ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, February 19, 2015

A historical crime?

Eight years of Obama have killed more people than the Spanish Inquisition:
Obama’s drone campaign has killed more people during the six years of his presidency than were killed the 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition.

In his speech on Thursday, he said:

Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history.  And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.  In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.

Fair enough. But how is Obama himself doing on that score?

Well, on Monday of this week the Bureau of Investigative Journalism published their annual study of deaths from U.S. drone strikes, and reported the following:

At least 2,464 people have now been killed by US drone strikes outside the country’s declared war zones since President Barack Obama’s inauguration six years ago, the Bureau’s latest monthly report reveals.... So how does that number of 2,464 killed in Obama’s drone program — not including those killed in Iraq or Afghanistan — compare to, say, the Spanish Inquisition?
About 2,250 people were tried and handed over to the crown, then executed, in the 356 years of the Spanish Inquisition. The Obama administration is nearly 50 times more murderous on an annual basis than the medieval institution he was criticizing. And whether or not you are convinced that the Inquisition's victims got a fair trial, it should be noted that they did get a trial.

I always find it curious, too, when men conspicuously avoid mentioning the name of Jesus.

Labels:

90 Comments:

Blogger Student in Blue February 19, 2015 4:51 PM  

Is there a mistake or am I missing something here?
8 years, 2464 people
356 years, 2550 people

2550 people is more people than 2464.

Anonymous jamsco February 19, 2015 4:51 PM  

What I want to know is this: Has Obama's administration been more or less murderous than bicycle producers?

Anonymous Anonymous February 19, 2015 4:54 PM  

Jeremiah Says: THe key quote you are missing student in blue is "Sine his inauguration six years ago" and "NOT including those killed in Iraq and Afghanistan

Anonymous Joe Doakes in Como Park February 19, 2015 5:00 PM  

The linked article claims 2,250 killed by the Inquisition. Vox doesn't explain his higher number (which he usually would) so it's more likely a typo than a recalculation or new assertion.

Blogger Student in Blue February 19, 2015 5:01 PM  

@Jeremiah
No, I think I see it. The article has 2250 dead, but Vox has down 2550.

Then again, I'm not sure why he has "Eight years of Obama" written when Obama's only starting his seventh year.

Anonymous BW February 19, 2015 5:01 PM  

The article says 2,250 killed in the Inquisition, not 2,550. Typo?

Anonymous DrTorch February 19, 2015 5:01 PM  

From the original article A quick calculation finds that 1.8 percent of 125,000 would represent 2,250 killed during the Spanish Inquisition if Prof. Borromeo’s estimates are correct.

Perhaps VD simply made a typo.

Anonymous Big Bill February 19, 2015 5:03 PM  

... and about 2500 Negros were lynched in the last two hundred years in the USA, yet way more than 2500 Negros are murdered every single year by other Negros in the USA. Why the difference in moral outrage in both cases?

Blogger David February 19, 2015 5:03 PM  

As long as a politician steers clear of overseeing the killing of 11 million or more people, he or she can't be numerically compared to Hitler, much less Stalin or Mao.

It's all good, right? Other people's lives really don't matter much in this modern era where there is no fear of Judgement.

Blogger Josh February 19, 2015 5:06 PM  

I always find it curious, too, when men conspicuously avoid mentioning the name of Jesus.

By this you mean using Christ instead of Jesus or Jesus Christ?

Anonymous Noah B. February 19, 2015 5:09 PM  

No one expects a drone strike from the Wild Blue Yonder!

Blogger MATT February 19, 2015 5:15 PM  

@Student in Blue Obama has done in 7 years what the Spanish Inquisition did in 3.5 centuries.

Blogger Random February 19, 2015 5:15 PM  

The Crusades are a historically-vague period convenient for leftists to use as a moral-equivocation tool.

The US and Britain probably killed more people firebombing Dresden than were victim of a 'terrible deeds' done in the name of Jesus during the Crusades.

Probably.

Blogger Random February 19, 2015 5:16 PM  

*deed, not 'deeds.'

Blogger MATT February 19, 2015 5:17 PM  

The article made the mistake and phrased it wrong, but the intent was clear.

Blogger Student in Blue February 19, 2015 5:17 PM  

Our chief weapon is imports...imports and debt...debt and imports.... Our two weapons are debt and imports...and ruthlessly shortsighted foreign policy.... Our *three* weapons are debt, imports, and ruthlessly shortsighted foreign policy...and an almost fanatical devotion to policing of the entire world.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as debt, imports.... I'll come in again.

Blogger MATT February 19, 2015 5:20 PM  

Because RACISS

Blogger Miguel D'Anconia February 19, 2015 5:23 PM  

The other thing I find ridiculous is how the magic negro brings up examples from hundreds of years ago whilst the atrocities committed by islam are within days. This guy is such a complete ass.

Anonymous Stephen J. February 19, 2015 5:23 PM  

"8 years, 2464 people; 356 years, 2550 people. 2550 people is more people than 2464."

Yes, but 2464 people in 8 years = 308 people per year. 2550 people in 356 years = 7.16 people per year. 308 people per year / 7.16 people per year = 43.016. Thus, the former is 43 times as deadly as the latter.

Assuming the 2250 figure is actually the correct one then the disparity becomes even worse, as 2250 people in 356 years is only 6.32 people per year, making drone warfare 48.73 times as deadly as the Inquisition.

Blogger Bard February 19, 2015 5:24 PM  

Even when presented with these facts, those who should be convinced won't be

Blogger Bard February 19, 2015 5:25 PM  

Facts+history=superhard

Blogger mmaier2112 February 19, 2015 5:25 PM  

Didn't Bush usually say "Christ" instead of "Jesus" too? Satan probably owns both so ....

Good one, Student in Blue.

Blogger Ronald L. Wilson, Jr. February 19, 2015 5:31 PM  

The Obama admin is 6 years old. So the annual,rate is closer to 60X.

Blogger Ronald L. Wilson, Jr. February 19, 2015 5:31 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous A. Nonymous February 19, 2015 5:33 PM  

I always find it curious, too, when men conspicuously avoid mentioning the name of Jesus.

I've always understood the preference for "Jesus" rather than "Christ" to be an Evangelical Protestant/American affectation, to emphasize the "personal relationship" aspect of their beliefs.

Anonymous nil February 19, 2015 5:34 PM  

That figure only counts people killed directly by the church, most of the victims were turned over to secular authorities for execution. The actual death toll of the Spanish Inquisition is in the ballpark of 350,000.

Anonymous Josh Himself February 19, 2015 5:37 PM  

"I always find it curious, too, when men conspicuously avoid mentioning the name of Jesus."

This made me curious. I tried to find a site with full-text searching of Obama's speeches, and in two minutes of googling, came up with obamaspeeches dot com. A site search for the term "Jesus" turned up exactly one hit, a 2006 speech from Israel describing his middle east tour:

"As the sun rises over 2,000-year old walls - walls built by David, Soloman, the Turkish Empire, we visited the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, where the site of Calvary and Jesus' tomb is located."

The only time he's used the name "Jesus" (at least as far as the incomplete archive on that site is concerned) is in reference to his tomb. Curiouser and curiouser.

Blogger Idaho Reefer February 19, 2015 5:41 PM  

@nil:
"That figure only counts people killed directly by the church, most of the victims were turned over to secular authorities for execution. The actual death toll of the Spanish Inquisition is in the ballpark of 350,000."

Bullshit. The _Spanish_ Inquisition (the one actually organized and implemented by the Kingdom of Spain) executed a few thousand. For all Inquisitions (whether implemented by the Church proper or the regional civil authority), around 3000 were executed in a period of several hundred years.

Even left-leaning anti-Catholic Wikipedia doesn't make such preposterously stupid claims: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition#Statistics

Blogger Krul February 19, 2015 5:45 PM  

Matthew 16 v15-17:
He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.


I tend to alternate between 'Jesus' and 'Christ', but when I say 'Christ' I have Peter's response above in the back of my mind.

Anonymous Daniel February 19, 2015 5:49 PM  

Nobody ever expects the Spanish Inquisition's death toll to be so low!

Anonymous Boogeyman February 19, 2015 5:52 PM  

Utterly off topic, but I would very much like to see VD do a post on this. The growing phenomenon of black parents home schooling.

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/02/the-rise-of-homeschooling-among-black-families/385543/

Anonymous nil February 19, 2015 5:56 PM  

Idaho Reefer: the figure is from RJ Rummel.
Link:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB3.1.GIF

OpenID cailcorishev February 19, 2015 6:00 PM  

I always find it curious, too, when men conspicuously avoid mentioning the name of Jesus.


It's probably not an accident. Most speakers will use "Jesus" sometimes, "Christ" sometimes, "Jesus Christ" sometimes, "Our Lord" sometimes, and so on. But I've known New Agers who use "Christ" or "the Christ" to refer to something very different: the divine spark they think resides within all of us, with which they think Jesus (and a variety of other historical and religious figures) was more in touch than most people. Those folks will never say "Jesus Christ" because in that usage it's a title with a bunch of meanings they don't like.

Obama's said other things that indicate he's pretty much a believer in Oprah-style New Age self-worship, so it fits.

Blogger Joshua Sinistar February 19, 2015 6:04 PM  

Look, basically what Obama is saying is that strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power can only be bestowed by a mandate from the people or a gay guy wearing a black dress wielding a wooden gavel or perhaps mallet. Perhaps it might be done by nine people arguing on the Supreme Court, or maybe hundreds of countries arguing in some Global Debating Society run by the winners in a Global War, but certainly not by God-fearing Christians who believe in higher authorities than ruthless demagogues with delusions of grandeur. Maybe a consensus of scientists who make money alarming people and definitely by lobbyists who pay lazy bums to read off teleprompters, but definitely not people who work or pay taxes.
OK?

Anonymous RandyBeck February 19, 2015 6:06 PM  

It's been a while since I looked into it, but I think the Bureau of Investigative Journalism uses a different method of calculating who the "civilians" are.

Some of these body counters tend to think that if you're riding in a truck full of jihadis, but you're not seen to be carrying a gun, then you're a "civilian." I think BIJ likes to think that way.

Uniforms would have helped, but the critics aren't all that big on asking their jihadi friends to separate the jihadis from the innocents.

Blogger frigger611 February 19, 2015 6:08 PM  

Whether there exists a mistake in the exact numbers or not, does not discount the fact that Obama is WAY more murderous than the evil Inquisition he likes to disparage.
This is a brilliant point to make.
My biggest beef is with the headline.
OK, so I'm old, and was taught differently, and I'm being a bit of a pedant - But I prefer to see the article "an" instead of "a" in front of the word "history" or "historical."
This used to be defined as the correct usage, but I think TIME magazine was pilloried way back in the 80s for a similar headline, in a cover story regarding the space shuttle, if I recall.
The priests of English at Oxford or Cambridge probably now approve of this newfangled usage - much like they say we no longer need agreement, ("they" can now be singular, e.g.)
I don't like change much.
BTW, get off my lawn.

Blogger CM February 19, 2015 6:12 PM  

Utterly off topic, but I would very much like to see VD do a post on this. The growing phenomenon of black parents home schooling.

I'd enjoy that, too.

Apparently, some of the biggest proponents of the voucher system are minorities, as well.

Anonymous DT February 19, 2015 6:12 PM  

So at this point Obama is more deadly then measles in a hypothetical unvaccinated America.

Anonymous patrick kelly February 19, 2015 6:17 PM  

The Orthodox tradition is "Christ Jesus", considering Christ to be His title, not His last name.

I wouldn't say Jesus King.....I might say Jesus The King, or Jesus The Christ.

I really try to avoid saying "Jesus Christ" because so many around me treat it as a cussing phrase.

Blogger Student in Blue February 19, 2015 6:21 PM  

@patrick kelly
The Orthodox tradition is "Christ Jesus", considering Christ to be His title, not His last name.
It's not just a tradition, it's not "considered", it's a fact.

Anonymous Ridip February 19, 2015 6:22 PM  


@mmaier2112: Yes just using Christ is dubious. Lucifer was a christ, an anointed, the anointed cherub that covered the throne of God.

@Josh, google "jesus site:whitehouse.gov" you'll see he mentions Jesus at Easter (Hard not to) and at the same National Prayer Breakfast quoted above when he was deriding Darrell Waltrip's life, keynote and ministry.

He pretty much book ends the whole thing with "His Holiness" The Dalai Lama, dedicating more space to him than any other individual.

Many of his comments about "God" could be in reference to Allah. Afew of the paragraphs read carefully and contextually make it clear that the "God" being referred to is Allah.

I'm not, or wasn't, your Obama-is-Muslim type, but reading his prayer breakfast speech coupled with the recent comments that "[W]e are not at war with Islam" are starting to change my mind.

In the speech he makes fun of Jesus, Christianity, and ministry. He attributes horrible crimes to the "name of Christ" .

Yet anytime "terrorism" comes up, it is not the fault of Islam. It's not the fault of Mohammedans. He explicitly defends Islam from the terrorists, and would draw a line between the two.

At the very least he's an Islamic apologist.

Blogger Student in Blue February 19, 2015 6:24 PM  

@Joshua Sinistar
And now we see the misogyny inherent in the system.

"Help! Help! I'm being metaphorically raped!"

Blogger Idaho Reefer February 19, 2015 6:24 PM  

@nil

Thanks for the link. Perusing RJ Rummel's site for additional information turns up an extended chart with multiple lines explaining the number (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB2.1A.GIF). The sources cited on that chart include such notably unbiased scholarly sources as John Lothrop Motley and the Encylopedia Judaica. Based on the additional information, I think I'll upgrade my characterization from "bullshit" to "utter horseshit."

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents February 19, 2015 6:35 PM  

What happens when the total body count in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, etc. becomes equal to the body count on 9 / 11 / 2001, I wonder?

Declare victory? Crickets? Or what?

One thing is clear, given the near universal silence on the Left regarding drone kills, all that blather about "human rights" we heard from lefties during the reign of BusHitler was nothing but hot air. They didn't mean a word of it.

Anonymous patrick kelly February 19, 2015 6:38 PM  

"It's not just a tradition, it's not "considered", it's a fact."


ILuvThisBlog

Blogger Giraffe February 19, 2015 6:40 PM  

"A Historic crime?

I suspect that his rejecting the notion that we are at war with Islam as being an "ugly lie" is going to be remembered by history.

OpenID cailcorishev February 19, 2015 6:53 PM  

At the very least he's an Islamic apologist.

Yes, he's basically a "Whatever, as long as it's not orthodox Christianity"-ian (a big part of New Age). But he's especially sympathetic to Islam because of the African connection and his own inferiority complex over growing up not "black enough."

He probably gets a real kick out of it at those ecumenical prayer breakfasts, when "Christian" leaders get up there and praise the peace-loving nature of the other guys at the table who want to kill them.

Blogger IM2L844 February 19, 2015 6:57 PM  

Yet anytime "terrorism" comes up, it is not the fault of Islam. It's not the fault of Mohammedans. He explicitly defends Islam from the terrorists, and would draw a line between the two.

At the very least he's an Islamic apologist.


You're absolutely right, Ridip. Obama has a problem and the media, including FOX, is afraid to point it out.

ISIS has more of a solid foundation in Islamic Theology than does its Islamic detractors. There is no comprehensive argument against killing non-believers and progressive Islamic reformers to be made from a consistent Islamic theology. ISIS members are not radicals. They are fundamentalists and they are following Muhammad's example. The Koran does not consider Christians, Jews, non-believers or Muslim liberals and progressives as innocents and there simply isn't a solid Islamic theological case that can be made that is sufficiently contrary to the doctrine ISIS espouses. Nobody is willing to talk about that though. Nobody.

Blogger Cataline Sergius February 19, 2015 6:57 PM  

It's enemies were rather afraid of the Inquisition.

Admittedly the Inquisitors had identifiable metrics for success. Obama's has none that I can discern. He can't even manage the most rudimentary enemy identification.

"ISIL doesn't represent Islam." - Barack Obama (JD Harvard)

"Yes we do." - ISIL Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (PhD Theology Islamic U of Iraq)

--Iowahawk

Blogger Vox February 19, 2015 7:04 PM  

That figure only counts people killed directly by the church, most of the victims were turned over to secular authorities for execution. The actual death toll of the Spanish Inquisition is in the ballpark of 350,000.

Totally and absolutely false. Rummel's numbers there are entirely fictional and based on the Black Legend. He published them prior to the Vatican opening up its archives to secular scholars.

Anonymous nil February 19, 2015 7:16 PM  

Well, if that's true, nevermind then

Anonymous PA February 19, 2015 7:27 PM  

Jim Crow.

Jay-zuss. Jim Crow is what kept whites from being eradicated and blacks functioning like humans.

Anonymous bw February 19, 2015 8:01 PM  

Chitcago and Bath Houses...and Rahm...

Crown (family) deluxe

Anonymous sacred cow burger February 19, 2015 8:44 PM  

"I always find it curious, too, when men conspicuously avoid mentioning the name of Jesus." << Like our current Pope?

Anonymous darrenl February 19, 2015 8:45 PM  

I'll take a Dominican Inquisitor over a drone any day...thank you very much.

Anonymous Tom B February 19, 2015 8:54 PM  

Nil, you might want to see the works of Henry Kamen, who examined the written records of both the inquisitors and the Spanish Crown in writing his book "The Spanish Inquisition" before the Vatican archives were opened. He estimated that after the first 45/years of the Spanish branch, the number of deaths per year were less than 3/per year for the remaining years of the Inquisition.

OpenID jsl32 February 19, 2015 9:00 PM  

Are we supposed to shoot emails to vox if yama comes around a blog of ours? I wrote a quick post about the cool book bomb and he came by.

Anonymous Clay February 19, 2015 9:06 PM  

Oh, good grief, I haven't had time to read the entire thread, but I'm rather sure someone brought "Yeshua" to the game, and bought him some popcorn.

Anonymous clk February 19, 2015 9:13 PM  

One of the things about the Spanish Inquisition that is was not actually controlled by the Pope in Rome .. its was corrupted by monarchy of Spain. Also when we talk Inquisition we are really talking a several different inquisitions of which the Spanish is only one...

It was forbidden to cause death and in reality it was only a small percentage of those that faced inquisition died .. the present myth regarding the blood of the inquisitions is primarily a protestant invention ...

Its is intellectually incorrect to compare the inquisition to drone strikes -- one was meant to save souls and protect against heresy; the other is meant to kill...

Anonymous zen0 February 19, 2015 9:21 PM  

"ISIL doesn't represent Islam." - Barack Obama (JD Harvard)

"Yes we do." - ISIL Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (PhD Theology Islamic U of Iraq)
--Iowahawk


ISIL is not some medieval retro group. Islam was like that in the 18th and 19th centuries, with a brief interlude after the fall of the Caliphate.

When they talk about countering Western influence, its not just the immorality, it is also the restraint on capital punishment, slavery, and jizra. Saudi Arabia only gave up slavery in 1962, strictly for image reasons. It will be back soon enough.

Progressives see ISIS as a historical aberration. ISIS sees them the same way. It’s all a question of whose history book we’re using and which side is willing to do anything to win. Islam is a religion of war. Its right side of history is not a matter of faith. The right side of history is the side that wins.

Sultan Knish

Anonymous zen0 February 19, 2015 9:23 PM  

Its is intellectually incorrect to compare the inquisition to drone strikes -- one was meant to save souls and protect against heresy; the other is meant to kill...

Plus, as one cleric pointed out recently, torture was not illegal in those days. Now it is illegal! /nudge, nudge, ... wink, wink, ...

Anonymous clk February 19, 2015 9:29 PM  

:) Very true .zen0 .....very few of the Bush Inquisition died ... better technique...

Anonymous kjj February 19, 2015 9:32 PM  

@frigger611

A vs. An is phonologically-conditioned allomorphy. "An" before a vowel sound, "A" before a consonant sound.

If you are British and ignore the H at the beginning of the word when speaking, you need the N to break the two vowels. Note that you can't shift directly from a hard-A to I; you need some sort of stop.

If, however, you are an American that pronounces history with a Hiss, you already have a stop there and don't need another. So "An His Tory" sounds terrible. (To be fair, so would "An Ihs Try".)

If I was editing a written work and came across "an historic" in it (or "an hospital", etc.), I'd leave it alone if the story had lots of colour or labour in it. But in the absence of other Britishisms, I'd flag it.

OpenID achristianonwar February 19, 2015 9:45 PM  

Wiki has the number between 3k-5k, while VD indicated 3200 in TIA.

Anonymous TimP February 19, 2015 10:20 PM  

On the subject of using "Christ" without "Jesus" I initially thought that it was fairly popular Biblically, so I did a couple of searches on biblegateway.com.

The NIV has 1310 uses of "Jesus", 469 uses of "Christ", and 74 uses of "Messiah". It turns out that the majority of the uses of "Jesus" (and "Messiah") are in the Gospels though, if we exclude them we're looking at 348 uses of "Jesus", 465 uses of "Christ", and 15 uses of "Messiah".

Skimming through them it seems to indicate that the apostles preferred "Jesus Christ"* dropping back to just "Christ" for repeated references in the same passage. This seems to indicate that my initial impression (that "Christ" alone had a fairly strong Biblical basis) was incorrect.

* The NIV also uses "Christ Jesus" occasionally, but much less often, though this may be an artifact of the English translation; I don't know which word order the Greek originals would have preferred, if either.


On the subject of the "crimes" of the Inquisitions it's worth pointing out two facts (particularly when they are brought up by feminists):

1) Many (in some areas, I believe, the majority) of the "witches" where young men who where convicted of using "Love Potions" to seduce the local maidens.
2) "Love Potion" is the fancy medieval term for "Date Rape Drug".

Blogger ray February 19, 2015 10:27 PM  

"I always find it curious, too, when men conspicuously avoid mentioning the name of Jesus."



Barack Hussein hates the name of Jesus . . . if he utters 'Christ' it's only to connect Him to slavery, white privilege, the Patriarchal Inquisition Against Women, and other horrible crimes against humanity. Not to glorify Jesus as rightful lord of this planet.

Because then, Barack's electoral worshippers might not glorify Barack. :O)

Jesus/Jeshua isn't trending. He never does. Forty years of emasculation and churchianity. Rabbis squat on the Temple Mount and dis His character. The princelings of Araby -- and of the West -- harass, persecute, and kill His people. Mohammed and black hoods are cool. Jesus is boring, unempowering, and yesterday. And of course history is littered with crimes committed by his followers. Extremists, really.

If Jeshua hadn't already proved he is king, I'd probly get on his bandwagon just to antagonize these people. To disrupt their predictably incremental plans.

Anonymous Too-Soon-ami February 19, 2015 10:50 PM  

At least 2,464 people have now been killed by US drone strikes outside the country’s declared war zones


Don't you need to declare war, before you have any declared war zones?

Anonymous dh February 19, 2015 10:51 PM  

zen0--

I've been to the Kingdom for business. There is very little you could say to prove to me that they don't still have slavery.

Anonymous die ragheads February 19, 2015 11:14 PM  

I like Obama more now. Go President Drone Strike!

Anonymous Clay February 19, 2015 11:47 PM  

That sorry bitch he's '"married" to is gonna strike his tiny nuggets once she gets kicked out of formerly known "White House". Notice she's been missing lately. along with her tribe?

Anonymous kh123 February 20, 2015 12:10 AM  

"Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history."

Actually, short of a few isolated individuals like Asoka, I don't think humanity did much more than grab what it could rather than grapple with questions of conscience, at least before Christ and Christianity hit home the point "What will it profit a man, if he gain the whole world?...".

Blogger Desiderius February 20, 2015 2:02 AM  

Josh,

"Curiouser and curiouser."

He was raised Muslim. Membership in his class requires lapsing from whatever religion one has and taking on the appearances of whatever religion one needs.

Seems straightforward.

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus February 20, 2015 2:49 AM  

ray: "Jesus/Jeshua isn't trending. He never does. Forty years of emasculation and churchianity. Rabbis squat on the Temple Mount and dis His character. The princelings of Araby -- and of the West -- harass, persecute, and kill His people. Mohammed and black hoods are cool. Jesus is boring, unempowering, and yesterday. And of course history is littered with crimes committed by his followers. Extremists, really."

The meal has been treated with the leaven of the rabbis; hidden yet all-transforming. The yeast silently spreads through the whole loaf, till it becomes a different thing. Which it has.

Or that's one interpretation of events, anyway.

Blogger Cee February 20, 2015 3:16 AM  

@TimP
On the subject of the "crimes" of the Inquisitions it's worth pointing out two facts (particularly when they are brought up by feminists):

1) Many (in some areas, I believe, the majority) of the "witches" where young men who where convicted of using "Love Potions" to seduce the local maidens.
2) "Love Potion" is the fancy medieval term for "Date Rape Drug".


I am intrigued and wish to know more about this. What's a good source?

Anonymous Porky February 20, 2015 3:39 AM  

"I'm really good at killing people."

- Barack Hussein Obama, 2011

Blogger Lovekraft February 20, 2015 5:59 AM  

All I know is that when the wholesale slaughter comes to the west, once conditions are ripe, Christians are woefully ill-equipped. We've let the state and progressives bully us into denying coming threats that could be warded off with sober planning and co-ordination.

Anonymous Randall February 20, 2015 7:30 AM  

If Obama were to mention the name of Jesus, he would be required to follow it with, "peace be upon him".

Anonymous Sensei February 20, 2015 7:46 AM  

If Obama were to mention the name of Jesus, he would be required to follow it with, "peace be upon him".

Ha, nice.. at this point I'm beginning to wonder myself. (Not that he's a Muslim's Muslim but whether due to his upbringing and based on his actions he considers himself more that than anything else.)

The Christ/Jesus thing is hard to call. On the one hand, Christ is Greek for Messiah, so it's hardly holding Him at arm's length, and using one's exalted title is a way to show respect and ascribe honor.
On the other hand, it's also more formal and sounds more academic and less familiar, so it could be indicative of some "embarrassment" there, which can reveal a fatal condition of the soul:

"For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in his glory..." (Luke 9:26)

Anonymous Ridip February 20, 2015 8:22 AM  

On the subject of "Christ Jesus" vs "Jesus Christ", which TimP brought up. The Greek uses both as does the English.

In the King James, the first occurrence of "Jesus Christ" is Matthew 1:1, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." In Greek this is Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, Iesou Xristou.

The first occurrence of "Christ Jesus" is in Acts 19:4, "Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." In Greek this is Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, Christon Iesoun. The difference in endings is due to the differing parts of speech.

I did a pretty extensive study of this years ago. If you look through all the various occurrences, the phrase "Jesus Christ" seems to place emphasis on his humanity, while "Christ Jesus" emphasizes his position as Lord, Saviour, Anointed, and Sovereign.

Frequently that which is emphasized also has a secondary focus on the other attributes. This contrasts with simple references of "Jesus" or "Christ", which generally refer to only those attributes of that specific word.

It's interesting to notice that "Christ Jesus" does not show up until Acts, after his ascension.

This may or may not track with your NIV. Without getting into a version war, I spent several months comparing Greek and Latin manuscripts against many English, as well as a few Spanish, French and German translations. I'm sorry to say the NIV tracked poorly against the Greek text, any Greek text, worse than even The Message and The Living Bible paraphrases. I' only bring it up, because it does not work well for this kind of deep study.

You might guess from the long reply you hit upon a favored subject of mine, namely ancient languages, Scripture and translation.

Blogger Student in Blue February 20, 2015 9:11 AM  

@Ridip
OT, but how do you feel ESV compares?

Anonymous Ridip February 20, 2015 10:35 AM  

I didn't dig into the ESV at the time. It's more popular now than it was at the time.

That said here are a few verses where the Jehovah's Witness New World Translation removes the diety of Christ. Look them up in the King James and the ESV and see how it compares.

Matthew 19:16,17
Mark 15:28
Luke 23:42
Acts 8:37
Acts 9:5,6
Colossians 1:14
1 Timothy 3:16
1 John 5:6-8

They weren't the subject of my study, but they serve as a good quick indicator of the quality of the translation. There may be disagreement on this here, but I for one consider the diety of Christ to be extremely important.

Anonymous paradox February 20, 2015 10:50 AM  

The Christ vs Jesus issue is more related to the leanings of the person. It's been awhile since I've read Lewis or Chesterton, but I believe they used Christ more than Jesus. And I don't hold them suspect. I'll need to check works though.

Anonymous Noah B. February 20, 2015 11:43 AM  

"The Christ vs Jesus issue is more related to the leanings of the person."

Agreed. There are plenty of seedy evangelist hustler types that don't hesitate to say Jesus' name. Some of them almost sound like they have Tourette's, based on the frequency and seemingly involuntary manner with which they say "praise Jesus." I find such behavior not only curious, but highly suspect and insincere.

Anonymous Noah B. February 20, 2015 11:47 AM  

In fact, among those who claim that Jesus was an actual historical figure but not the Son of God, it's been my experience that they freely say Jesus (often as "Jesus of Nazareth") but seldom say Christ.

Blogger Student in Blue February 20, 2015 12:22 PM  

Probably then, the thing to take away from all of this discussion is the importance of linking Jesus and Christ. Not just one or the other, but both together.

Blogger frigger611 February 20, 2015 2:03 PM  

kjj, thanks, you are correct of course. But this is one of those things about language that goes in and out of fashion. "A Historic" is now certainly more preferred in our modern age, but it wasn't always so. I once had an elderly prof for English and he spent time on nitpicky things like this. I clearly remember the TIME magazine headline "A Historic Event" that caused somewhat of a kerfuffle in the world of news editing - some saying "tsk, tsk" others saying that it should be more accepted and Time editors were old farts, etc.
Similarly: as a youngster we were told that one who plays the flute was a flautist. But now "flutist" is acceptable. Also, that the antidote for venom was antivenin - though now "anitvenom" is accepted.
My point being that some items didn't follow standard rules (for some odd reason), were probably just hangovers from Olde English, tradition, or whatever - but knowing the esoteric subtleties and exceptions were important to some.
Oh, and now we have "China-American" diplomatic relations, though just a decade or two ago it was "Sino-American."
I'm not sure if some of this is a general dumbing down, or genuine new preferences emerging.
I shouldn't let myself be bothered by it, I suppose.

Blogger frigger611 February 20, 2015 2:03 PM  

Oh and here's a fascinating link on same:

http://www.betterwritingskills.com/tip-w005.html

Anonymous patrick kelly February 20, 2015 3:10 PM  

Other comments make me wonder how I missed a glaring exception to the Orthodox use of "Christ Jesus".

The Jesus Prayer: "Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on me a sinner."

Most of the time when I listen to a homily or study lesson the Priest uses "Christ Jesus" almost exclusively.

OpenID cailcorishev February 20, 2015 3:51 PM  

Probably then, the thing to take away from all of this discussion is the importance of linking Jesus and Christ.

Right. The New Agers I was talking about would refer to the historical figure as Jesus, and they'd use 'Christ' in prayers or discussion of divinity, but never the two together, and that's not an accident.

I don't see much significance in the fact that one preacher says J the most while another says C the most and another always carefully uses JC (or CJ). But it gets my attention when someone carefully keeps them separate based on context, because that's a sign that he probably means something very different by "Christ" than the usual meaning.

Blogger cl February 22, 2015 11:03 PM  

"And whether or not you are convinced that the Inquisition's victims got a fair trial, it should be noted that they did get a trial."

Touche!

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts