So, BPCorso, I rarely disagree with your posts. Does that make you an excellent poster or a lunatic?
[quote]JR249 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I firmly disagree.
One can easily come up with such a basic definition which corrals all Catholics and Protestants.[/quote]
From a scriptural standpoint, yes, my argument is that you and I, even as believers, have no way to know if the POTUS is a born again Christian or not. If we accept that God is real and scripture is accurate, no human has the capacity to know, definitively, whether or not another human being is redeemed.
You can throw out the “evaluate one by the fruits of his words and actions,” but then again not one among us could say that s/he hasn’t engaged in behaviors that would have given observers reason to question his or her religiosity, e.g., Paul’s infamous quote that “Christ came into the world to redeem sinners; of whom I am chief.”
[/quote]
Anyone who has “eyes to see” can tell that Obama is not a spiritual person and is hostile to the traditional aspects of Christianity in particular. He has also cynically used religious power structures for political purposes as his ideological mentor Saul Alinsky taught him. When he adopts his Southern Baptist black preacher voice and speaks to a crowd of black Christians he comes across as terribly phoney and corny. The church “fed [him] when [he] was hungry” and so on. Reverend Wright “brought me to Jesus” oh Lordy! Come off it! If Obama believes in any god it’s himself or I’ll eat my hat.
[quote]Biskui wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]Biskui wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
What I find funny is that the white house questions the “judgement” to publish the cartoon, when just last week they were telling Sony, “I wish they would have talked to me” before they submitted to terrorist demands…
So what is it? Should we just run EVERY media decision through Obama? He can decide what will be offensive and “bad judgement” and what is just “silly N. Korean nonsense”? OH WAIT… The SONY incident involved N. Korea (not muslim), the PARIS incident involved muslims, so we have the EXTRA CAREFUL not to offend them…[/quote]
Did the white house really question the judgement to publish the cartoon ???
[/quote]
[/quote]
That’s sick.
Situation in France is very tense. People are getting tired of the export of middle east conflicts in our country, extremes are stronger than ever, elections are coming this year and the economy is very bad…
Hundreds, if not thousands, of french teens are leaving the country to go to Syria / Iraq fight for Daesh, and thousands show complacancy with the attacks.
I have been living in suburbs for years, and the last 5 / 10 years the number of radical muslims has been rising very drastically and politics seems to don’t know how to fight that. It’s crazy, even at the gym I can hear opinions that seems to come from middle-age. Those young guys love the comfort of the western life but they hate all that western represents, they can’t stand freedom, especially freedom of wives, they can’t stand science or philosophy that does not come from the Koran, and more dangerous, they totally identify to their religion. They are a minority but they do exist.
The question is how to deal with that in a modern democratic country ? How do you answer to that kind of attack ?
[/quote]
It is horseshit to immigrate to another country and make no effort to assimilate.
Here is a link from December that sort of hits on your point about these radical twats from France who love the comforts of the Western world while openly hating what it represents.
“Joining ISIS has left them bored, disillusioned and afraid, French jihadists write in letters to home”
"Letters home from French jihadists to their parents have revealed the misery, boredom and fear suffered by Islamist recruits as the glamour fades from their big adventure.
"Another writes: â??Iâ??m fed up. They make me do the dishes.â??
One complained he wanted to go home because he was missing the comforts of life in France. â??Iâ??m fed up. My iPod doesnâ??t work any more here. I have to come back.â??
Yet another wrote fearfully, â??They want to send me to the front, but I donâ??t know how to fight.â??
“Some were concerned, more prosaically, about the nationality of children born in Syria to jihadist wives and therefore not recognized by the French state.”
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Anyone who has “eyes to see” can tell that Obama is not a spiritual person and is hostile to the traditional aspects of Christianity in particular. He has also cynically used religious power structures for political purposes as his ideological mentor Saul Alinsky taught him. When he adopts his Southern Baptist black preacher voice and speaks to a crowd of black Christians he comes across as terribly phoney and corny. The church “fed [him] when [he] was hungry” and so on. Reverend Wright “brought me to Jesus” oh Lordy! Come off it! If Obama believes in any god it’s himself or I’ll eat my hat.[/quote]
None of that makes any of what I said any less factual. Neither you nor I are qualified to know the state of someone’s grace, so I answered Push’s question. The rest of these assumptions are not relevant.
[quote]JR249 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Anyone who has “eyes to see” can tell that Obama is not a spiritual person and is hostile to the traditional aspects of Christianity in particular. He has also cynically used religious power structures for political purposes as his ideological mentor Saul Alinsky taught him. When he adopts his Southern Baptist black preacher voice and speaks to a crowd of black Christians he comes across as terribly phoney and corny. The church “fed [him] when [he] was hungry” and so on. Reverend Wright “brought me to Jesus” oh Lordy! Come off it! If Obama believes in any god it’s himself or I’ll eat my hat.[/quote]
None of that makes any of what I said any less factual. Neither you nor I are qualified to know the state of someone’s grace, so I answered Push’s question. The rest of these assumptions are not relevant.
[/quote]
The difference is Obama has openly set himself against the church and attacked the church relentlessly; even mocked the bible on camera and sneered about Mosaic law; with a superior chuckle of contempt. He’s sickening. Obama is trash.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The difference is Obama has openly set himself against the church and attacked the church relentlessly; even mocked the bible on camera and sneered about Mosaic law; with a superior chuckle of contempt. He’s sickening. Obama is trash.
[/quote]
I’m not pretending to know that Obama is a Christian.
Reread my argument - you cannot deny that no man can assuredly know the state of another; this is not a “gift” granted to other men. If we’re going to play this game, then a lot of previous presidents might be up for grabs, including Ronald Reagan, but it’s a moot point. Does it really matter in the context of the specific argument that was made?
My argument still stands that it certainly is possible for an openly non-Christian candidate, who openly runs on plausible deniability of faith (something we have not seen in recent memory), to get elected in 2016 and beyond.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
The rub is that what Christians did or didn’t do 800 or so years ago isn’t fucking relevant to what radical Muslims are doing today. You refuse to see this, and at this point I’m convinced it is because you don’t like Christians. [/quote]
^^THIS
I’ve participated in quite a few discussions on various message boards and on social media, but man this one takes the cake with thread derailments on subject like this. I’ve never seen anything like it. Take about e-ADD.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You can just as easily have people that want murder and write (or don’t write) their secular laws to reflect that. Secularity doesn’t lead to any specific laws. You haven’t added anything to the observation of what already is and isn’t.
[/quote]
How can you just as easily have people who want murder not written in their laws? It goes against the chemical reactions in our brains that help survival. Its not true that you can “just as easily” have something when our natural laws tend to go away from it. [/quote]
The fact that there are countless societies that have and continue to do exactly that would seem to damper your claim.
[quote]JR249 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The difference is Obama has openly set himself against the church and attacked the church relentlessly; even mocked the bible on camera and sneered about Mosaic law; with a superior chuckle of contempt. He’s sickening. Obama is trash.
[/quote]
I’m not pretending to know that Obama is a Christian.
Reread my argument - you cannot deny that no man can assuredly know the state of another; this is not a “gift” granted to other men. If we’re going to play this game, then a lot of previous presidents might be up for grabs, including Ronald Reagan, but it’s a moot point. Does it really matter in the context of the specific argument that was made?
My argument still stands that it certainly is possible for an openly non-Christian candidate, who openly runs on plausible deniability of faith (something we have not seen in recent memory), to get elected in 2016 and beyond.[/quote]
My argument was simply that the man has shown what’s in his heart by his behaviour and what he’s said. He’s an open book. And the people knew this when they voted for him twice. They were voting for POTUS knowing that he was fundamentally hostile to traditional Christianity. Indeed, many voters share his sentiments. Others are liberal pseudo-Christians who see in Obama a reflection of their own Enlightenment, anti-Christian ideology which they believe or purport to believe constitutes the “real” or authentic Christianity. But even they must know Obama is not a believer. His(Obama’s) staged appeals to Christians have been so corny and unbelievable as to be laughable. Again, going back to my point that people like this can get elected.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You can just as easily have people that want murder and write (or don’t write) their secular laws to reflect that. Secularity doesn’t lead to any specific laws. You haven’t added anything to the observation of what already is and isn’t.
[/quote]
How can you just as easily have people who want murder not written in their laws? It goes against the chemical reactions in our brains that help survival. Its not true that you can “just as easily” have something when our natural laws tend to go away from it. [/quote]
The fact that there are countless societies that have and continue to do exactly that would seem to damper your claim.[/quote]
Example?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You can just as easily have people that want murder and write (or don’t write) their secular laws to reflect that. Secularity doesn’t lead to any specific laws. You haven’t added anything to the observation of what already is and isn’t.
[/quote]
How can you just as easily have people who want murder not written in their laws? It goes against the chemical reactions in our brains that help survival. Its not true that you can “just as easily” have something when our natural laws tend to go away from it. [/quote]
The fact that there are countless societies that have and continue to do exactly that would seem to damper your claim.[/quote]
Example?[/quote]
Abortion?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You can just as easily have people that want murder and write (or don’t write) their secular laws to reflect that. Secularity doesn’t lead to any specific laws. You haven’t added anything to the observation of what already is and isn’t.
[/quote]
How can you just as easily have people who want murder not written in their laws? It goes against the chemical reactions in our brains that help survival. Its not true that you can “just as easily” have something when our natural laws tend to go away from it. [/quote]
The fact that there are countless societies that have and continue to do exactly that would seem to damper your claim.[/quote]
Example?[/quote]
Abortion?
[/quote]
My original point was anti-murder laws exist for the safety of the individual whos interest is rooted in their natural desire to survive, not some supernatural moral code. Abortion does not threaten your existence so it can be an exception to the anti-murder laws in a secular society.
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
The problem, right now, is not religion. It’s Islam. There’s far to many crazies in it for it to be a fringe movement with in the religion. Far to much murder over pettiness and far to much support for that murder for it to be considered a ‘fringe’.[/quote]
The same was true for Christianity back in the Middle Ages. Muslims allowed Christians and Jews to live in their land so long as they paid a special non-Muslim tax. Christians just murdered every Jews and Muslims that lived in their land.
The point is- They did so because Islam was religion of the dominant power of that particular era. Muslims felt confident and secure in their power and so allowed free-thought and inventiveness free reign. Christians, on the other hand, felt besieged and that they were perpetually in danger. So they became insular with their culture and became radical in defending it.
Now the position is reversed. That’s really all there is to it.
Radical conservatism becomes more prevalent when the common people feel weak and in danger. Radical liberalism becomes more prevalent when the common people feel stronger and not in danger.[/quote]
that was a long time ago so it doesn’t count
[/quote]
Jesus Fucking Christ… Sitting here saying “but da jesus folks did some bad shit a couple hundred years ago” certainly goes a long fucking way to not only explain current radicle elements of Islam, but also does a bang up job of solving the fucking issue.
I swear to god some of you are so hung up on shitting on Judeo-Christian religions you can’t see your ass from your elbow. [/quote]
Because they are hypocrites. as stated in the post by magick if the current situation was that Muslims were the majority and had dominance Christians would be fighting the same way. it is the Christians that turn this into a religious issue. it’s a human issue not a religious one. These peaceful Christians follow a book filled with murder. 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]
I don’t think that’s accurate. Some stuff might be human issues but some are clearly religious issues. This attack was certainly all based on religion. That newspaper wasn’t oppressing Muslims or hurting them.
It’s important to consider history and how groups act toward each other based on power shifts. But the Christians of today are secular or moved on from barbarism or both. I think the lack of terrorist attacks coming from Christians has to do with progress and less to do with being the dominant power. Who the hell wants to be at constant war when human living standards have exponentially increased for over a hundred years?
America is supposedly Christian country but I don’t think about that day-to-day. I just think I’m in a 1st world country and it’s nice my city is super clean. Saudi Arabia has roughly the same GDP per capita as the USA, but I can guarantee you the idea of living in a Muslim county would be on my mind day-to-day. My point is “Christian” nations aren’t even defined by Christianity. Are France, England, Germany, etc. Christian nations? I suppose so but it seems kind of silly calling them that.
So human progress (including enlightened thinking) and high living standards probably have more to do with Christians easing up on the killing than actually gaining dominance. The problem is there are too many Muslims that accept barbarism as noble and righteous. Probably the result of being brainwashed by a religious figure who’s telling them there’s a great battle b/t the Jews, Christians, and Muslims for Jerusalem. The reality is most North Americans and Europeans (“Christians”) don’t really give a shit about Jerusalem’s religious significance. Also look at Turkey. A Muslim country but comparatively modern and enlightened, thus you don’t see terrorist Turks causing problems.
The next step is for cultural progress or elimination of those still stuck on barbarism. Then the world can hash out all it’s beefs with plain ole war and economic sanctions.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You’re half right. The above applies to Muslims. However your repeated “but the Christians were bad a couple hundred years ago” nonsense means the above post does NOT apply to Christians. Otherwise you’d willingly acknowledge that people now have zero to do with what Christians did hundreds of years ago, and now aren’t in any way comparable to Muslims in the context of terrorism.
[/quote]
hmm87,
The difference is Christianity and Islam had different origins. Hell, in Roman times Christians were persecuted. Sure Christians did bad things in the past. Many people can point to the Inquisition as proof of this, but later Popes condemned this time in Christian past and admitted it was wrong.
You could point to the Crusades which, in reality, were a defensive war or a preventative war.
By doing so, you must also take in consideration the Reformation and the Renaissance, none having any equivalence in Islam.
Islam’s was started as a religion of conquest, and within a hundred years of it’s founding ruled a vast empire across several continents. The Muslims lived in a state of constant warfare among different Islamic sects and against non-believers for the extent of their existence from the 700’s till today. They never stopped fighting this war and are still fighting it today.
Check this out 12 people die in France and the world mourns…in Nigeria, Muslim terrorist slaughter 2,000 people and the world is silent. Except for
the Sultan of Sokoto Muhammad SaÃ?¢??ad Abubakar, who “said today that Muslims and Christians must come together to end the Islamist insurgency.”
‘Ã?¢??As Muslims, we must all stand and counter this violence that has dented the image of Islam,Ã?¢?? he said in the southern town of Auchi. Ã?¢??What is happening to our brothers in the northern parts of the country is bad and we must come together to find an end to this insurgency.Ã?¢??’
Maybe the Muslims are starting to wake up and no one even noticed.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
So, BPCorso, I rarely disagree with your posts. Does that make you an excellent poster or a lunatic? [/quote]
My woman and friend’s would say lunatic. Cheers!
[quote]pat wrote:
People offend us, snear at us, insult us, and persecute us all the time, no terrorism results from it.[/quote]
Because that’s how the religion was founded. It was persecuted and if you were persecuted, you were made a martyr. In Islam, dying in battle against the infidel makes you a martyr. That’s why it’s non-comparable, evil pasts or no evil pasts. Christianity=/=Islam.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Second, what the hell does what Christians did in the middle ages have shit to do with right now?[/quote]
There is like 4 posters hung up on this and they can’t seem to explain how it is at all relevant.
I know what AC does it… [/quote]
It serves the purpose of allowing them to think that all religions and religious people are ultimately evil, therefore confirming their biases and allowing them to put their fingers in their ears and stop their feet while screaming “HYPOCRIT, Christians Suck”. Pretty much the only purpose.
[/quote]
Yeah, it gets kind of old when every single time you try to discuss terrorism, which happens to be done by muslim radicals every single fucking time, you get the ol’ “Oh yeah! Well Christians did a bunch of bad shit too… 'long time ago. So you’re just as bad as those whacked out, bitch-beating, rag wearing, bomb making, plane hi-jacking, random person killing, Jew hating, cave dwelling, car bomb driving, journalist beheading, oil swilling, 72 virgin wanting, carpet riding, torture loving, little girl raping, child flogging, honor killing, clitoris removing, body dragging, mecca facing, sharia having, cartoon fearing, rock rubbing, non-showering, prayer yodeling, wahhabi being, women hating, dress wearing, daughter raping, goat fucking, violence loving, dick sucking, America hating, piece of shit islamic terrorists you’re complaining about!”[/quote]
Hey Push, where’s your gold bars? I think this deserves one. Second best post of the year right here!
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You’re half right. The above applies to Muslims. However your repeated “but the Christians were bad a couple hundred years ago” nonsense means the above post does NOT apply to Christians. Otherwise you’d willingly acknowledge that people now have zero to do with what Christians did hundreds of years ago, and now aren’t in any way comparable to Muslims in the context of terrorism.
[/quote]
The difference is Christianity and Islam had different origins. Hell, in Roman times Christians were persecuted. Sure Christians did bad things in the past. Many people can point to the Inquisition as proof of this, but later Popes condemned this time in Christian past and admitted it was wrong.
You could point to the Crusades which, in reality, were a defensive war or a preventative war.
By doing so, you must also take in consideration the Reformation and the Renaissance, none having any equivalence in Islam.
Islam’s was started as a religion of conquest, and within a hundred years of it’s founding ruled a vast empire across several continents. The Muslims lived in a state of constant warfare among different Islamic sects and against non-believers for the extent of their existence from the 700’s till today. They never stopped fighting this war and are still fighting it today.
Check this out 12 people die in France and the world morns…in Nigeria, Muslim terrorist slaughter 2,000 people and the world is silent. Except for
the Sultan of Sokoto Muhammad Saâ??ad Abubakar, who “said today that Muslims and Christians must come together to end the Islamist insurgency.”
‘â??As Muslims, we must all stand and counter this violence that has dented the image of Islam,â?? he said in the southern town of Auchi. â??What is happening to our brothers in the northern parts of the country is bad and we must come together to find an end to this insurgency.â??’
Maybe the Muslims are starting to wake up and no one even noticed.
That is horrible. Did not see that today (b/c it’s not freaking covered anywhere). I was talking to my GF who does work for the Nigerian government and she said there was a crisis today she was dealing with. Did not know it was a tragedy. Unfortunately the Nigerians aren’t equipped to deal with Boko Haram themselves. Amazing how it was decided that isn’t worthy of the news.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
People offend us, snear at us, insult us, and persecute us all the time, no terrorism results from it.[/quote]
Because that’s how the religion was founded. It was persecuted and if you were persecuted, you were made a martyr. In Islam, dying in battle against the infidel makes you a martyr. That’s why it’s non-comparable, evil pasts or no evil pasts. Christianity=/=Islam.[/quote]
I thought Islam was different because it is based on the uncorrupted word of the one true god as expressed through the Qur’an and every other religion isn’t.