Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Fury on May 22, 2013, 10:40:16 AM
-
Report: British Soldier Beheaded Outside London Barracks
A U.K. lawmaker told reporters Wednesday that a serving British soldier was killed outside of an army barracks in southeast London and two suspects are in custody.
The London Times reported that one of the attackers shouted "Allahu Akhbar" ("God is Great in Arabic) as they attacked the soldier with meat cleavers.
One of the suspects is injured and in the hospital and no other people are being sought, Nick Raynsford, a lawmaker who represents the Greenwich and Woolwich areas of London, said in an interview on Sky News. The incident may have started because of a traffic accident, he said.
“Sadly one patient, a man, was dead,” London’s Ambulance Service said in a statement. “Staff treated two other patients, both men, who were taken to hospital, one of them in serious condition.”
London police said on Twitter they were responding to a “serious incident” on John Wilson Street in the Woolwich area. More than 30 police officers are still at the scene.
The Ambulance Service sent a helicopter, three vans and two officers in cars to the scene after receiving a call at 2:20 p.m., the agency said. They still have staff at the scene, it said.
Raynsford didn’t immediately return a call to his mobile phone.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission is also investigating because officers fired their weapons during the incident, a spokesman for the agency said.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/british-soldier-beheaded/2013/05/22/id/505841?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Woolwich: 'Soldier Dead After Terror Attack'
A man reported to be a serving soldier is dead and two people have been shot in Woolwich, south east London, after what Sky sources understand is being treated as a terrorist attack.
Downing Street has called a meeting of the Government's Cobra emergency committee after the incident in John Wilson Street, which David Cameron described as "truly shocking".
Sky sources understand that senior police officers believe the killing was likely to be a politically-motivated Islamist terrorist attack.
Dozens of weapons - including a number of knives - and pools of blood could be seen on the ground, where a man wearing a Help for Heroes T-shirt is said to have been attacked by two men.
Sky sources say that following their attack, witnesses heard the pair chanting "Allahu akbar" - and asking passers-by to take photographs of them.
Armed officers arrived at the scene and opened fire on the two alleged attackers. The men were taken to separate hospitals with gunshot wounds.
The Metropolitan Police confirmed one person had died following the incident and said the Independent Police Complaints Commission had now taken over the investigation.
Photographs taken at the scene show three people lying on the ground. Their condition was not clear. A car that appeared to have crashed could also be seen.
Commander Simon Letchford, from the Met, said officers were called to the road at 2.20pm.
"One man was being assaulted by two other men," he said.
http://news.sky.com/story/1094380/woolwich-soldier-dead-after-terror-attack
The cancer of Islamofascism strikes again. Cue the defenders to say this has nothing to do with Islam. ::)
-
Liberal Utopianism at its best.
-
sick
-
These two believers in the great peaceful religion that is Islam were forced to do these horrid acts by the cruel and violent white Christian inhabitants of England. These two Muslim men were driven by to these acts because they were disenfranchised, endured discrimination, they were subjected to alienation and little acommodation by white Christians! I just think that the U.K. needs to do more out reach out these peaceful Muslim souls, make them more comfortable and try to make them feel welcome.
If not, more peaceful followers of Mohammed will be forced to behead people in the middle of the street. Shame on the U.K., the monsters that they are.
-
These two believers in the great peaceful religion that is Islam were forced to do these horrid acts by the cruel and violent white Christian inhabitants of England. These two Muslim men were driven by to these acts because they were disenfranchised, endured discrimination, they were subjected to alienation and little acommodation by white Christians! I just think that the U.K. needs to do more out reach out these peaceful Muslim souls, make them more comfortable and try to make them feel welcome.
If not, more peaceful followers of Mohammed will be forced to behead people in the middle of the street. Shame on the U.K., the monsters that they are.
translation = their religious beliefs made them crazy (or exacerbated their pre-existing crazy)
-
translation = their religious beliefs made them crazy (or exacerbated their pre-existing crazy)
Do you agree or disagree with this assessment?
-
Do you agree or disagree with this assessment?
you're asking if I agree with myself?
-
you're asking is I agree with myself?
The idea that religion is at the very least a contributing factor in violent behavior.
-
The idea that religion is at the very least a contributing factor in violent behavior.
I definitely think religious fundamentalism leads to some people going nuts
pick any religion and you can find examples of this
when your religious belief leads you believe you need to commit acts of violence then your religion has driven you nuts (and for some people I suspect it's a very short drive)
-
I definitely think religious fundamentalism leads to some people going nuts
pick any religion and you can find examples of this
when your religious belief leads you believe you need to commit acts of violence then your religion has driven you nuts (and for some people I suspect it's a very short drive)
So in your estimation it is the individual and his misinterpretation of his religion and not religion itself that is dangerous?
-
I definitely think religious fundamentalism leads to some people going nuts
pick any religion and you can find examples of this
when your religious belief leads you believe you need to commit acts of violence then your religion has driven you nuts (and for some people I suspect it's a very short drive)
You really are a sicko
-
So in your estimation it is the individual and his misinterpretation of his religion and not religion itself that is dangerous?
yes, I don't think religion is inherently dangerous
some people let their religious beliefs drive them insane (or they were already insane before)
For example, some christians believe it's perfectly acceptable to blow up abortion clinic, murder doctors. etc.. and in fact they HAVE to do it due to their religious beliefs. I think they are nuts and possibly were even nuts before they became Christians or just coincidental to being christian
-
You really are a sicko
great job not being able to even have one cogent response to anything I wrote
then again, you are a profoundly stupid person who in all likelihood has some true mental and emotional challenges
-
yes, I don't think religion is inherently dangerous
some people let their religious beliefs drive them insane (or they were already insane before)
For example, some christians believe it's perfectly acceptable to blow up abortion clinic, murder doctors. etc.. and in fact they HAVE to do it due to their religious beliefs. I think they are nuts and possibly were even nuts before they became Christians or just coincidental to being christian
You are as much a threat to this nation as the butchers of alah
-
yes, I don't think religion is inherently dangerous
some people let their religious beliefs drive them insane (or they were already insane before)
For example, some christians believe it's perfectly acceptable to blow up abortion clinic, murder doctors. etc.. and in fact they HAVE to do it due to their religious beliefs. I think they are nuts and possibly were even nuts before they became Christians or just coincidental to being christian
It is quite clear that some religious texts encourage murder under certain circumstances. Whether that religious text also includes a passage or two about loving thy neighbor is only relevant in so far as it demonstrates a inconsistency, hypocrisy and contradiction. In my opinion, a propensity for violence is inherent in religion itself.
-
It is quite clear that some religious texts encourage murder under certain circumstances. Whether that religious text also includes a passage or two about loving thy neighbor is only relevant in so far as it demonstrates a inconsistency, hypocrisy and contradiction. In my opinion, a propensity for violence is inherent in religion itself.
I don't disagree with that point of view
Most people who choose to follow a certain religion find a way to navigate around the bullshit and obviously there are many who don't do that
-
You are as much a threat to this nation as the butchers of alah
yeah, that make a lot of sense
-
This religion in particular is fucked. Its not really a religion anyway...its a political system wrapped in some mystical elements to explain away the actions of a thieving pedofile. Maybe the brits will finally realize that this multicultural shit has to go. It worked in Holland
-
copied from another forum:
Study shows the more devout a Muslim the more violent he becomes, and the more devout a Christian, the more peaceful he becomes
In this study and presentation shown in the video, it was discovered that the more devout a Muslim becomes, the more violent he becomes.
The opposite, was discovered with Christians. That the more devout a Christian, the more peaceful he becomes.
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
Why is this?
A devout Muslim, will more closely follow the examples of their prophet Muhammad. And a devout Christian, will more closely follow the examples of Jesus.
Muhammad vs Jesus
Said Allah hates those who don't accept Islam.
(Qur'an 30:4, 3:32, 22:38)
Said God loves everyone.
(John 3:16)
"I have been commanded to fight
against people till they testify that there
is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad
is the messenger of Allah"
(Muslim 1:33)
"He who lives by the sword
will die by the sword."
(Matthew 26:52)
Stoned women for adultery.
(Muslim 4206)
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
(John 8:7)
Permitted stealing from unbelievers.
(Bukhari 44:668, Ibn Ishaq 764)
"Thou shalt not steal."
(Matthew 19:18)
Permitted lying.
(Sahih Muslim 6303, Bukhari 49:857)
"Thou shalt not bear false witness."
(Matthew 19:18)
Owned and traded slaves.
(Sahih Muslim 3901)
Neither owned nor traded slaves.
Beheaded 800 Jewish men and boys.
(Sahih Muslim 4390)
Beheaded no one.
Murdered those who insulted him.
(Bukhari 56:369, 4:241)
Preached forgiveness.
(Matthew 18:21-22, 5:38)
"If then anyone transgresses
the prohibition against you,
Transgress ye likewise against him"
(Qur'an 2:194)
"If someone strikes you on the right
cheek, turn to him the other also."
(Matthew 5:39)
Jihad in the way of Allah elevates one's position in Paradise by a hundred fold.
(Muslim 4645)
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for
they will be called Sons of God"
(Matthew 5:9)
Married 13 wives and kept sex slaves.
(Bukhari 5:268, Qur'an 33:50)
Was celibate.
Slept with a 9-year-old child.
(Sahih Muslim 3309, Bukhari 58:236)
Did not have sex with children.
Ordered the murder of women.
(Ibn Ishaq 819, 995)
Never harmed a woman.
"O you who believe! Fight those of the
unbelievers who are near to you
and let them find in you hardness."
(Qur'an 9:123)
"Blessed are the meek, for
they shall inherit the earth."
(Matthew 5:5)
Ordered 65 military campaigns
and raids in his last 10 years.
(Ibn Ishaq )
Ordered no military campaigns, nor
offered any approval of war or violence.
Killed captives taken in battle.
(Ibn Ishaq 451)
Never took captives.
Never killed anyone.
Encouraged his men to rape enslaved women.
(Abu Dawood 2150, Qur'an 4:24)
Never encouraged rape.
Never enslaved women.
Demanded captured slaves and
a fifth of all other loot taken in war.
(Qur'an 8:41)
"The Son of Man came not
to be served, but to serve."
(Matthew 20:28)
Was never tortured, but tortured others.
(Muslim 4131, Ibn Ishaq 436, 595, 734, 764)
Suffered torture, but never tortured anyone.
"And fight them until there is no more persecution and religion is only for Allah"
(Qur'an 8:39)
"Love your enemies and pray
for those who persecute you"
(Matthew 5:44)
Blessed the brutal murder of a half-blind man
(al-Tabari 1440)
Healed a blind man
(Mark 8:28)
Ordered a slave to build the very pulpit
from which he preached Islam.
(Bukhari 47:743)
Washed his disciples feet.
(John 13:5)
What are the Greatest Commandments?
"Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause"
(Muslim 1:149)
What are the Greatest Commandments?
"Love God and love thy neighbor as thyself."
(Matthew 22:34-40)
Demanded the protection of armed bodyguards, even in a house of worship
(Qur'an 4:102)
Chastised anyone attempting
to defend him with force.
(John 18:10-12)
Died fat and wealthy from what was
taken from others in war or
demanded from others in tribute.
Demanded nothing for himself.
Died without possessions.
Advocated crucifying others.
(Qur'an 5:33, Muslim 16:4131)
Was crucified himself.
According to his followers:
Had others give their lives for him.
(Sahih Muslim 4413)
According to his followers:
Gave his life for others.
(John 18:11 and elsewhere)
-
Hey Loco - a couple of quick questions
who did this so called study and do you think christians who commit acts of violence (such as bombing abortion clinics, killing doctors, etc..) would be surprised to find out they are less devout than their non-violent brethren ?
-
Liberal communists always make excuses for islamic terrorists
-
Hey Loco - a couple of quick questions
who did this so called study and do you think christians who commit acts of violence (such as bombing abortion clinics, killing doctors, etc..) would be surprised to find out they are less devout than their non-violent brethren ?
I can't remember who did "this so called study." I will have to watch the video again. Can you dispute the comparison above?
How in the world would I know if these Christians would be surprised to find out that they are less devout than their non-violent brethren? Find one and ask him yourself, since there are so many of them, according to you. ::)
-
I can't remember who did "this so called study." I will have to watch the video again. Can you dispute the comparison above?
How in the world would I know if these Christians would be surprised to find out that they are less devout than their non-violent brethren? Find one and ask him yourself, since there are so many of them, according to you. ::)
you don't know who did the study but you're offering it up as some sort of conclusive proof that Christians become less violent as they become more devout. That claim seem to contradict reality of the christian fundies who commit acts of violence.
-
see..................... ...WE'RE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT CHRISTIANS. As usual you fucking lib apologists bring that up. Please let me know the last time some snake handling wack job rolled up to FT Campbell and cut off a soldiers' head. Oh yeah...never happened. There was this muslim dude at Fort Hood but that was dismissed as workplace violence. ::)
-
you don't know who did the study but you're offering it up as some sort of conclusive proof that Christians become less violent as they become more devout. That claim seem to contradict reality of the christian fundies who commit acts of violence.
The comparison is what I'm offering. Do you dispute the comparison? Second time I ask you, but you avoid the question.
How does it "contradict reality of the christian fundies who commit acts of violence."? Was Jesus Christ a violent man? Did he teach violence? Were his disciples violent men? Did they teach violence? No.
The Amish are Christians, and they are stuck in the past much like many Muslim communities around the world. Are the Amish violent? No.
-
The comparison is what I'm offering. Do you dispute the comparison? Second time I ask you, but you avoid the question.
How does it "contradict reality of the christian fundies who commit acts of violence."? Was Jesus Christ a violent man? Did he teach violence? Were his disciples violent men? Did they teach violence? No.
The Amish are Christians, and they are stuck in the past much like many Muslim communities around the world. Are the Amish violent? No.
I have no idea if the comparison is valid or not
can you post a link to the study
As I've already said a couple of times in this thread and many many times before, I think that certain people in many different religions sometimes let their religious beliefs drive them to the point of committing violence. It seems that those people often believe they are more devout or that their deeper beliefs drive and justify their actions. These people might have already been nuts or been on the cusp or perhaps something in their learned beliefs have triggered it.
-
I have no idea if the comparison is valid or not
can you post a link to the study
As I've already said a couple of times in this thread and many many times before, I think that certain people in many different religions sometimes let their religious beliefs drive them to the point of committing violence. It seems that those people often believe they are more devout or that their deeper beliefs drive and justify their actions. These people might have already been nuts or been on the cusp or perhaps something in their learned beliefs have triggered it.
I do. The comparison is valid.
No, watch the video P.I.P posted. I quoted his post.
Nobody cares about what you've said...
...LOL...I kid, I kid! ;D
-
It is quite clear that some religious texts encourage murder under certain circumstances. Whether that religious text also includes a passage or two about loving thy neighbor is only relevant in so far as it demonstrates a inconsistency, hypocrisy and contradiction. In my opinion, a propensity for violence is inherent in religion itself.
Yeah, hard to disagree with that.
-
So in your estimation it is the individual and his misinterpretation of his religion and not religion itself that is dangerous?
Religion, itself, is a creation of man. How can it not lead to insanity?
-
I pray that the British take back their country from the subhuman, satanic filth of Islam. Violently or non violently, its all the same. There is no place in society for these animals. If bringing death to these human cockroaches is the only way to keep the rest of mankind safe, then may death fall upon every man woman and child who worships the satanic pedophile Mohammad.
Enough is enough.
If an incident of terrorism ever warranted a brutal act of retribution, the time is now. If for no other reason than to reestablish the supremacy of your homeland.
God save the Queen.
-
Religion, itself, is a creation of man. How can it not lead to insanity?
Food for thought
-
Odds of these Islamotwats being on British welfare? Very high.
Islam is a plague.
-
Odds of these Islamotwats being on British welfare? Very high.
Islam is a plague.
We have these same animals here too
-
Liberal communists always make excuses for islamic terrorists
It does appear that way... :-\
-
Liberal Utopianism at its best.
Agree..fuck london. They are getting what they wanted. I truly feel sorry for the real british patriots who have to watch their formerly glorious nation turn into the world capital of political correctness and destructive liberal policies.
-
Also to note, these two are CONVERTS to Islam so anyone claiming Islam has nothing to do with it is full of shit.
-
Agree..fuck london. They are getting what they wanted. I truly feel sorry for the real british patriots who have to watch their formerly glorious nation turn into the world capital of political correctness and destructive liberal policies.
Stuff like this never ends well for the immigrants, just ask the Jews. The people are going to grow weary of all bullshit and someone is going to come along offering pretty scary solutions.
-
It is quite clear that some religious texts encourage murder under certain circumstances. Whether that religious text also includes a passage or two about loving thy neighbor is only relevant in so far as it demonstrates a inconsistency, hypocrisy and contradiction. In my opinion, a propensity for violence is inherent in religion itself.
You think this is true of all religions?
-
You think this is true of all religions?
For the most part. Groups that believe they possess absolute authority and knowledge on all matters of heaven and earth , whether they be political or religious, often feel justified to do just about anything based on the premise that they are justified by a higher authority to do so.
You may argue that Christian in western countries rarely commit acts of violence and you would be correct, but there are many reasons for that. Chief among them is the counter balance of secular laws and values which prevent the implementation of the more abhorrent aspects of their religion such as stoning disobedient children.
-
For the most part. Groups that believe they possess absolute authority and knowledge on all matters of heaven and earth , whether they be political or religious, often feel justified to do just about anything based on the premise that they are justified by a higher authority to do so.
You may argue that Christian in western countries rarely commit acts of violence and you would be correct, but there are many reasons for that. Chief among them is the counter balance of secular laws and values which prevent the implementation of the more abhorrent aspects of their religion such as stoning disobedient children.
What groups believe they possess absolute authority and knowledge on all matters of heaven and earth? I've been a Christian my entire life and that certainly does not describe Christianity (assuming Christians are part of the group you've identified).
Christians in the U.S. rarely commit acts of violence in the name of Christianity. And anyone who does, isn't acting in accord with any mainstream Christian church or teaching.
What Christians have ever advocated stoning disobedient children in the U.S.?
-
What groups believe they possess absolute authority and knowledge on all matters of heaven and earth? I've been a Christian my entire life and that certainly does not describe Christianity (assuming Christians are part of the group you've identified).
Christians in the U.S. rarely commit acts of violence in the name of Christianity. And anyone who does, isn't acting in accord with any mainstream Christian church or teaching.
What Christians have ever advocated stoning disobedient children in the U.S.?
Christianity believes it has absolute authority in matters of morality, the purpose of live, the nature of the universe, how the earth was formed, . the origin of life, what happens after death and god. Pretty big stuff.
They aren't acting in accordance with mainstream church for the reason I mentioned before. There are counterbalances in a democratic secular society. We also have a level of affluence in the west were radical investment in religion doesn't have the payoff it has in poorer countries. In this society we have more to lose and nothing to gain by radicalism.
No one is advocating the stoning of children which is my point. Stoning of disobedient children is in the bible but people don't following for the reasons I stated in my original post and above.
-
Christianity believes it has absolute authority in matters of morality, the purpose of live, the nature of the universe, how the earth was formed, . the origin of life, what happens after death and god. Pretty big stuff.
They aren't acting in accordance with mainstream church for the reason I mentioned before. There are counterbalances in a democratic secular society. We also have a level of affluence in the west were radical investment in religion doesn't have the payoff it has in poorer countries. In this society we have more to lose and nothing to gain by radicalism.
No one is advocating the stoning of children which is my point. Stoning of disobedient children is in the bible but people don't following for the reasons I stated in my original post and above.
No it doesn't. Where are you getting that from?
You think the only thing keeping mainstream Christians in the U.S. from committing murder are secular laws?
Stoning children isn't something that has ever happened in this country. Really not sure what point you're trying to make with that reference.
-
No it doesn't. Where are you getting that from?
You think the only thing keeping mainstream Christians in the U.S. from committing murder are secular laws?
Stoning children isn't something that has ever happened in this country. Really not sure what point you're trying to make with that reference.
It is absolutely secular laws and values. The christian bible advocates horrible acts the same as the Koran. Why is it that Christians don't also commit acts of violence? The difference is, in part, the society the person grows up in.
Christians in western societies generally don't act on these recommendations because, they have other values that supersede and cancel out the biblical precepts and radicalism doesn't have the same appeal in a country with greater affluence.
-
Yet another moronic comment by CSWOLS "spotting partner".
Obviously this jackass doesn't know anything about "most religions" or most anything else.
Out of curiosity, do people like you think that some invisible recording (Ala The Truman Show) is keeping score of all your delusional moral justification rationalizations? If that happens to be the case, let me be the first to inform you that you're not stockpiling imaginary PC brownie points that earn you frequent flyer miles or a gift certificate to PC Richards each time you reflexively make excuses for Islamic Terrorists or various other left wing causes.
It is truly unbelievable that after an Islamic cockroach murders an innocent man in broad daylight, your reaction is somewhere along the lines of: "Hey that's bad, but let's not single out Islam, most religions are violent". ::) Are you running for Mayor of Islamabad or something? What kind of fucking asinine moral equivalency fantasy could you possibly gleam from what transpired in England yesterday? The Crusades back in the 14th century were bad also? ::)
What about the Boston bombings, 911, Fort Hood, The first WTC attack, the beheading of Daniel Pearl, the bombing of the USS cole, the bombing of the US embassy's in Africa, -- I can name 30 instances off the top of my head without even trying. Whats your explanation for that?
Wait let me guess.
Tim McVeigh. ::)
People with your mindset should be forced to live with the animals you make excuses for. See how long it takes before your at the end of a knife blade begging for your life. You should explain to Ahmed right before he murders you that, you're one of the good guys and you're not islamophobic at all. In fact, you believe that all religions are violent and it's not his fault. See how that works out.
-
It is absolutely secular laws and values. The christian bible advocates horrible acts the same as the Koran. Why is it that Christians don't also commit acts of violence? The difference is, in part, the society the person grows up in.
Christians in western societies generally don't act on these recommendations because, they have other values that supersede and cancel out the biblical precepts and radicalism doesn't have the same appeal in a country with greater affluence.
Uh, no. If you're talking about Old Testament rituals involving Israelites, you're way off base. Every mainstream Christian church believes murder is wrong. And you're seriously equating Islam with Christianity?
Have you spent any significant time in a Christian church? If so, what did they teach you about murder?
Christians in Western societies don't murder people, because the Bible doesn't advocate murder and actually teaches people not to murder, and because secular laws prohibit murder.
-
Uh, no. If you're talking about Old Testament rituals involving Israelites, you're way off base. Every mainstream Christian church believes murder is wrong. And you're seriously equating Islam with Christianity?
Have you spent any significant time in a Christian church? If so, what did they teach you about murder?
Christians in Western societies don't murder people, because the Bible doesn't advocate murder and actually teaches people not to murder, and because secular laws prohibit murder.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (King James Version)
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
King James Version (KJV)
18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
Why don't Christians do this? What is stopping them? What is stopping them is the our societal values for children have more power over our decision making than what the bible advocates as the correct way to deal with a wayward son.
-
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (King James Version)
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
King James Version (KJV)
18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
Why don't Christians do this? What is stopping them? What is stopping them is the our societal values for children have more power over our decision making than what the bible advocates as the correct way to deal with a wayward son.
Because those were rules given to Israelites that applied to them, thousands of years ago, and that Christian church has ever done.
Why not quote the part that talks about not murdering people?
Do you actually read the Bible or just look for things that fit whatever argument it is you're trying to make?
-
Because those were rules given to Israelites that applied to them, thousands of years ago, and that Christian church has ever done.
Why not quote the part that talks about not murdering people?
Do you actually read the Bible or just look for things that fit whatever argument it is you're trying to make?
God or Jesus never said the rules changed. God or Jesus never said it applied only to the ancient Israelites. Do the ten commands only apply to the ancients? How do you determine whats applies now and what doesn't? Seems a bit arbitrary to me.
I used stoning as an example because it demonstrates how religion functions in our society as opposed to a Muslim one. I have a personal opinion about Christianity and whether or not it is inherently more civil than Islam. I believe it is.
-
God or Jesus never said the rules changed. God or Jesus never said it applied only to the ancient Israelites. Do the ten commands only apply to the ancients? How do you determine whats applies now and what doesn't? Seems a bit arbitrary to me.
I used stoning as an example because it demonstrates how religion functions in our society as opposed to a Muslim one. I have a personal opinion about Christianity and whether or not it is inherently more civil than Islam. I believe it is.
Actually He did. You should read the New Testament. And if you decide to read it, you don't necessarily have to find a quote from Jesus.
I don't think it's that difficult to distinguish. The Israelites were given a plethora of rules and rituals to follow, including animal sacrifices. I don't have a problem distinguishing those rituals from whatever other guidelines apply to our conduct today. Some folks who are atheist or disillusioned with Christianity often try and find things to hang their hat on to make Christianity look bad. And honestly, there are plenty of ways to do just that. I have questions myself about some things, and I've been around it forever. But if you actually get into studying and interacting with mainstream Christians, they're all pretty similar and believe similar things.
-
Actually He did. You should read the New Testament. And if you decide to read it, you don't necessarily have to find a quote from Jesus.
I don't think it's that difficult to distinguish. The Israelites were given a plethora of rules and rituals to follow, including animal sacrifices. I don't have a problem distinguishing those rituals from whatever other guidelines apply to our conduct today. Some folks who are atheist or disillusioned with Christianity often try and find things to hang their hat on to make Christianity look bad. And honestly, there are plenty of ways to do just that. I have questions myself about some things, and I've around it forever. But if you actually get into studying and interacting with mainstream Christians, they're all pretty similar and believe similar things.
Where did Jesus say he was throwing that out? I'm not trying to make Christianity look bad. Its there in the bible. You're taking this to personally. Even if Jesus did change the law, that doesn't make god look any better. Morality becomes relative, based on the whims of God.
-
Where did Jesus say he was throwing that out? I'm not trying to make Christianity look bad. Its there in the bible. You're taking this to personally. Even if Jesus did change the law, that doesn't make god look any better. Morality becomes relative, based on the whims of God.
If you want chapter and verse, you'll have to wait for loco. :) Or you can search for it, just like you did with the verses you've already quoted. That's assuming you really are trying to do an honest comparison or study. But the ceremonial laws given to the Jews were no longer followed after the Crucifixion.
I'm not taking anything personally. Never do.
I don't think morality changed at all. I don't see it as problem, but then again I don't have an ax to grind.
-
Jesus actually said he has come not to abolish the law but to enact it.
Paul was the guy who actually said no you dont need the law and the romans convininetly did away with the law, hence why many of the christian beliefs and practices blended with roman beliefs.
For example in one of the many first church councils the debate of replacing pass over with easter which was a pagan feast.
Doing away with the law was interestingly almost a fulfilled conspiracy to do away with the jews in the roman empire.
Paul a greek phraisees Jew was basically an agent of the roman empire and he hunted down the early followers of jesus. Convininently he claimed to have 'visions' of Jesus as God on three accounts (which are contradicting in his own writings -- in one he hears, sees, doesnt see, hear blabla variety)
Then even the apostles of Jesus denounce him and see him suspiciously as a fraud. So he writes all these 'letters' to different people to convince them of 'his mission' which are a part of the bible new testament books
So in effect Jesus did not do away with the law of God, but paul and the romans certainly did.
-
All religions suck but Mohammedans are truly scum. Churchill was right on the money....120 years ago. Not a damn thing has changed with these morons.
-
All religions suck but Mohammedans are truly scum. Churchill was right on the money....120 years ago. Not a damn thing has changed with these morons.
True. It's amazing how accurate Churchill was.
-
Churchill was a piece of shit also and he was a huge reason why england in is this state today.
-
Churchill was a piece of shit also and he was a huge reason why england in is this state today.
::)
-
Bump for Islamist apologists==>
Yet another moronic comment by CSWOLS "spotting partner".
Obviously this jackass doesn't know anything about "most religions" or most anything else.
Out of curiosity, do people like you think that some invisible recording (Ala The Truman Show) is keeping score of all your delusional moral justification rationalizations? If that happens to be the case, let me be the first to inform you that you're not stockpiling imaginary PC brownie points that earn you frequent flyer miles or a gift certificate to PC Richards each time you reflexively make excuses for Islamic Terrorists or various other left wing causes.
It is truly unbelievable that after an Islamic cockroach murders an innocent man in broad daylight, your reaction is somewhere along the lines of: "Hey that's bad, but let's not single out Islam, most religions are violent". Are you running for Mayor of Islamabad or something? What kind of fucking asinine moral equivalency fantasy could you possibly gleam from what transpired in England yesterday? The Crusades back in the 14th century were bad also?
What about the Boston bombings, 911, Fort Hood, The first WTC attack, the beheading of Daniel Pearl, the bombing of the USS cole, the bombing of the US embassy's in Africa, -- I can name 30 instances off the top of my head without even trying. Whats your explanation for that?
Wait let me guess.
Tim McVeigh.
People with your mindset should be forced to live with the animals you make excuses for. See how long it takes before your at the end of a knife blade begging for your life. You should explain to Ahmed right before he murders you that, you're one of the good guys and you're not islamophobic at all. In fact, you believe that all religions are violent and it's not his fault. See how that works out.
-
Any takers?!
-
Bump for Islamist apologists==>
Yet another moronic comment by CSWOLS "spotting partner".
Obviously this jackass doesn't know anything about "most religions" or most anything else.
Out of curiosity, do people like you think that some invisible recording (Ala The Truman Show) is keeping score of all your delusional moral justification rationalizations? If that happens to be the case, let me be the first to inform you that you're not stockpiling imaginary PC brownie points that earn you frequent flyer miles or a gift certificate to PC Richards each time you reflexively make excuses for Islamic Terrorists or various other left wing causes.
It is truly unbelievable that after an Islamic cockroach murders an innocent man in broad daylight, your reaction is somewhere along the lines of: "Hey that's bad, but let's not single out Islam, most religions are violent". Are you running for Mayor of Islamabad or something? What kind of fucking asinine moral equivalency fantasy could you possibly gleam from what transpired in England yesterday? The Crusades back in the 14th century were bad also?
What about the Boston bombings, 911, Fort Hood, The first WTC attack, the beheading of Daniel Pearl, the bombing of the USS cole, the bombing of the US embassy's in Africa, -- I can name 30 instances off the top of my head without even trying. Whats your explanation for that?
Wait let me guess.
Tim McVeigh.
People with your mindset should be forced to live with the animals you make excuses for. See how long it takes before your at the end of a knife blade begging for your life. You should explain to Ahmed right before he murders you that, you're one of the good guys and you're not islamophobic at all. In fact, you believe that all religions are violent and it's not his fault. See how that works out.
best post....ever. it's realy not their fault though. they're weak minded people who are preyed upon by the media. this is how tv has trained them to think over the course of days, weeks, months, years.. they don't even realize that it has been indoctrinated into their psyche to think this way by the liberal media because its simply a constant barrage every day. people on tv who come across as intelligent reminding them at every turn that when white people do bad things it's because they're evil and when people from third world countries do bad things it's because of how they have been persecuted by white people. and if they hadn't been perswecuted by white people.......well their ancestors were....good enough. at the end of the day it comes down to something very simple. it's called "white guilt".
-
::)
Why don't you explain to me what what so great about winston churchill
-
Where did Jesus say he was throwing that out? I'm not trying to make Christianity look bad. Its there in the bible. You're taking this to personally. Even if Jesus did change the law, that doesn't make god look any better. Morality becomes relative, based on the whims of God.
Maybe the confusion is that there is difference between Moral Law and Mosaic Law.
But He came to fulfill the Law (no one can perfectly keep the Law).
Wait let me guess.
Tim McVeigh.
According to these guys McVeigh was Agnostic (in case anyone wanted to know):
Apparently Dan Herbeck and Lou Michel wrote a book about McVeigh where they gathered information through many interviews w/him. They said he was AGNOSTIC.
Question from chat room: Does McVeigh have any spiritual-religious beliefs?
Lou Michel: McVeigh is agnostic. He doesn't believe in God, but he won't rule out the possibility. I asked him, "What if there is a heaven and hell?"
He said that once he crosses over the line from life to death, if there is something on the other side, he will -- and this is using his military jargon -- "adapt, improvise, and overcome." Death to him is all part of the adventure.
Chat Moderator: How were you two able to cultivate a relationship with McVeigh that resulted in these exclusive interviews?
Dan Herbeck: Hundreds of reporters from all over the country had tried to get interviews with Tim McVeigh, including reporters from Oklahoma City and many other communities. The way this all came about is that, a few days after the bombing, people in western New York were shocked to learn that the bomber was from our community.
Lou Michel was able to establish contact with Bill McVeigh, Tim McVeigh's father. Lou treated the family fairly. They were going through a lot of stress like everyone else. Lou treated them fairly, and ultimately Bill McVeigh introduced Lou to Timothy McVeigh, and Timothy McVeigh finally decided to cooperate with interviews for our book. This took place over the course of several years.
http://www.cnn.com/COMMUNITY/transcripts/2001/04/04/michelherbeck/
-
And now it's looking like the French soldier who was stabbed in the neck got it from the 'religion of peace'.