Rosie O'Donnel comment

You're getting ideas from the text that aren't there.
Error: You have to pray for your enemy while you kill them! Nothing about the execution law is changed here.
In fact, where in the old testament is hatred of enemies ever mandatory? Answer: it never was.

Jesus is clarifying and elaborating on the old testament, but there is absolutely no contradiction with any old testament laws.
Click to expand...

Indeed, there is no contradiction.

"If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat. And if he is thirsty, give him water to drink; for you will heap burning coals on his head, and the Lord will reward you." (Proverbs 25:21,22)

"But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head. Do not be overcome by evil. But overcome evil with good." (Romans 12: 20, 21)
 
Ah, Seb's not actually a christian.
Sorry I harshed out a bit there.
I thought you was the genuine article. :p

Anywho, maths had nothing to do with it, because I'm awful at everything save geometry.

Learning all this stuff was easy.

All you need to do is actually read the bible.

That sounds simple, but it's apparently more difficult than you'd expect.

Most christians don't ever read the full bible. they let their pastor or whoever tell them what it "means".
That's where the lies about a pacifist jesus and ignoring the old testament came from.

The christianity jesus wanted has been dead for hundreds of years.

If christians do read the full bible, they don't understand it.
The bible is a complicated legal document, filled with precedents and regulations, as well as their mythological/historical context.
The vast majority of people use it as a book of inspirational quotes.

At the same time, most critics of the bible focus on its factual and scientific errors to the point that they assume that the entire thing is a big pile of nonsensical quotes.

However, the bible (as an unintentional work of fiction) has its own internal logic. That logic is largely (not entirely, but fairly) consistent, but ONLY if the old and new testaments are not considered seperate, mutually exclusive documents.

It is an excellent document for how to run a genocidal death cult.
For any other purpose, it's entirely useless.
You can't bake a cake with an NFL playbook.
___________________________

Riomhaire is entirely correct there. Either jesus is a false prophet or that is what he meant.

He can't be the son of god and then give out laws that prohibit eachother.
___________________________

"If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat. And if he is thirsty, give him water to drink; for you will heap burning coals on his head, and the Lord will reward you." (Proverbs 25:21,22)

Error: The proverbs are those of Solomon, the son of David.
Is Solomon the son of god?
A: No, he is not.

"But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head. Do not be overcome by evil. But overcome evil with good." (Romans 12: 20, 21)

Error: Nice try.
Jesus didn't say that.
That passage is spoken by Paul.

Is Paul the son of god?
A: No, he isn't. He's the second-best Beatle.


So:

A) These are wise men, but they are not JESUS.

Does Paul have the authority to overrule jesus?
No! Jesus is the judge of all humanity.

Does Solomon override the laws of moses?
No! The laws are to remain unchanged until the end of the world.

and...

B) "ENEMY" IS NOT CLEARLY DEFINED HERE.
Not all "enemies" are clearly defined under the laws of Moses. There are a range of crimes that are not subject to the death penalty or other torments.

In fact, according to the Laws of Moses, most crimes in the bible are to go unpunished - until God strikes the offender down with plague, cancer and eventual death, followed by eternity in the skin-boiling terror of Hell.
For example:

"A woman must not dress like a man. [...] Whoever does this is an abomination to God." Deuteronomy 22:5

Nowhere does it say that this woman is to be put on trial and executed. Only that she is an "abomination" and, thus, cursed and hellbound.
The painful tortures god inflicts before you even die are listed in Leviticus 26:22 and Deuteronomy 28:15-63.
This is the punishment for minor offences.

The big ones (like being raped) have the person killed immediately by other humans, to get to hell even faster.

Other crimes aren't even listed in the bible.
For example, sexual harassment is totally bib-legal. I'm pretty sure there's no anti-pedophilia law in the bible either.
In that case, you have to ignore and even love your enemy. Not punish them.
Just like Moses and Jesus said.

Sorry, try again.
 
You are much better versed on the subject of christianity than I, therefore I concede until I become better versed on the subject. Where did you learn all this stuff anyway?
Click to expand...
Most people are to pussy to concede to mecha. It takes a lot to admit that someone else knows more than you. I give you a nice long clap. I look forward to you coming back and trying your best.
 
I admit, I was rather stunned by the event. I suspect that that is the first time that has ever happened.
 
Yes, everybody does go to Hell. At least pretty much every Christian today. Faith in Jesus requires the following of his commands, otherwise you're going to burn. You can't have faith in Jesus and not follow him, because that's nonsense. At the very most, you aren't a true follower and will suffer for eternity. At the least, your entire faith is worthless and hollow.
 
delusional said:
well i have yet to concede
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=galatians 3:10-14 ;version31;
everyone breaks the law so by your logic everyone goes to hell
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=galations 2:16-21 ;&version=31;
only by faith in jesus christ can you be saved
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 corinthians 15:56-57 ;&version31;
no man can resist sinning because the bar is set so high but because jesus paid for our sins, th
Click to expand...

I thought you were an atheist?
 
im still atheist, i grew up christian so i know the religion well. i just like to argue and i think mecha is a worthy foe.
do you even understand what faith is absinthe, because its the secure belief in god and trusting acceptance of gods will. dont you think thats possible? and yes your supposed to follow gods commands but no ones perfect your bound to screw up but thankfully if you have faith in jesus christ your sins are paid for
 
delusional said:
im still atheist, i grew up christian so i know the religion well. i just like to argue and i think mecha is a worthy foe.
do you even understand what faith is absinthe, because its the secure belief in god and trusting acceptance of gods will. dont you think thats possible? and yes your supposed to follow gods commands but no ones perfect your bound to screw up but thankfully if you have faith in jesus christ your sins are paid for
Click to expand...

The faith you describe contradicts all rational thought.
Furthermore, the faith you describe contradicts what it claims to believe in.
Even further, the object of the faith can't seem to generate any consistency of its own.

Doesn't matter how you wash it. It reeks of bullshit. You have two choices.
A) You can accept that your imperfection will be punished and that you are worshipping false prophets.
B) Admit that there is no consistency in the matter, both external and internal, and that it's therefore impossible to erect any defense of the whole mess.
 
i know faith lacks rational thought that part of the reason im not christian. but faith is what it is, believing in something without any logical conclusions, it has to be blind thats the definition of it. and give christians a break,some people just dont think logically but by emotion and cant accept that there is no afterlife and that we just die and cease to exist so they put their faith in something greater
 
Faith means little. I can have as much faith as I want about me surviving a nuke when it explodes an inch away from me.

There is only an infinentely small chance, as there is for everything, that I will survive.
 
delusional said:
i know faith lacks rational thought that part of the reason im not christian. but faith is what it is, believing in something without any logical conclusions, it has to be blind thats the definition of it. and give christians a break,some people just dont think logically but by emotion and cant accept that there is no afterlife and that we just die and cease to exist so they put their faith in something greater
Click to expand...

Yet one cannot deny that it is possible that there is indeed an afterlife. To deny that an afterlife can exist would be to claim omniscience. Otherwise in standing by your claim, that there is in fact no afterlife, you assert just as much faith in your opinion as it takes to believe in God. Indeed your rationality is dependent on faith for coherence.
 
You can't just quote from the Qu'ran at will, because there is a concept in Islamic theology called abrogation. Later verses revealed overrule verses eariler in the Qu'ran. Also, the Qu'ran is a historical text as well as a Book of Law. Many of the proclaimations to wage war were revealed during the time when the polytheists and Muhammad (S) were engaged in warfare and raiding. Finally, there are thousands of hadith that supplemant Islamic behavior.

Therefore, you can't just spit verses from the Qu'ran and end the discussion. One has to know the time period, the circumstances, and whether or not those verses were abrogated later on.

As for the Rosie O'Donnell comment, any type of radicalism is non-productive. Radical jews were firebombing British apartment complexes during WWI, rigging car bombs in Tsarist Russia and killing muslims praying in mosques. Radical christians firebomb abortion churches, kill abortion doctors, instigate suffocating social programs, intiated the Inquistion and crusades. Radical Islam was responsible for 9/11, sucide bombs (debatable though, as Palestinian christians also participate), and partly responsible in Lebanon. The thing is to seperate those who pervert idealogy for their own uses and legitmate practice of the religion.

You also have to remember Western media is intensely biased. Legitimate resistance, in the case of Palestine, Iraq and Lebanon, gets swept up in the same category as 9-11 and the Khobar towers.
 
FoB_Ed said:
Yet one cannot deny that it is possible that there is indeed an afterlife. To deny that an afterlife can exist would be to claim omniscience. Otherwise in standing by your claim, that there is in fact no afterlife, you assert just as much faith in your opinion as it takes to believe in God. Indeed your rationality is dependent on faith for coherence.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between saying there's no afterlife and that there's no rational reason to believe in one.

I don't rely on faith. I rely on the burden of proof, as well as the probability of an afterlife considering the thousands of definitions that exist for it.

I don't know why theists always try to use this role reversal crap. It never holds up.
 
Absinthe said:
There's a difference between saying there's no afterlife and that there's no rational reason to believe in one.

I don't rely on faith. I rely on the burden of proof, as well as the probability of an afterlife considering the thousands of definitions that exist for it.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
 
FoB_Ed said:
Yet one cannot deny that it is possible that there is indeed an afterlife.
Click to expand...

Actually, I can say that.
The chance of there being no afterlife is 50-50.

That chance that there is an afterlife, and that it is the Christian afterlife happens to be the smallest chance possible in all of probability.

You are more likely to get bitten by every shark on earth simultaneously than to have picked the correct afterlife.
So you have to concede that any afterlife (if there even is one) is inherently unknowable, and therefore all religion is worthless anyways.
In other words, an afterlife does not exist in any relevant way. Just as a single grain of sand on a comet in a distant galaxy is not relevant in any way.
That specific grain might exist, but what the **** can you do about it?

Spend your time on something more productive, like buying six million lottery tickets.
You're more likely to win every single one - in a row - than to go to heaven.

Otherwise in standing by your claim, that there is in fact no afterlife, you assert just as much faith in your opinion as it takes to believe in God.
Click to expand...
WRONG.

Logically, there are infinite possible gods. From that number, you believe in one. That's one out of infinity.
It is impossible for anything to be less probable.
This is essentially the definition of impossible.

As for atheism, there is either a god or there isn't.
There is only one possible type of zero.

So, the actual math states clearly that Atheism is far more likely to be correct than any religion on Earth.

The same probability applies to almost any supernatural phenomena you can name, for which no evidence is given.

Indeed your rationality is dependent on faith for coherence.
Click to expand...

That's a lie.
It all comes down to math, and the math says you fail at it.
 
I would just like to say, that if there is any afterlife it better not be the Christian one. I would MUCH rather spend eternity in say, Valhalla. Babes, war where you don't get hurt (permanently anyway), feasts... :D

Where are you getting that many afterlives from Mecha? Even if you seperate factions, seperate tribal religions, etc, I estimate there would only be 2-5 million afterlives. Granted, that's an insane number to get lucky on...


For the record, I am an athiest and dislike people who flaunt their religion.
 
@ delusional:

No, actually.
The more complex the claim, the less likely it is.

For example:

There's a woman walking near your house. You can't see her.

The chance that she has a dog with her is pretty low, but not unlikely. Lots of people own dogs.
The chance that she has a dog wearing a doggie sweater is even less likely.
The chance that she has a dog wearing a blue doggie sweater is even less likely, etc.

In the case of gods, however, the probability is already as low as possible.
It can't get any lower, because infinity divided by two is still infinity.

So, believing in multiple gods makes effectively no difference whatsoever to your chance of being correct.


@ Inferno:

The number of afterlives that various cultures believe in are only a handful of the infinite possibilities.
How many afterlives can you imagine?
I imagine one made entirely of candy.
I imagine one that exists inside of a single atom.
I imagine coming back as a ghost.
I imagine a land of typewriters where the keys are as big as a house and giants transcribe internet chatlogs for eternity.
I imagine etc.

Every single afterlife you can imagine is equally plausible as those presented by christianity and other religions.
There is therefore no limit on the number of possible afterlives/gods/etc.
 
Hm, well, let's look at it this way.

God: the being than which nothing greater can be thought.
1) God exists in the mind (understanding).
2) God can be conceived to exist in actuality (reality).
3) If something exists only in the mind, and can be conceived to exist in actuality, then it might have been greater than it is.
4) Suppose God exists ONLY in the mind.
5) Hence God might have been greater than He is.
6) Thus the being than which nothing greater can be thought is a being that which a greater can be thought.
8) Thus it is false that God exists ONLY in the mind.
9) Therefore God exists in actuality as well as in the mind.
 
FoB_Ed said:
Hm, well, let's look at it this way.

God: the being than which nothing greater can be thought.
1) God exists in the mind (understanding).
2) God can be conceived to exist in actuality (reality).
3) If something exists only in the mind, and can be conceived to exist in actuality, then it might have been greater than it is.
4) Suppose God exists ONLY in the mind.
5) Hence God might have been greater than He is.
6) Thus the being than which nothing greater can be thought is a being that which a greater can be thought.
8) Thus it is false that God exists ONLY in the mind.
9) Therefore God exists in actuality as well as in the mind.
Click to expand...

Um, explain that again, because it makes no sense. You're saying an enlargement of your own personality is a supernatural being?
 
Mecha should build a Mechagodzilla church so we could all worship his logic that is comparable to "godzilla rampaging through Japanese cities" (forgot who said that).
 
Well, the thing about radical Christianity is that they, too, can be angry when you depict THEIR prophet. The difference between radical Islam(redundant) and radical Christianity is that Christians don't go on a rampage killing all non-Christians when they get offended. The point is this - If need be, meaning when it really matters, we stop extremists within our midst. The Muslims are not doing a very good job at that. To quote a Qatarian intellectual - "We have taught our children how to die for Allah, but not how to live for Allah."

Ugh, now I start thinking about Fred Phelps that dirty waste of air, semen, blood, and flesh.
 
Nemesis6 said:
The difference between radical Islam(redundant) and radical Christianity is that Christians don't go on a rampage killing all non-Christians when they get offended.
Click to expand...
Tell that to the guy to started throwing fists at me because i told him "there is no way that you can spread your faith to me, and i could care less. You might as well stop now, because your going to fail."

his response was that he would beat me to a living pulp, and hopefully to death so i can see my wrong in the face of god.

took a couple swings at me, i punched him the chest and knocked the wind out of him and just walked away.
 
Nemesis6 said:
The point is this - If need be, meaning when it really matters, we stop extremists within our midst.
Click to expand...
No we don't. If we did, Rosie wouldn't have made that statement in the first place (though it would still hold true, as all extremists are dangerous, theoretically).

We still have religious missionaries off in Africa convincing poor people to stop working towards a better future, we still have the Pope spreading lies about condoms so he and the rest of the hardcore Christians can rationalize their prevention of the supply of condoms to third-world countries to stop the spread of AIDS, we still have people in the government (who are in positions of great power) who continue to quietly push radical religious ideals, and all the while we have those damn evangelists convincing more and more people to look the other way.
 
We do indeed have missionaries. The difference between ours and theirs is that ours preach on and on, and are generally just annoying, while theirs blow themselves up or start front groups like Al-Muhajiroun(England), CAIR(America), or Muslim Public Affairs Council(England). And, if a missionary goes to a truly Muslim country like Saudi Arabia that outlaws all religions other than Islam, the person will be lynched or arrested and tortured. Now, if you even try to start an organization equal to the ones they start in the Western world, you and your family's lives WILL be in danger, regardless of who you are.

The only parallel that can be drawn between radical Islam and radical Christianity is that they're both annoying. Radical Islam, however, is dangerous.
 
I would argue radical Christianity is more dangerous, it's just more subtle in general.
 
Nemesis6 said:
We do indeed have missionaries. The difference between ours and theirs is that ours preach on and on, and are generally just annoying, while theirs blow themselves up or start front groups like Al-Muhajiroun(England), CAIR(America), or Muslim Public Affairs Council(England). And, if a missionary goes to a truly Muslim country like Saudi Arabia that outlaws all religions other than Islam, the person will be lynched or arrested and tortured. Now, if you even try to start an organization equal to the ones they start in the Western world, you and your family's lives WILL be in danger, regardless of who you are.

The only parallel that can be drawn between radical Islam and radical Christianity is that they're both annoying. Radical Islam, however, is dangerous.
Click to expand...
What is this, four people now, who can't seem to grasp the idea that "dangerous" does not necessarily mean "violent"?

Christian missionaries aren't blowing people up. They're converting people, and in the process are convincing the converts to NOT work towards a better future. They are destroying people's lives and even economies of entire countries, without anyone saying a word against them.

If anything, they are MORE dangerous than the vast majority of suicide bombers, because suicide bombers don't breed and multiply like missionaries do.
 
Nemesis6 said:
We do indeed have missionaries. The difference between ours and theirs is that ours preach on and on, and are generally just annoying, while theirs blow themselves up or start front groups like Al-Muhajiroun(England), CAIR(America), or Muslim Public Affairs Council(England). And, if a missionary goes to a truly Muslim country like Saudi Arabia that outlaws all religions other than Islam, the person will be lynched or arrested and tortured. Now, if you even try to start an organization equal to the ones they start in the Western world, you and your family's lives WILL be in danger, regardless of who you are.

The only parallel that can be drawn between radical Islam and radical Christianity is that they're both annoying. Radical Islam, however, is dangerous.
Click to expand...


Annoying? Christians missionaries do things like build orphanages and provide service to the poor. They don't do it for their own benefit, but for the good of others. Don't harp on them because they try to help. I know a lot of people in the missionary field, and I'm currently goiing to school just for that very purpose.

and in the process are convincing the converts to NOT work towards a better future. They are destroying people's lives and even economies of entire countries, without anyone saying a word against them.
Click to expand...
Explain please.
 
FoB_Ed said:
Explain please.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I didn't mean all missionaries. But there are some, knows as "end-timers," who go around believing that the end of the world is very, very near, and in some cases attempt to accelerate the process.

We had a decent discussion about them here: http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=113231. Here's a quote from el Chi's synopsis of the discussed TV program.
el Chi said:
Robinson visited Uganda where many evangelical missionaries were converting Ugandan nationals, advising them not to lament the poor quality of their lives, but instead to accept Jesus and pray for the rapture.
The result of this is that many children are taken out of school – there’s no point in learning about anything other than Christ when the rapture could happen at any moment. Why bother putting lots of effort into building roads or planting crops when prayer is needed?
Those were not specifically Robinson’s conclusions, but particularly those of the editor of one of Uganda’s national papers – day after day he saw the damage such belief and resulting lack of initiative was doing and how it was growing in popularity.
It’s insane and it’s deeply depressing that some of the poorest people in the world can be actively discouraged from attempting to improve their lives. I find it mind-boggling that there are people who have seen it their duty to go thousands of miles to tell people to wait for death with hope in their hearts.
Click to expand...
I can't necessarily vouch for the program's authenticity, but I'll look it up in a few seconds.

[edit] I'm not finding a whole lot so far about end-timer missionaries, but here's a short article talking about the increasing prevalence of end-timer views: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/39264/
 
almost all major religions have their crackpots and crazies who are willing to kill for their religion. However, it isn't christians that have been recently suicide bombing the hell out of things, it isn't christians that are trying to destroy Israel. Present mainstream christianity does not support those that go on killing sprees for jesus.
 
Flyingdebris said:
almost all major religions have their crackpots and crazies who are willing to kill for their religion. However, it isn't christians that have been recently suicide bombing the hell out of things, it isn't christians that are trying to destroy Israel. Present mainstream christianity does not support those that go on killing sprees for jesus.
Click to expand...

THANK YOU FOR IGNORING MOST OF THE TOPIC
 
FoB_Ed said:
God: the being than which nothing greater can be thought.
1) God exists in the mind (understanding).
2) God can be conceived to exist in actuality (reality).
3) If something exists only in the mind, and can be conceived to exist in actuality, then it might have been greater than it is.
4) Suppose God exists ONLY in the mind.
5) Hence God might have been greater than He is.
6) Thus the being than which nothing greater can be thought is a being that which a greater can be thought.
8) Thus it is false that God exists ONLY in the mind.
9) Therefore God exists in actuality as well as in the mind.
Click to expand...

Uh oh! This "logic" is going to get LOGIC'D on a point-by point basis.

But first, let's clean up this convoluted wording so that what you wrote actually makes sense.
Note that I am not changing any aspect of your argument.
I am only putting it in a logical Premise->Conclusion framework. Here is what you are saying:

************************

First Premises:
A) A god is defined as an infinite being.
B) Infinity can only be understood as an abstract concept.
Therefore, given A and B:
C) A god can only be understood as an abstract concept.

Second Premises:
A) A god is defined as an infinite being.
D) Infinite things can theorhetically exist.
Therefore, given A and D:
E) A god can theorhetically exist.

[Editor's note: everything about these first two conclusions works so far. I've already acknowledged these facts in my previous posts. However, please note that the biblical god is not completely infinite. He has some infinite powers but is not completely infinite in the sense of omnipotence, as the bible repeatedly shows us several flaws.]

Third Premises:
E) A god can theorhetically exist.
F) Suppose any god does not exist.
Therefore, given E and F:
G) A god could have theorhetically existed.
Therefore:
H) God does exist!

[Editor's note:
The conclusion "G" is completely redundant. It is identical to the premise "E".
Meanwhile, conclusion "H" MAKES NO GODDAMN SENSE AT ALL.]

************************

So there you go.
Whatever you meant to say, it boils down to "a god could exist therefore a god does", which is nonsense logic.


Nemesis6]If need be said:
u[/COLOR]cking-Ages.

If you think regressing to a medieval theocracy is a good thing, then you can say with a straight face that christianity isn't as bad as the islam that seeks to acheive THE EXACT SAME FUCKING GOAL.

The only difference is that islam is inept.
The terror violence makes them weaker, because terror violence is frowned upon by most people. It's crude and blatantly evil.

Christianity instead is using subtle evil, almost covertly, towards the identical goal of destroying our free, secular society.
Chances are you didn't/don't give a shit about Faith-Based Initiatives, or even consider them positive.
I think that the opinion would change if the program were more accurately called the "Jesus Is Your God Tax"

To paraphrase a great work of art, they're "Killing us softly / with His song."

Flyingdebris said:
almost all major religions have their crackpots and crazies who are willing to kill for their religion. However, it isn't christians that have been recently [...] bombing the hell out of things, it isn't christians that are trying to destroy Israel. Present mainstream christianity does not support those that go on killing sprees for jesus.
Click to expand...

This is the least accurate statement I've read today.

A key christian goal is the destruction of Israel.

First, they want to destroy Palestine so that the jews can take over the entire holy land.
When that happens, ALL JEWS BURN TO DEATH AND THE WORLD IS DESTROYED IN FIRE, WITH ISRAEL THE FIRST TO GO.
Click to expand...
 
FoB, let me just clarify something there - When I thought missionary, I thought Jehovah's witnesses. You know, the whole routine:

*Buzz*

"Who is it?"

*Phone quality voice* - "You're gonna burn in hell!"

That's kind of the missionary I was thinking about there. By the way, I believe Christianity has had a positive influence on Africa for example. You can argue all you want that Christianity is just as bad, but personally, for the time being, I'm not seeing Christians massacring Sudanese Muslim Arabs anywhere. I'm not seeing those crazy bible-thumpers destroying mosques, churches, and synagogues. I'm seeing Muslims who are comitting Jihad fi sabil Allah, just like the Imams in the mosques are telling them to. Christianity has changed, Islam on the other hand, has not. I think they've kind of stepped backwards from the start of the 1900s. Terrorism, the subjugation of women, the zero-tolerance of critique, the whole "We dictators aren't the enemy, the Jews, the West, and all the kuffar are!" thing. You're right that there are extremist Christians, but for the most part, we, and I use the term "we" loosely because I'm agnostic, are still not the ones blowing ourselves up and using all our money to fund Christian terror groups within non-Christian countries. That's my opinion.

Summing up, Christians have generally learned to discard extremists and not allow them power. I'm sure there are a few examples of that not happening, but anyway, look at the Muslim world, 10-15% are extremists. That's a minority, but the minority seems to be the one in power, and the silent majority isn't really saying anything.
Khaled Abu Toameh said:
...and I hope that it's only out of fear, not out of sympathy...
Click to expand...
 
Nemesis6 said:
You can argue all you want that Christianity is just as bad, but personally, for the time being, I'm not seeing Christians massacring Sudanese Muslim Arabs anywhere. I'm not seeing those crazy bible-thumpers destroying mosques, churches, and synagogues. I'm seeing Muslims who are comitting Jihad fi sabil Allah, just like the Imams in the mosques are telling them to. Christianity has changed, Islam on the other hand, has not. I think they've kind of stepped backwards from the start of the 1900s. Terrorism, the subjugation of women, the zero-tolerance of critique, the whole "We dictators aren't the enemy, the Jews, the West, and all the kuffar are!" thing. You're right that there are extremist Christians, but for the most part, we, and I use the term "we" loosely because I'm agnostic, are still not the ones blowing ourselves up and using all our money to fund Christian terror groups within non-Christian countries. That's my opinion.
Click to expand...
FOR THE LAST GODDAMN ****ING TIME, WE SAID "DANGEROUS", NOT "VIOLENT".

I am getting really sick of people either a) not reading or not paying attention to the thread that they're arguing in, or b) breezing over whatever info refutes their opinion.

I don't mean to offend, but PLEASE keep up with the discussion.

[edited because the text size was probably too big.]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top