The Killing Joke

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

Really there’s no Christian dominance today in the world? [/quote]

Dominance? No, not at all. Presence? Sure. Large one in the western world? Yup. Dominance? Nope. Not unless Christianity is suddenly green and comes bundled with pictures of Ben Franklin on them.

AC already tried going down this road. You’ll be just as wrong as he is.

Unless you’re going to start blaming sagging pants and braded hair on why some gangbangers shot a 17 year old last week down the street from my house.

[quote]No i don’t believe the Muslims are victims here. I don’t sympathize with the ones who kill in the name of their religion.
[/quote]

This view is appreciated.
[/quote]

Do you think a non Christian could be elected as president in America?[/quote]

Yup. Without question. Particularly with the likes of the anti-religious bigots offering everyone braincandy… Oops I mean barking the loudest about how they are the only correct, intelligent and appropriately minded ones.

Shit, every pro-choice Democrat elected is proof people will elect those that celebrate murder of innocents, as long as it is the right innocents. (Sorta funny it is statistically more likely they support the killing of black babies too… Not haha funny, but more like “wow Democrats really still hate black people” funny.)

202

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:
You’re right Christians have never done wrong.
[/quote]

Did I say that, you stupid little shit? All that information directly refuting your idiotically biased point and that was the best you had. If you could read you would recognize that I acknowledged that Christians have done wrong and men seeking power have used the name of God to gather masses to advance their own agenda.

With that said, if you asked many Christians TODAY what they thought about violence as a means of dealing with issues that go against their faith, what do you suppose the percentage would be of them that said it was ok? 1% fringe maybe? Because 30% of Muslims say that and 3 out of 10 is not a fringe.[/quote]

The fact it even has to be pointed out that Christianity and it’s present or past transgressions is irrelevant to the recent terror attacks in France is pretty telling in and of itself.

Same thing happens to the Jews… they just get shit on, over and over, even when they have zero to do with a situation.

Snowed in Texas? Someone, somewhere, online thinks is the a Jewish conspiracy because some Jewish person owes a plow company.

203

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:
It’s just that in today’s day and age they are dominant and have eased up on their killing because they have already gained their dominance.
[/quote]

lmao… During what could be considered significant Christian Church dominance of the Europe, if not the known world at the time, was one of the most violent and oppressive times due to evil men wearing the cloth of the religion in power.

So… No, you’re talking out of your bare ass in order to try and not sound like a bigot. Feel free to make up more nonsense in order to justify it.

At least you haven’t taken the current media tract of these cartoonists were racists and the Muslims are the victims here. [/quote]

Really there’s no Christian dominance today in the world? It doesn’t have to be dominance by a church. It is dominance by people who claim to be Christian.

No i don’t believe the Muslims are victims here. I don’t sympathize with the ones who kill in the name of their religion.
[/quote]

What about all that Christian terrorism in Muslim dominated areas of the world? That should surely prove your point huh?[/quote]

I’ll admit minority Christians in these areas are living in hell. And you’re right today there are very little to non existent examples to prove my point. But that does not excuse the christian past. like i said before i don’t really care religion these people are. it’s a human problem and we should be targeting these terrorist. But to vilify them all is just stupid.

204

[quote]hmm87 wrote:
But to vilify them all is just stupid. [/quote]

Agreed. There is no collective responsibility.

We need to focus on the offenders, and ignore the other billion or so that haven’t done, and won’t do anything other than live their lives until they die.

This includes Muslims too.

205

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:
It’s just that in today’s day and age they are dominant and have eased up on their killing because they have already gained their dominance.
[/quote]

lmao… During what could be considered significant Christian Church dominance of the Europe, if not the known world at the time, was one of the most violent and oppressive times due to evil men wearing the cloth of the religion in power.

So… No, you’re talking out of your bare ass in order to try and not sound like a bigot. Feel free to make up more nonsense in order to justify it.

At least you haven’t taken the current media tract of these cartoonists were racists and the Muslims are the victims here. [/quote]

Really there’s no Christian dominance today in the world? It doesn’t have to be dominance by a church. It is dominance by people who claim to be Christian.

No i don’t believe the Muslims are victims here. I don’t sympathize with the ones who kill in the name of their religion.
[/quote]

What about all that Christian terrorism in Muslim dominated areas of the world? That should surely prove your point huh?[/quote]

I’ll admit minority Christians in these areas are living in hell. And you’re right today there are very little to non existent examples to prove my point. But that does not excuse the christian past. like i said before i don’t really care religion these people are. it’s a human problem and we should be targeting these terrorist. But to vilify them all is just stupid. [/quote]

Will you at least say that it is understandable to say that there is a deep problem with a religion when 3 out of 10 people polled of that faith living worldwide think violence is acceptable? And 3 out of 10 is not a fringe and that if that number is in fact correct then maybe we should take a look at exactly what makes people of that faith so much more likely than any other faith to commit acts of violence in the name of their faith in todays society?

206

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Yup. Without question. Particularly with the likes of the anti-religious bigots offering everyone braincandy… Oops I mean barking the loudest about how they are the only correct, intelligent and appropriately minded ones.

[/quote]

Dude, listen to yourself. You guys are trying to tell me where I get my morality. Also, where have I been an anti-religious bigot? Yes I think Islam needs to stop teaching hate. That’s not being a bigot or anti-religious.

207

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

However I would argue that all religion is violent because even the most secular Christians threaten their children with eternal damnation and justify abusing their children with scripture.[/quote]

lmao… DD is right. Atheism is a religion, complete with a dogma and everything.

I used to think the same stupid shit when I was a card carrying Militant Atheist. [/quote]

What people fail to consider is that all morality is spiritual. Secularity by definition cannot consider right or wrong, good or evil. Good and evil are not part of the natural physical world. ANY reference to them is reference to the supernatural. All laws, based on a moral construct, are dependent on spirituality. Any person who truly desires a secular society must want laws against everything from murder to rape to robbery thrown out.

While the US is not founded on a particular religion, it is founded on a particular spiritual morality (men created equally, ect.). And as such, while it is not right to enshrine a religion in government, it is entirely possible and necessary to condemn specific religions opposed to the founding religious principles of the nation. If a religion stands in opposition to our primary founding morality contained in documents like the constitution, it is not only the right of the public and public officials, but their duty to condemn it. The Constitution cannot and should not protect groups that fight against democracy, or equality under the law, or the god given rights of man.

I always find it humorous when atheists challenge religion in the public sphere by holding up documents that enshrine what are asserted as god given rights.
[/quote]

I have never really understood why, if god gave men inalienable rights, men have to fight over what those rights are (and even go to war over them), vote on them (at least through representatives), write them down on paper, and then enforce them without any divine assistance in earthly courts of law (and a military or police force). These “inalienable” rights also seem a bit useless in the time before language and writing.

208

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:
It’s just that in today’s day and age they are dominant and have eased up on their killing because they have already gained their dominance.
[/quote]

lmao… During what could be considered significant Christian Church dominance of the Europe, if not the known world at the time, was one of the most violent and oppressive times due to evil men wearing the cloth of the religion in power.

So… No, you’re talking out of your bare ass in order to try and not sound like a bigot. Feel free to make up more nonsense in order to justify it.

At least you haven’t taken the current media tract of these cartoonists were racists and the Muslims are the victims here. [/quote]

Really there’s no Christian dominance today in the world? It doesn’t have to be dominance by a church. It is dominance by people who claim to be Christian.

No i don’t believe the Muslims are victims here. I don’t sympathize with the ones who kill in the name of their religion.
[/quote]

What about all that Christian terrorism in Muslim dominated areas of the world? That should surely prove your point huh?[/quote]

I’ll admit minority Christians in these areas are living in hell. And you’re right today there are very little to non existent examples to prove my point. But that does not excuse the christian past. like i said before i don’t really care religion these people are. it’s a human problem and we should be targeting these terrorist. But to vilify them all is just stupid. [/quote]

Will you at least say that it is understandable to say that there is a deep problem with a religion when 3 out of 10 people polled of that faith living worldwide think violence is acceptable? And 3 out of 10 is not a fringe and that if that number is in fact correct then maybe we should take a look at exactly what makes people of that faith so much more likely than any other faith to commit acts of violence in the name of their faith in todays society?
[/quote]

Yes it is understandable to say there is a problem. But the problem lies with the deliberate interpretation of the religious texts to cause terror. Any religion can be twisted this way.

209

Since 2006, the director of the CIA Counter Terrorism Center has been a Muslim. He keeps a musallah in his office. It certainly hasn’t stymied his professional endeavors.

210

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:
It’s just that in today’s day and age they are dominant and have eased up on their killing because they have already gained their dominance.
[/quote]

lmao… During what could be considered significant Christian Church dominance of the Europe, if not the known world at the time, was one of the most violent and oppressive times due to evil men wearing the cloth of the religion in power.

So… No, you’re talking out of your bare ass in order to try and not sound like a bigot. Feel free to make up more nonsense in order to justify it.

At least you haven’t taken the current media tract of these cartoonists were racists and the Muslims are the victims here. [/quote]

Really there’s no Christian dominance today in the world? It doesn’t have to be dominance by a church. It is dominance by people who claim to be Christian.

No i don’t believe the Muslims are victims here. I don’t sympathize with the ones who kill in the name of their religion.
[/quote]

What about all that Christian terrorism in Muslim dominated areas of the world? That should surely prove your point huh?[/quote]

I’ll admit minority Christians in these areas are living in hell. And you’re right today there are very little to non existent examples to prove my point. But that does not excuse the christian past. like i said before i don’t really care religion these people are. it’s a human problem and we should be targeting these terrorist. But to vilify them all is just stupid. [/quote]

Will you at least say that it is understandable to say that there is a deep problem with a religion when 3 out of 10 people polled of that faith living worldwide think violence is acceptable? And 3 out of 10 is not a fringe and that if that number is in fact correct then maybe we should take a look at exactly what makes people of that faith so much more likely than any other faith to commit acts of violence in the name of their faith in todays society?
[/quote]

Yes it is understandable to say there is a problem. But the problem lies with the deliberate interpretation of the religious texts to cause terror. Any religion can be twisted this way.
[/quote]

In fairness, from my admittedly limited investigation, the texts don’t really need much twisting to go this way. In fact, there is a good argument that twisting is required to go the other way.

211

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

However I would argue that all religion is violent because even the most secular Christians threaten their children with eternal damnation and justify abusing their children with scripture.[/quote]

lmao… DD is right. Atheism is a religion, complete with a dogma and everything.

I used to think the same stupid shit when I was a card carrying Militant Atheist. [/quote]

What people fail to consider is that all morality is spiritual. Secularity by definition cannot consider right or wrong, good or evil. Good and evil are not part of the natural physical world. ANY reference to them is reference to the supernatural. All laws, based on a moral construct, are dependent on spirituality. Any person who truly desires a secular society must want laws against everything from murder to rape to robbery thrown out.

While the US is not founded on a particular religion, it is founded on a particular spiritual morality (men created equally, ect.). And as such, while it is not right to enshrine a religion in government, it is entirely possible and necessary to condemn specific religions opposed to the founding religious principles of the nation. If a religion stands in opposition to our primary founding morality contained in documents like the constitution, it is not only the right of the public and public officials, but their duty to condemn it. The Constitution cannot and should not protect groups that fight against democracy, or equality under the law, or the god given rights of man.

I always find it humorous when atheists challenge religion in the public sphere by holding up documents that enshrine what are asserted as god given rights.
[/quote]

I have never really understood why, if god gave men inalienable rights, men have to fight over what those rights are (and even go to war over them), vote on them (at least through representatives), write them down on paper, and then enforce them without any divine assistance in earthly courts of law (and a military or police force). These “inalienable” rights also seem a bit useless in the time before language and writing.[/quote]

I agree. CS Lewis has some pretty good thoughts natural law vs. moral law.

Natural law is merely the statement of what does happen, moral law is the statement of what should happen independent of what physically does happen (hence the supernatural nature of morality, it is by nature NOT part of the natural world).

Though, in the context of our founding documents, I’d say inalienable is really code for logically in-derivable (which is exactly what I’ve been pointing out about atheism/secularism). They are rights that they are asserting cannot be argued, because there is no logical argument for them. If they were logically derived, the logic could be argued and they wouldn’t be inalienable.

212

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

However I would argue that all religion is violent because even the most secular Christians threaten their children with eternal damnation and justify abusing their children with scripture.[/quote]

lmao… DD is right. Atheism is a religion, complete with a dogma and everything.

I used to think the same stupid shit when I was a card carrying Militant Atheist. [/quote]

What people fail to consider is that all morality is spiritual. Secularity by definition cannot consider right or wrong, good or evil. Good and evil are not part of the natural physical world. ANY reference to them is reference to the supernatural. All laws, based on a moral construct, are dependent on spirituality. Any person who truly desires a secular society must want laws against everything from murder to rape to robbery thrown out.

While the US is not founded on a particular religion, it is founded on a particular spiritual morality (men created equally, ect.). And as such, while it is not right to enshrine a religion in government, it is entirely possible and necessary to condemn specific religions opposed to the founding religious principles of the nation. If a religion stands in opposition to our primary founding morality contained in documents like the constitution, it is not only the right of the public and public officials, but their duty to condemn it. The Constitution cannot and should not protect groups that fight against democracy, or equality under the law, or the god given rights of man.

I always find it humorous when atheists challenge religion in the public sphere by holding up documents that enshrine what are asserted as god given rights.
[/quote]

I have never really understood why, if god gave men inalienable rights, men have to fight over what those rights are (and even go to war over them), vote on them (at least through representatives), write them down on paper, and then enforce them without any divine assistance in earthly courts of law (and a military or police force). These “inalienable” rights also seem a bit useless in the time before language and writing.[/quote]

I agree. CS Lewis has some pretty good thoughts natural law vs. moral law.

Natural law is merely the statement of what does happen, moral law is the statement of what should happen independent of what physically does happen (hence the supernatural nature of morality, it is by nature NOT part of the natural world).

Though, in the context of our founding documents, I’d say inalienable is really code for logically in-derivable (which is exactly what I’ve been pointing out about atheism/secularism). They are rights that they are asserting cannot be argued, because there is no logical argument for them. If they were logically derived, the logic could be argued and they wouldn’t be inalienable.
[/quote]

Ok, that at least makes more sense to me.

216

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]JR249 wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

Do you think a non Christian could be elected as president in America?[/quote]

In 2016 and beyond, yes, I do personally. In previous elections, perhaps not so much.
[/quote]

Why this response when a non-Christian has already been elected in 2008 and 2012?[/quote]

An overt non-Christian.

217

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

You’re right Christians have never done wrong.

[/quote]

Only a radically obsessed anti-Christian – to the point of sheer rabidness – would sum up his contributions to this thread with this statement.

And yes, it is your summary. You have nothing whatsoever of value to add here. You’re dismissed from class.

  • You can’t even punctuate your pathetic sentence correctly.
    [/quote]

Not sure if you’re aware, but the poster whose English you are insulting is French.

219

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]JR249 wrote:

[quote]hmm87 wrote:

Do you think a non Christian could be elected as president in America?[/quote]

In 2016 and beyond, yes, I do personally. In previous elections, perhaps not so much.
[/quote]

Why this response when a non-Christian has already been elected in 2008 and 2012?[/quote]

An overt non-Christian. [/quote]

One that would deride Christians for “clinging” to their religion?

I’d say most high level politicians practice self-worship as their primary religion.

220

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Any person who truly desires a secular society must want laws against everything from murder to rape to robbery thrown out.
[/quote]

Those are bad examples, simply not wanting to be the victim of those crimes is enough to want it illegal.