IDF confirms authenticity of a photo of a soldier destroying a statute of Jesus Christ

[childlessbutconcerned]

https://x.com/idf/status/2045973415643767091?s=46

Disgraceful.

Cool. Thanks for that.

So Mat 18:5-6

"And he who may receive one such child in My Name, receives Me,and whoever may cause to stumble one of those little ones who are believing in Me, it is better for him that a weighty millstone may be hanged on his neck, and he may be sunk in the depth of the sea." (LSV)

The unforgivable sin. Punishable by death. To turn someone away from Jesus.

To put that into the context of this thread, your religion says if I were to de-convert you, then I deserve to be drowned. So for this IDF soldier, when confronted by a statue, which is forbidden in the ten commandments, perhaps his faith meant he had to destroy it.

It really is a case of religion can be the persecutor.

Even in Christianity, a real Christian would follow 1 Tim 2:12. I would argue that persecutes women.

Not as simple as it first seems, is what I say.

It’s the extremism that’s the problem. Not the religion or the lack of religion.

Extremists of all types are intolerant of the views of others - not just religious extremism- atheistic extremism ( generally in the form of communism) is also oppressive to religious groups ( eg North Korea) .

Extremists/ fundamentalists can’t tolerate difference. They see it as a threat .

Honestly- I would say that your interpretation of Scripture is very literal and lacks nuance and context.
But that’s my view - I’m Catholic - we don’t tend to read things quite the way evangelical Christians do … That’s part of the reason I guess why there are different denominations.

Im not here to persuade you my beliefs are correct. I’m just here to say that no one should be oppressed because of their religious beliefs.

Quote: "Honestly- I would say that your interpretation of Scripture is very literal and lacks nuance and context."

In other words, you are changing what is written in the Bible to suit what you want your religion to be, or what the doctrine of a specific Church says it means.

So this part of the Bible :

So Mat 18:5-6
"And he who may receive one such child in My Name, receives Me,and whoever may cause to stumble one of those little ones who are believing in Me, it is better for him that a weighty millstone may be hanged on his neck, and he may be sunk in the depth of the sea." (LSV)

If I wanted to drown someone who had de-converted someone away from Christ, and you said no, then you would be oppressing my religious freedom. Or how should I read that verse ? What is the correct context or nuance ?

Do you see the problem here ?

An IDF soldier who abhors idolatry, would feel the need to destroy a statue of Jesus.

Well I'm glad we got that cleared up.

🤣

Quote : "atheistic extremism "

I can get what that means. If a system says there is no God, therefore nobody is allowed to worship any God. However, pretty difficult to enforce that for what people think.

And really, that statement also applies to secularism. Or enforced secularism, as is the case in France.

Quote : "Extremists/ fundamentalists can’t tolerate difference. They see it as a threat ."

I don't understand the threat part. If I was a Christian who totally believed in 1 Tim 2:12, and I forbade women to teach, ( context: teach the bible), then a woman teaching would not be a threat, it would be against me belief surely.

Just by chance by the way, this thread has started over in religion. Note how many posts before we get the "discrimination" point being made. Is this school being extremist ?

School asking daughter to remove small cross despite religious symbols policy | Mumsnet

I have issues with a lot of what you've written there, and also how it connects to the IDF soldier smashing the statue. But it would be going a long way off topic to get into that here.

Taking the soldier part on its own, yes he may have felt the statue was a 'graven image' and thus decided to destroy it. At the very least, as I've said earlier, it's vandalism and deserves punishment. We don't know what the exact reason was why he did it, we just have the photo to go on.

What issues do you have with my logic here ?

Ultimately, what it points to is that soldiers should be atheist or secular. And that religion has no place on the battlefield. Or in the politics that feeds the wars.

I think if that was applied as a rule, there would be a lot less wars.

Maybe there would but you would also need world leaders to be atheist or secular plus it’s too authoritarian to start telling everyone what they can & cannot believe in.

Not your logic, your understanding of Scripture. What the unforgiveable sin actually is, whether it's possible to 'de-covert' a Christian or not. The latter is actually a big conversation because Calvinists do not believe this is possible (once saved, always saved), whereas Arminians would do. It's too big a conversation for this thread and takes it off topic.

As for your point here, I think there would always be wars one way or another, even if we were all atheists.

One can really just go by the Bible when it comes to what is written in it.

Not if you are just reading it on your own and trying to interpret it yourself. Which is what I feel you are doing. That never ends well. There have been passages in the Bible I've read and come away with the completely wrong idea. Until I had them properly explained to me by my pastor. Yes read the Bible, no don't keep reading it on your own. This is why we need fellowship and guidance by mature Christians.

So when Jesus said it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle then for a rich man to enter heaven ( I paraphrase), I should ignore that and listen to a prosperity preacher who says the needle was a narrow gate in the walls of Jerusalem. And that the camel had to bend it's neck to get through.

Mat 19:24 and again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God. (LSV)

As a matter of interest, how do you interpret that verse ?

Remember that the Bible wasn't written in chapter and verse format. That's something introduced much later to make it easier for people to read and study. So in the case of that particular verse, you need to look at what Jesus was speaking about beforehand. He'd been speaking to the rich young man who asked what good deed he needed to do to secure eternal life. Jesus gave him a list of some of the ten commandments which the young man said he had kept, then he asked, what did he lack? Jesus knew of course and told him to sell his possessions, give to the poor and follow him. The young man was downcast and walked away.

Then Jesus says, “Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God."

There's no need to allegorise this into a narrow gate with a camel trying to get in. Just read it literally. Jesus is telling his disciples it's incredibly difficult to enter the kingdom of heaven if you are so attached to your wealth and possessions. Basically wealth is your God, so how will you put Jesus first if so?

Yup, I am aware that the verse numbers were added to the Bible, For reference I was a "born again" for over 20 years. It's something I have studied. Although I was just reading the Bible during my Christian decades. Not really studying it, if that makes sense. The study came post Christian. After my de-conversion.

You said " Not if you are just reading it on your own and trying to interpret it yourself. Which is what I feel you are doing. That never ends well."

And the verse talking about is- Mat 19:24 and again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God. (LSV)

That is from the literal standard version translation. I prefer that one. But if I switch to the NKJV with strongs numbers:

"Mat 19:24 And againG3825 I sayG3004 unto you, It is easierG2123 for a camelG2574 to goG1330 throughG1223 the eyeG5169 of a needle,G4476 thanG2228 for a richG4145 manG3495 to enterG1525 intoG1519 the kingdomG932 of God.G2316"

I can get the translations of each word from the greek. That gives us " sew aperture", so obviously Jesus was not talking about a gate in a wall as the prosperity preachers claim. But they are multi millionaires.

Re that verse, you said "Just read it literally. Jesus is telling his disciples it's incredibly difficult to enter the kingdom of heaven if you are so attached to your wealth and possessions. Basically wealth is your God, so how will you put Jesus first if so?"

I think you have subtly changed it there. You said " incredibly difficult". Jesus said "easier". Attached is a photo of an Iron age needle. So I would take that as Jesus means impossible. Because no way is a camel going through that.

Of course, it's all really Jesus allegedly said. Because there are no original texts known about. And the original Matthew, one of the synoptics, was written at best at least 35 years after the death.

So from that verse, we get 3 different readings. I am taking it as written, you are changing it a bit, and the prosperity folk are miles off.

It's an interesting subject for sure.

@RedTagAlan
I think you should set up your own thread in the Religion section.
I think this is an interesting topic but probably not of interest to most people on this forum.

I am just debating points made. In this case about persecution of Christians. And I think a reader will see that different Christians have different ideas about what their religion is, and it follows that the same can be said about persecution.

In this case, the IDF soldier could have been bound by his religion to destroy the statute.

There is a new photo being investigated now.

Soldier who put cigarette in mouth of Virgin Mary statue will be disciplined, IDF says | The Times of Israel

If any Christian feels persecuted by anything I have posted, feel free to say.

Where does the above story about the cigarette fit ? Persecution or insult ? Be good to see what different Christians think.

An offensive act is not persecution - but it could ( if no one in power objects to it) lead to persecution as things escalate over time.

Trump posted a picture of himself as Jesus. That was offensive to many and made him look ridiculous but it doesn’t compare to the real persecution faced by religious minorities in many countries who are at risk from violence, abduction, rape, murder, forced conversion, property theft , humiliation.
Even In the UK we see religious persecution- British Jews have to have protection for their schools and synagogues and have faced numerous violent attacks. We have come to this point because lots of more minor offences have been ignored.

Essentially - one random offensive act is not persecution.

A sustained campaign of offensive acts is persecution.

A couple of days ago I began wondering where the lines are to define 'persecution' and couldn't answer that myself. So I had a search online and there isn't a one size fits all legal definition of it.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2024-0017/

There is no internationally agreed definition of persecution. Open Doors’ methodology defines persecution as:

Any hostility experienced as a result of one’s identification with Christ. This can include hostile attitudes, words and actions towards Christians.

This broad definition includes (but is not limited to) restrictions, pressure, discrimination, opposition, disinformation, injustice, intimidation, mistreatment, marginalisation, oppression, intolerance, infringement, violation, ostracism, hostilities, harassment, abuse, violence, ethnic cleansing and genocide.

So there will be differences in what is perceived as 'persecution'.

This is a good article on Christian persecution.

https://learn.ligonier.org/articles/what-christian-persecution

Yup. I reckon you just need to see the thread on here about a girl wanting to wear a cross to school. Some ppl say meh, others shout persecution.

That's not me trying to minimize actual persecution. Of course it is very real. But it can be difficult to get a handle on it. As you say.

I did see that thread. Not worth getting into the middle of that!

There are clear definitions available
https://righttoremain.org.uk/whats-the-difference-between-discrimination-and-persecution/

What the Qualification Regulations say about persecution
5.— (1) In deciding whether a person is a refugee an act of persecution must be:
(a) sufficiently serious by its nature or repetition as to constitute a severe violation of a basic human right, in particular a right from which derogation cannot be made under Article 15 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms(1); or
(b) an accumulation of various measures, including a violation of a human right which is sufficiently severe as to affect an individual in a similar manner as specified in (a).
(2) An act of persecution may, for example, take the form of:
(a) an act of physical or mental violence, including an act of sexual violence;
(b) a legal, administrative, police, or judicial measure which in itself is discriminatory or which is implemented in a discriminatory manner;
(c ) prosecution or punishment, which is disproportionate or discriminatory;
(d) denial of judicial redress resulting in a disproportionate or discriminatory punishment;
(e) prosecution or punishment for refusal to perform military service in a conflict, where performing military service would include crimes or acts falling under regulation 7 [exclusion clauses, see more here]
(3) An act of persecution must be committed for at least one of the reasons in Article 1(A) of the Geneva Convention [reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group].

Persecution is generally regarded as targeted, sustained and serious .