stole the aramaic alphabet sometime *after* the tetragrammaton started to be used

>>4616489
It is not impossible to write any language vertically.
E
X
A
M
P
L
E

I'm sorry if you find it offensive.

>>4616503
L
A
T
E

F
E
B
R
U
A
R
Y

>>4616503
Yeah, they just didn't do that. Also tetragrammaton was often written in paleo-hebrew alphabet, not in square script. And while they resemble each other, vertically written yod-he-waw-he doesn't look at all like a little stick man.

>>4616521
WHat the fuck did I just write. Whatever.

They've been doing that for two thousand years, and forming a stick man out of yahweh is the silliest thing I've ever heard.

related: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1nFoGWnelY

>>4616534
>gematria
holy fuck kill yourself fucking die
fucking mekkubals fucking kill yourselves

>>4616503
>>4616516
DUDE
IF WE ARRANGE THE LETTERS LIKE... THIS IT KINDA LOOKS LIKE A LITTLE DUDE
OH MAN IT DOES!

>>4616541
This indeed.

>>4616475 (me)
>I'm sorry for the any confusion you might have had.
This was an insult, it was me being a smart ass. In it we find the grammatical error.
>for the any
>>4616503 (me)
>It is not impossible to write any language vertically.
This post was a smart ass remark, with an apology at the end. I find it to also be in error, as it could be better written as.
>It is possible
I should have said nothing but the apology.

Perhaps God is trying to remind me that being a smart ass is itself a mistake.


I am sorry for my previous smart ass posts. I will try to control this behavior more effectively in the future.
I will take more time in making a response, so that it may be more appropriate.
I will also try to avoid being a smart ass,being rude, or an any way disrespectful.


I have been a dick head my whole life. I have only begun to change. I would ask that you please forgive any offenses I have made.
I truly am trying to improve.

Being anonymous is no excuse for bad behavior.

>>4606811
OP, why don't you read the real Word of God instead of cheap knockoffs?

>>4610816

The RSV is a good choice. It's an ecumenical translation, so the text remains the same across denominations and is often used in theology, as far as I know.

King James wouldn't be a good choice for theological studies, in my opinion. It is outdated, to put it simply. You'd want something theologians and critics actually currently use.

>>4616614
>OP, why don't you read the real Word of God instead of cheap knockoffs?
We are reading the real "Word of God".

The one true God is a loving God.

John 3:16
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
>For God so loved the world

Romans 5:8
“But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”
>God commendeth his love toward us,
>while we were yet sinners


Qur'an 30:45
That He may reward those who have believed and done righteous deeds out of His bounty. Indeed, He does not like the disbelievers.
>He does not like the disbelievers
Qur'an 22:38
"Indeed, Allah defends those who have believed. Indeed, Allah does not like everyone treacherous and ungrateful."
>Allah does not like everyone


Why would an all mighty and perfect Creator create something that he does not like?
Do musicians write music they dislike?
Do artists draw pictures of things that upset them?

God did not create us to have someone to hate. He has created us so that he can have someone to love.

>>4616687
>Do musicians write music they dislike?
>Do artists draw pictures of things that upset them?

All the time.

I'm reading the King James right now, it seems pretty solid. My parents aren't religious and I grew up as an edgy atheist, but now I'm actually interested in religion and I'm giving the bible a shot. I'm not very far (just finishing Leviticus) but I'm actually really into it. It dragged on a bit when God was telling Moses how to build the tabernacle and all the purification ceremonies and stuff (like, five pages of God talking to Moses, five pages of Moses telling his people what God told him, then five pages of them doing it).

Can't wait for the NT, only like... 1300 pages to go

>>4616614
>Implying the Quran isn't essentially Bible fanfiction

Which is best to read for a Catholic?

Does it matter?

While on the subject, what language is best for KJV? I can either read it in English, German, or Spanish.

>>4616798
in Hebrew you fucking pleb

Robert Alter's various translations. I see this thread every week and still everyone recommends crappy versions for actually reading the bible. Robert Alter's translations are meant for general or academic reading of the Bible.

Here is his "Five Books of Moses" to get you started (though I recommend you only read Genesis and Exodus and then move on to his "Ancient Israel" book).

The Five Books of Moses - Robert Alter.epub
http://www.tusfiles.net/mciq8ivfwaf8

>>4616717
Reading it straight through is a bad idea, Leviticus is just the first book of a long series of weird rules and shit that's not very interesting for most people. Don't be afraid to skip ahead

http://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Study-Bible-Donald-Senior/dp/019529775X/
http://www.amazon.com/Saint-Joseph-Medium-Size-Bible-NABRE/dp/0899426433

>>4616778
>4616778
>Which is best to read for a Catholic?
>Does it matter?

Yes, it matters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Bible#Differences_from_other_Christian_Bibles

I recommend the RSV-CE, first edition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Standard_Version_Catholic_Edition

The first edition is generally favoured over the second.

The New Revised Standard Version is generally dismissed by Catholics.

>>4616801
Any mature answers?

>>4616801

I don't believe there has been a translation into Hebrew for the Vulgate.

>>4606923
From *reformed* Egyptian.

>>4616827
NABRE > *RSV*

>>4613705
You are so full of shit.

>>4616801
>reading translation

>>4613705
>Luckily for me, and for all sinners, I am not required to be perfect.

You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Matthew 5:8

>>4616907

Catholics that hold the NABRE in any esteem are few and far between. The Catholic edition of choice is the RSV-CE.

>>4616917
For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

Mark 8:36

>>4613705
i'm not sure which bible you read but the bible i read is pretty explicit that you must follow every letter of the law and since that's impossible you have to jump through hoops, originally all the weird abjection stuff in OT and now with Jesus.

I'm tired of religions that tsk tsk you for being human. Let's try some secular ancestor worship, venerate real human beings whose thoughts and actions we can aspire to.

>>4616939
The best quote is from Genesis. The eternal struggle between the clans of Esau and Jacob are highlighted here.

See, away from the fatness of the earth shall your home be, and away from the dew of heaven on high. By your sword you shall live, and you shall serve your brother; but when you break loose, you shall break his yoke from your neck."

Genesis 27:39

>>4606811


********QUESTION********

How difficult is it to learnBiblical Hebrew? I did 1 semester of Koine Greek and I've since read the New Testament in Greek w/o any problems. Would learning enough Hebrew to read take more than 1-2 years?

>>4616956
To a level where you can comprehend the text? That's more a life-long journey than something you just do on a whim. Why would you want to learn it anyways? The New Testament isn't even written in Biblical Hebrew.

Learning enough Hebrew for cantillation isn't that difficult though. It won't give you comprehension, but it will make you aware of some of the beauty of the spoken text that can't be gleaned from translations. You could also listen to some of the chanted portions.

Like many Bar Mitzvah recipients, I know enough for cantillation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-fen-y-Q0U

Relevant.

>>4616980

powerful stuff

>>4616956

Biblical Hebrew isn't profoundly difficult--I'd imagine the Koine verb system is more complicated than that of BH, for example--but the fact that it's more different makes it more challenging (cognate words in English are much rarer, for example). It definitely helps in terms of fuller understanding, though.

Here's a suggestion since you know Koine: look into the Septuagint. It's a translation, of course, but it's a major eye-opener with regard to the NT. The Greek of the LXX is basically Koine (spelling, verb forms, etc.) but it's heavily Semitic. Some of the NT, like Matthew, is Semitic Greek too and shows clear affinities to the LXX. Also, many OT quotations in the NT are from the LXX.

>>4616704
Have you considered the notion that a perfect God has no need of self loathing?

>>4616815
I agree. In my opinion you should start with the New Testament.

>>4616911
I'm sorry you feel that way.

>>4616917
I would remind you of the thief on the cross.
Luke 23: 39-43
" 39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying , If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. 40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying , Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds : but this man hath done nothing amiss. 42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise."

>And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise"

Was this man perfect?
Did he get saved?
Did he ever do any good works after he got saved?

>>4616941
> the bible i read is pretty explicit that you must follow every letter of the law
I might also remind you of the thief on the cross.
DId he follow the law?

Romans 4:5
"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."

We are supposed to try to be as good as we can, but realize that we are not perfect. Everyone makes mistakes.

Romans 3:23
"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"

You are only condemned for your sin, if you deny God the opportunity to forgive you.

John 3:18
"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

>>4611641
I have, and more than once.
I don't think it changed me much at all beyond reinforcing my naturally thoughtful, spiritual character, and making me very familiar with certain Semitic mythology.
Perhaps it encouraged me to be curious abput other mythologies...

>Reading this shit.

There are two types of people who've read the bible.

The people who've actually read the bible and the people who claim that its a work of 'literature' and art.

The latter have no read the bible.

Its the most retarded shit, don't bother.

>>4617430
>Is neither of the two.

>>4616956
Do this.
Get a Strong's Concordance.
Get a "Brown Driver Briggs" (lexicon?)
They use the same number system, and ocne you get the hang of it, looking up words is easy and enlightening.
I am not Jewish, but I highly reccomend checking out Jewish commentary ( Midrash), because Christian commentary is often derivative and wildly out of context.

>>4617430
So then there's only one type of person who has read the bible.

>>4617463

And they all agree with him, apparently.

>>4617430

There's two types of retards who run their mouths about the Bible: retards like you, who propagandize its evil and try to shut down reasonable discourse on it, and retards like >>4617403, who propagandize its goodness and try to rule discourse on it. And each of the two produces more of the other every generation, and some times I think it will never end.

tl;dr kill yourselves.

>>4617463
No, I thought so, too, but read it again.

>>4617472
It's just yin and yang, man, chill out.

>>4606947

>>4617474
Nah I just read it again. His latter three statements render the former fallacious.

>>4617472
Matthew 5:22
"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
>but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire

You have my forgiveness.
Do you have God's?

Please do not be angry because of my post.>>4617403

I have only tried to point out what I consider to be mistakes.
If I have made a mistake, I would ask you to point it out as well.
Use scripture, where possible, to back up your statements. If you would have me believe them.

Anyone who takes the bible seriously is a joke.

Oh yeah I'm sure they made the original text for some reason other than to take the land of Canaan for their own and to create an ecclesiastical aristocracy.

>>4617580
*tips fedora*

I was reading the NRSV yesterday, good read.

At this point, I monitor these threads as a reminder of other translations and for annotations/supplemental material.

>>4615392
It's also interesting that technically we don't know the vowels of the tetragrammaton or the pronunciation

Like

It's 2014
with a major religion that's been around for thousands of years

And there's more attention to Christmas trees than the fact that there's this literal mystery

>>4617899
A sad truth indeed.

I pronounce it Yahweh. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh
However, as you have stated, no one knows for sure.
I did some reading on this in the past, but I have moved on.
It would be nice to know for sure, but I don't see it as something I have to know.

>And there's more attention to Christmas trees than the fact that there's this literal mystery

Deuteronomy 16:21
"You shall not plant any tree as an Asherah beside the altar of the Lord your God that you shall make."

Jeremiah 10:1-5
Hear the word that the Lord speaks to you, O house of Israel. 2 Thus says the Lord:

“Learn not the way of the nations,
nor be dismayed at the signs of the heavens
because the nations are dismayed at them,
3 for the customs of the peoples are vanity.[a]
A tree from the forest is cut down
and worked with an axe by the hands of a craftsman.
4 They decorate it with silver and gold;
they fasten it with hammer and nails
so that it cannot move.
5 Their idols[b] are like scarecrows in a cucumber field,
and they cannot speak;
they have to be carried,
for they cannot walk.
Do not be afraid of them,
for they cannot do evil,
neither is it in them to do good.”

It seems to me like the bible specifically speaks against "Christmas trees".
What do you guys think?

>>4617403
>starting with the new testament
>not understanding the context for jesus coming in the first place

>>4618035
The old testament doesn't give you any context. No Hebrew or Israelite ever thought god was going to send his "son"/self to "die for your sins lol"

>>4618044
but muh voice in the wilderness

>>4618035
The most important message from the bible is the gospel message.
It is found in the New Testament.

Although aspects of this are found in the Old Testament, you really have to look close.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUs8f-lphec


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR_MZ2Si2N0
I stand by my previous statement.
>>4618044
>No Hebrew or Israelite ever thought god was going to send his "son"/self to "die for your sins lol"

Perhaps not, but God has known the whole time. See above

>>4618044
Mostly because they all knew by experience how the lord killed them for their sins, and threatened to kill every single one of them multiple times.

"Oh thank you, merciful god"

>>4606850
This 110%. I'll add Douay-Rheims (Challoner version gets mentioned a lot) as well, it's a translation accurate to the Latin Vulgate and close to what Augustine and Aquinas read.

NSRV is another translation I hear is good, but I'd stick to DR or NASB.

Good luck dude!

>>4616956
not terribly, hebrew is fairly easy actually...

>>4616969
>Like many Bar Mitzvah recipients, I know enough for cantillation.
wut?

>>4617092
The question about the relationship between LXX and the Masoretic text isn't that simple. The translation process took probably even couple of hundred years, and in some cases it seems likely that the Septuagint preserves the more original reading. Also the different books in Septuagint were done by different translators, with huge differences in their skill and competence. For example, Ecclesiastes and Psalms are a horrible translation, because they wanted to be able to recreate exactly the same exegesis in both languages.

>>4617458
>I am not Jewish, but I highly reccomend checking out Jewish commentary ( Midrash), because Christian commentary is often derivative and wildly out of context.

Both Christian and Jewish commentaries might have some valuable notions in them, but I'd rather recommend modern critical commentaries. For example Hermeneia series is pretty good.

>>4616956
I'd say the basics of it are easier than Koine, but if you want to be able to read the Hebrew Bible fluently, you'll need years of work. Mainly because it's a dead language (Modern Hebrew is actually very different to it) and has lots of stuff we don't still understand. Especially concerning poetical texts of the Hebrew Bible you can just compare different translations to see how much space there is for translators interpretation.

>>4606811
American Christianity is one of the most repugnant, soulless and despicable forms of religion one can imagine. Even people in the fucking 15th century know you weren't meant to take all of it literally. Some of it just folklore and poetry. Being from an Islamic background myself (atheist), I do enjoy dissecting religious texts, but the very mode in which they're delivered is a big hint as to the nature of religion. Allah/Jehova/YWHW couldn't think of a better way to reveal himself to man other than one that is utterly indistinguishable from the work of humans. I think historical illiteracy is the root cause of religion. Those who have learned the lesson of history can see religion for the sham it is quite blatantly. Anyhow, as for the Bible, best selling book on the planet, the inspired word of God, it's not nearly as entertaining as the Hadith. It's not nearly as poetic as the Mahabharata. It's not nearly as moral as the Guru Granth Sahib. Then again, the most popular books usually aren't as good as some of the lesser known stuff. Popularity is arbitrary like that.

>>4618035
You read the NT, and then you read the OT to cope with the boring stuff.

>>4618107
>wut?
If you get a Bar Mitzvah at a conservative or orthodox synagogue they usually teach you enough Hebrew so you can read it and chant it. At least I did.

>>4618211
Knowing Islam as you must, how can you not notice that one guy, Mohammed, wanted to get laid and become a leader, so he created the religion for those purposes? At least Jesus died for people. Mohammed just fucked their women and told them to be thankful he did so because God denies nothing to his prophet.

He's basically a 6th century John Smith.

>>4618211
>American Christianity
Not everyone who claims to be a Christian really is. We are not all like the Westborro Baptist Church.
I am in complete disagreement with such teachings. http://www.godhatesfags.com/
In my opinion this simple statement "God hates fags" demonstrates that they are on the wrong path.
"For God so loved the WORLD" God can hate sin, and yet love the sinner. see >>4616687

> Even people in the fucking 15th century know you weren't meant to take all of it literally.
I take the literal text as literal,and the parables as parables.
John 10:9
"I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture."
In this statement the word "door" is seen as a metaphor, and not as its literal interpretation.
No one is suggesting that Jesus was literally a door. I'm sorry you think we cannot see the difference.

>>4618475
>He's basically a 6th century John Smith.
Ha. Nice one.
I think you might be referring to Joseph Smith. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith
Although in my opinion Islam is much more dangerous than Mormonism.

It seems obvious to me sometimes what is false doctrine.
The bible is quite clear that God loves us, and he wants us to love others.
Why do so many cling to hate?

>>4618932
>Christians who don't follow the brand of Christianity I follow aren't "real" Christians

>>4618932
So you believe that Noah built an ark 300 cubits long and 50 cubits wide, and that was enough to contain seven pairs of every 'clean' animal on the earth?

Really?

>>4618946
Don't forget enough food to keep the animals alive for five months of global flooding, dodged the mountain high waves that come when there's no landmasses to limit them, and then all these animals successfully survived on a saltwater-inundated wasteland for long enough to breed modern biodiversity in a few thousand years.

>>4618475
>He's basically a 6th century John Smith.

He's more of an Arabian Robin Hood. Probably just a religious army leader who molded himself after apocalyptic Jesus that had all sorts of miracles ascribed to him

>>4618932
Wow, this image is without doubt one of the bullshittiest bullshits I've ever been bullshat about.

>>4618939

There has to be a line somewhere between what is and isn't Christianity.

>>4619038
And the line is defined by separating what you like from what you don't like.

>>4619038
Why must it be labeled at all?

Matthew 22:36-40

New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

36 “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” 37 He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

>>4619099

My dislike for you has nothing to do with your validity as a Christian or otherwise.

>>4619189

That's good as far as the practice of the faith goes. But the faith itself has to be defined. In terms of boiling that down to a single verse, John 3:16 is the place to go.

>>4616980
In my opinion those women prevent the video from being awesome, but even then it would be like power rangers all over again for me.

>>4617580
>Anyone who takes the bible seriously is a joke.
It is not Christians' fault that they are incapable of being logical in a way that defies their Jewbook.
We should not even argue with Christians due to their inability to defy religion in favor of logic.
>>4617881
>*tips fedora*
That was a useless post, I would like you to not make useless posts in the future to increase the quality of 4chan.

>>4619455
S-sorry

The meme is funny to me. To rectify:

/pol/ used to have these Catholic threads, with a Christian denomination tier list. I liked it, never was a Catholic but they were basically these threads, albeit with more emphasis with faith and daily going/stories /history than linguistics and bible interpretations.

Anyways, in their tier list, because it was a Catholic thread, had Catholic on top, and Orthodox as "bro tier"

What is Orthodox and what was the humor of having it in line with Catholic? That pic stuck with me

>>4619189
And you have to respect a scholar that passionate on their subject

>>4618939
That is not what I said.
Allow me to correct your statement.
People who do not follow Gods word, are not true Christians.

>>4618946
Yes. I believe it to be true.

Genesis 7:1
"And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation."
>Come thou into the ark
Where does God have to be to say that?

I would remind you with God all things are possible.
Matthew 19:26
"But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."

>>4618974
With an ark full of God, who has need of food? (see above)
Deuteronomy 8:3
"And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live."
Matthew 4:4
"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."


>>4619026
I'm sorry you feel that way.
What reasoning do you use to draw that conclusion?

>>4619099
The line is being in agreement/disagreement with Gods word.
Where do you stand?

>>4611559
The ability to ignore is a powerful ability and one should enact it whenever it is deemed necessary, like now

I wanted to test out a tripcode, but I did not want to post with out really contributing. So here goes.

>>4617899
In my previous reply >>4618007 I have said.
>It would be nice to know for sure, but I don't see it as something I have to know.

I found an article that best explains why I do not consider it as important as others might.
http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/f/jesusoryeshua.htm
From the link.
The Bible doesn't give preeminence to one language (or translation) over another. We are not commanded to call upon the name of the Lord in Hebrew only. Acts 2:21 says, "But everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." God knows who calls upon his name, whether they do so in English, Portuguese, Spanish, or Hebrew. He is still the same Lord and Savior.

I like this post>>4619189
I would say that labeling is not a requirement. I was going to say that it makes things easier, but the more I think about it, that may not be the case.
I'm starting to see your point.
I agree with this reply>>4619262
John 3:16
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
This verse seems to sum up the whole concept.

>>4621935
I agree.
Some people act like they are forced into a thread they do not agree with.
Perhaps they just like to complain.

Note to the Mods. I made the post >>4621321 from a different location. Hence the different IP
If any had been wondering as to why someone was posting as me.

Considering that only the Mods can see IPs.
I have decided to start posting with a trip. So that people will know if it is me replying.
I would also ask you guys if you have seen this name or trip used before?
I don't want to use something that has been claimed by another.

A lot of /pol/ users are trying to be catholic now, I see.

>>4622532
No, new trip

>>4622532
>but I don't see it as something I have to know.
Well geez if you did the research out of curiosity that's fine I just hope I didn't antagonize you. I was already familiar with Jehovah and Yahweh, but it always stuck with me that they're the closest we have to the name. It legitimately is an interesting mystery to me, it's like a lost secret and it's a bit weird to me that no one seems to mention it anywhere.

I for one can't think of any work making a mention or even alluding to it.

>>4623275
Don't worry brother, I find Catholicism preferable to conspiracy.
I have seen posts on /pol/ criticizing idolatry.(pic related)

I would only remind you.
Romans 5:20
"Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:"
>But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound

Also
If anyone is interested to read more about how Romans 5:20 applies to the individual. I would recommend the following sermon.
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/3115.htm

>>4623977
> I just hope I didn't antagonize you.
Not at all. I very much enjoy sharing my views, and reading the views of others.
I was trying to be helpful, not hostile. I'm sorry if it seemed otherwise.
I admit my phrasing was a bit off. I still don't know how to best write what I was trying to convey.

I happened upon the linked article about Yeshua due to my own curiosities.
I was trying to determine whether Yeshua, or Yehoshua was more accurate.
In my opinion the most accurate representation of the name of our Lord, is Yeshua.
That is to say I think that is how they pronounced his name, when he was here.

This notion seems contradictory to the article its self, in that they say translation is not important.
I can see how God cares not of such things.
It's not like God will refuse someone based on how they pronounce his name.
If that were the case anyone with a speech impediment would be doomed.
However in my opinion a name should not be translated. Hence my preference of Yeshua to Jesus.
I hope this doesn't sound like a complete self contradiction.


> It legitimately is an interesting mystery to me
I too find it interesting, and it is indeed a mystery.
As for me I am content with Yahweh as God the Father, and Yeshua as God the Son.

Would the Holy spirit also have a personal name?

I have heard: Holy Spirit, Holy Ghost, The Comforter, etc.
Some say the only name of God is Yahweh, and Yahweh is the Trinity.
I believe the Trinity is three aspects of the one true God.
Considering the name Yeshua means "Yahweh is salvation"
Perhaps the name Yehu would be appropriate as it means Means "Yahweh is he" in Hebrew. http://www.behindthename.com/name/jehu

Perhaps I should not try to give a name where the bible does not.
Although I do not see God being upset because I have proposed a name. It's not as if the name is inappropriate.
Just as I don't see a problem with people calling Yeshua by the name Jesus.

What do you guys think?

Yahweh, Yeshua, and Yehu.
They do seem to go together, at least to me anyway.

lyl i got the info i needed within the first 10 replies and left stay mad nerds

>>4625001
I happen to enjoy this thread.
Thanks for not deleting it after you got what you came for.

I'm sorry if you do not appreciate the discussion that has stemmed from your initial question.
Instead of being grateful of having a successful thread, you seem to be hateful for the fact that it is.

You might have another look at the pic in post >>4618932

>>4616687

>If you can prove to me that one miracle took place, I will believe he is a just God who damned us all because a woman ate an apple.

Edward FitzGerald

>>4616687
>Do musicians write music they dislike?
>Do artists draw pictures of things that upset them?
Quite literally playing Devil's Advocate here;

Serj Tankian (System of a Down) does not like Metal music, and yet was the front of a "nu-Metal" band because it got his point across and fit his voice and band member's preferences.

Artists draw things they do not like because it makes them money, not out of greed but necessity. They have to to get paid, to put food on the table and keep the lights on.

But yes, I agree with your analogy

>>4625353
People are "damned" for denying God the chance to forgive them >>4617403
John 3:18
"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

Do you assume Edward FitzGerald had no sin?
You would have me believe. He had lived the perfect life, and God is punishing him for something someone else has done.
The bible would disagree.
Romans 3:23
"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"


>>4625368
I had never considered that point, I had previously said >>4617403
>God has no need of self loathing
Thanks for further supporting my analogy.

I have used this in the past to discredit Islam, as it is a religion of hate, and I find it obvious that God is love.

>>4625125
it's chill bruh i'm just glad i got the info i needed BEFORE this shit started

>>4616687

>The boastful will not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers. You destroy those who speak lies; the Lord abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful.

Psalm 5:5-6, NRSV

>>4625429
>I have used this in the past to discredit Islam, as it is a religion of hate

>religion of hate

No major religion is a "religion of hate." Don't be silly.

>>4606811

Oxford Bible is the best.

>>4625456
I'm convinced most people who say that are saying "of" when they mean "I."
>>4625465
True that.

I can't believe people actually think Noah's Ark really happened, holy shit.

>>4625438
heh

Me too.
I know its mostly my fault we are so far off topic. Sorry for that


>>4625448
The KJV says it
Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.

>will abhor
as in in the judgement
Perhaps if you would read it in context you would understand

One out of context verse does not discredit the notion that God loves us.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-God-Is-Love/

>>4625456
The Qur'an is quite clearly a book that teaches violence
Qur'an 2:191
"And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

Qur'an 4:74
"So let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. And he who fights in the cause of Allah and is killed or achieves victory - We will bestow upon him a great reward."

Qur'an 9:14
"Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and will disgrace them and give you victory over them and satisfy the breasts of a believing people"

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

>>4606811

NRSV, nigga.

>>4625583

in before someone posts passages from the pentateuch urging genocide and you make a rambling megaresponse post full of sophistry about why jebus doesn't REALLY want you to kill people, and is TOTALLY unlike nasty arab god.

>>4621321
Oh yes perfect so everything is possible with god, therefore you can't criticize anything about religion under an objective lens, even though the religion itself used an objective lens to critically analyze diseases like leprosy.

>>4625465
Did some research and I came to the conclusion the ESV study bible was more universally preferred to the Oxford annotated study bible.
Any reason the Oxford is superior? I've been wanting to buy one.

>>4625583
>Perhaps if you would read it in context you would understand
>One out of context verse does not discredit the notion that God loves us.

So context and careful exegesis are important when we're reading Christian scripture. When it comes to Islam, however, any passage that sounds objectionable can be invoked as proof that it is uniformly and irredeemably a "religion of hate." I think I get it.

>>4616939
probably top 5 quotes of Scripture

>>4625353
edward fitzgerald doesn't seem to understand The Fall on even a basic level

>>4625884
Is that true?

I'll check it out then. Personally I just like the forwards in every book in NRSV

>>4625984
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm
"The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule."
>at least 109 verses
It's not as if I took just one verse out of context.

Do you really think no one knows you are a troll?
Are you trying to make me angry? You wouldn't like me when I'm angry. LOL
Because I have to say I feel sorry for you.
I mean the fact that you have nothing better to do than troll is sad.
If that wasn't enough. You consider yourself to be cleverly disguised.
Thinking Ha HA no one knows I'm trolling this guy, all the while everyone can see that you are an obvious troll.

I admit I enjoy a good debate. Hence the replies.
Although you are not providing anything close to a reasonable argument.
It is too easy to show you are in error.
Perhaps that is part of your troll logic. To entice replies.
i.e. Say something that is easily refuted to ensure a response.
Whatever the reason I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank you.

Thanks for giving me more reasons to be grateful.
I am grateful for my intellect, when others are so obviously lacking.
I am grateful for my purpose, when others have none.
I am grateful that I am grateful, when others are hateful.

Thanks for giving me an opportunity to control my emotions. I have had difficulties with this in the past.
Thanks for giving me more reasons to be grateful. It really is better to have an attitude of gratitude.
Thanks for giving me first hand experience with someone whose goal it is to make me upset.

I admit I was upset when you first started your trolling, but now I am thankful to have had you reply.

I would ask you to please continue posting.

I challenge you troll.
Do your worst.
I appreciate the trial.

>>4626560
>It's not as if I took just one verse out of context.

Well, you did that and you linked to a page that engages in exactly the same sort of crass quote-mining.

There are plenty of primary texts and academic resources out there. If you have to lift your arguments from a website that doesn't even attempt to conceal its bias, why should anybody take your posts seriously?

>Do you really think no one knows you are a troll?

Well, I'm not...

>Thanks for giving me an opportunity to control my emotions. I have had difficulties with this in the past.

Judging by this post of yours, I'd say those difficulties are still with you.

>>4618044

The Gospel shows up as early as Genesis 3 (i.e., right when the Fall itself happens).
Gen. 3:14-15:
'So the LORD God said to the serpent,
"...I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel."'

>>4626755
>There are plenty of primary texts and academic resources out there.
And yet you still offer not one verse to contradict all the ones about violence.

>Well, I'm not...
Imma have to call bullshit on that one.
You have set out to prove me wrong ever since my post >>4625071
Unsuccessfully I might add.

>Judging by this post of yours, I'd say those difficulties are still with you.
Thank you for your help with that. I have to say tho, I honestly feel a lot better.
I am honestly not angry at all with you.
Furthermore I am genuinely grateful to have had this conversation.

My knowing that your trolling, and calling you out for it, is not the same as my being a dick to you.
If you don't want to be called a troll, perhaps you should stop trolling.


Thanks again

>>4625605
God wanted all the people of Canaan dead for two reasons:
1.Their societies were at the absolute height of depravity and their hearts were completely hardened towards God.
2. If Israel left them alive their cultures would mix and they would be dragged into worshipping other gods. This is exactly what happens in the book of Judges as a consequence of failing to take them all out in Joshua. They broke the first commandment and subsequently got swept up into turning away from the entire law by "doing what was right in their own eyes"

>>4626822
>And yet you still offer not one verse to contradict all the ones about violence.

You're asking me to respond to quote mining with more of the same. You are mistakenly assuming that my goal is to engage in apologetics on behalf of Islam; I have no interest in that. What I'm trying to do is alert you to the stupidity of your own reasoning ITT.

Any attempt to ascribe a certain meaning to a certain passage of scripture is worthless unless it accounts for the various ways in which that scripture has been understood and put into practice by the people who consider it sacred. You would require this of anyone attempting to interpret Christian scripture but completely eschew it in your own hamfisted approach to non-Christian scripture. That approach is hypocritical, inconsistent, and dumb. Do you understand?

>>4627003
>stupidity
>your own hamfisted approach
>That approach is hypocritical, inconsistent, and dumb

Wow nice. I still think you can do better.

THE ONE TRUE GOD IS A GOD OF LOVE.
see>>4616687
Do you understand?

>>4627025
>Completely ignoring the substance of my post

Don't run away from the issue at hand. Answer for your double standard.

What do the faith alone posters think about the new perspective on Paul?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Perspective_on_Paul

>In the old perspective, Paul was understood to be arguing that Christians' good works would not factor into their salvation, only their faith. According to the new perspective, Paul was questioning only observances such as circumcision and dietary laws, not good works in general.

>There are certain trends and commonalities within the movement, but what is held in common is the belief that the "old perspective" (the Lutheran and Reformed interpretations of Paul the Apostle and Judaism) is fundamentally incorrect.

>From a Catholic point of view, the New Perspective is seen as a step toward the progressive reality of human salvation in Christ. Moreover, passages in the works of many early Church Fathers show that new-perspective-style interpretations were widely held among them.

>>4627689
Don't really agree. Good works are a function of true saving grace through Jesus Christ in that one is expected and will be naturally led to do them through the filling of the Holy Ghost and His developing of the character of Christ in the believer. Faith without works is dead and John 15 makes it clear that believers are to abide in Christ's presence as the branches of the Vine and produce good fruit.

>>4627689

I should have linked to more than the wikipedia article really.

http://www.thepaulpage.com/new-perspective/introduction-and-summary/

Here is the article that started this whole thing in 1982

http://markgoodacre.org/PaulPage/New.html

>>4627689
In my opinion works are not a requirement as demonstrated by the thief on the cross.
It is also backed up by the following verses, as mentioned from the wiki.
Ephesians 2:8-9 - For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
It is also demonstrated by the following verses.
Romans 4:5 - But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Romans 4:6 - Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works
Romans 4:16 - Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all

That being said.

James 2:17 - Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
James 2:18 - Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
The next verse gets to the heart of the situation.
James 2:19 - Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
I think this demonstrates that "believing in God" is in itself lacking.
You must not only agree there is a God, but also agree that his way is best. I think works are a good way to demonstrate that you are in agreement with God.
If we continue reading in James we find.
James 2:21 - Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
James 2:22 - Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

I see this as trying to explain why you should do works, and not that they are a requirement.
In my opinion God knows your heart, and if you truly believe in Him, and are in agreement with Him. He will know it without works.
As seen with the thief on the cross. God knew he "would have changed" if he had the opportunity.

Considering that everyone who believes is not on facing certain death, as was the thief of the cross. We are supposed to " let your light so shine before men"
As indicated by the Lord in the following passage.
Matthew 5:13-16
"Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."

So while works are a good indication that someone does have faith. Lack of works does not necessarily mean a lack of faith. i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Continued from >>4628104

Matthew 5:19
"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

>Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven:
>he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven:
>in the kingdom of heaven:

My point here is even tho we are supposed to go do good works.
Not doing what you are supposed to do. Does not in its self condemn you.

I hope it does not sound as tho I have contradictory beliefs.

I do believe we are supposed to do good works. I just do not see it as a requirement.

>>4627300
If you insist.

>>4627003
>Any attempt to ascribe a certain meaning to a certain passage of scripture is worthless unless it accounts for the various ways in which that scripture has been understood and put into practice by the people who consider it sacred
>understood and put into practice
Fair enough.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/ChristianAttacks.htm

Is that enough to "account" for my claim that Islam is a religion of hate?

Perhaps the source is bias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosheh_Martyrs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs_of_Atlas

How about now? Is that enough evidence for you?

As previously stated there are literally more than a HUNDRED verses calling for violence in the Qur'an.

I'm not saying that every Muslim is violent. I am saying that the Qur'an tells them to be violent.
Much in the same way that every "Christian" is not necessarily following what the bible says to do. ex The Westborro Babtist Church.
The point I was making is the Qur'an blatantly promotes violence.

I have not mistranslated, misunderstood, or otherwise changed the meaning of the verse.
"Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and will disgrace them and give you victory over them and satisfy the breasts of a believing people"- Qur'an 9:14
If you would like to read this verse in full context.
http://quran.com/9


I must say nice attempt to get me to change my argument from.
The Qur'an teaches violence to Muslims are violent.

The Bible clearly tells us to "love thy neighbor as thyself"
The Qur'an clearly tells us to "punish the unbelievers"

Can we be done with this yet?

When I am wrong, I will admit it.
I'm not just "sticking to my guns" here.
Its ok to be wrong man. Everyone makes mistakes. Let it go.

>>4628144
>How about now? Is that enough evidence for you?

Evidence for what? That an entire civilization/religious tradition should be held accountable for anything done in its name?

>As previously stated there are literally more than a HUNDRED verses calling for violence in the Qur'an.

There are as many in the Bible. You are still completely ignoring what's important - the interpretive traditions of Muslims themselves.

Yes, Muslims who perpetrate acts of violence can seek justification in their scripture. Christians (or whoever else) can, and have, done the same. What makes you think that you possess the knowledge and authority necessary to tell Muslims that the violent readings of their scripture are "correct"? You cannot read their scripture in its original language and probably have not read it in translation. You are not familiar with its exegesis. Islamic jurisprudence, which encompasses the ethics of war and peace, has a long history of competing schools of thought - you have completely failed to address this.

>I have not mistranslated, misunderstood, or otherwise changed the meaning of the verse.

You've amply demonstrated that you're either unable or unwilling to understand how scripture works.

>>4628231
Terrorist pls no one cares. Go worship the moon and be archaic somewhere else.

>>4628234
That guy is right to say Christianity is not a 'non-violent' religion, that tripfag is being foolish!

>>4628234

Hey, clever post, guy! The terrorist part really drove it home - nice touch!