Explosion at Manchester Arena

[Melinda]

Originally posted by duaner

And probably that many identify as guilty. That stat literally tells us nothing about how many atheists or religious people are actually in prison. There could be any number of reasons why one might claim religious affiliation. It doesn't tell us how many were atheists prior to prison. It also doesn't differentiate between, say, those who claim to be Christian and those who actually are Christian.

Haha okay, sure. These are the rationalizations that make you sleep at night, good for you.

Originally posted by duaner

Fanatical. Wow. There is a loaded word. Since when is believing what Christians have always historically believed made a Christian "fanatical"

Have you actually read the bible? Or do you just have a religious preacher that teaches you the 'love' part of that fairy tale? Your book of infinite wisdom and morality preaches the virtues of violence and murder, person ownership, misogyny, rape, human and animal sacrifice and slavery. You seem to be denying all of that and saying Christianity is all about love. Sure, that sounds great.

Originally posted by duaner
You're the first atheist I've seen to be honest about that. Of course, you can't stop there though. You then have to admit that atheists believe good doesn't exist either.

You misunderstood me. I meant that atheists do not believe in a higher power. Good and evil are not a 'higher power', you just believe they are because your book told you so. It's possible to have a conscience without needing to believe someone is telepathically telling me how to behave. Good and evil exist in every religion and belief system in history, it's not exclusive to Christianity. It's also not exclusive to religion either.

Originally posted by duaner

Does God exist?

Not in my opinion, no.

Originally posted by duaner
There is your problem. There would probably be more of you if you did.

Unlike your ilk, we don't use bribery and door to door sales tactics to recruit for our cult. One would need to have a cult to need members and I'd say 99% of the atheists out there couldn't give two fucks how many of us there are. There are always the fanatics of every sect, but you generally don't hear about an atheist going on a killing rampage in the name of atheism. Nearly every other group of people (religiously speaking) cannot say the same.


Listen duaner, you think we're wrong and you're right and we get that. We aren't trying to change your beliefs and after this response, I'm done pandering to your closed minded view of the world outside your church. I've read your books and I've visited your houses of worship. My position is an educated one, so don't assume that I'm ignorant to your teachings just because I don't believe them. And your perpetual attitude of love and 'true christianity' doesn't really shine through all that well when you're implying atheists are murders and rapists and have no concept of good vs. evil. It actually makes you look like an epic hypocrite. I for one, can promise you that I am neither a rapist or a murderer But then again, I'm a godless heathen, maybe you can't trust me

[HuMz]

Originally posted by Antonito
Outright bullshit. As recently as WW2 all sides were bombing the shit out of whatever major cities they could get to

If you're sticking point will be "after they lost", let me know when Saudi Arabia is finally defeated

I should have been more specific, when I said that they are deliberately targeting innocent civilians, I was referring to their use of their suicide attacks. In WW2 the Japanese Kamikaze definitely were as crazy with the self-sacrifice part, but it was still in the context on war with opposing armies. Another major difference is that when we look back to past atrocities, there usually isn't a ideology that has the ability to transcend the political state. As bad as the Nazi's were, when they lost the war, the ideology behind it fell as well.

I think that it is because radical Islam transcends a simple political state and the methods they use , that makes it so different and dangerous. They willingly admit that they love death, more than we love life. The whole idea of suicide bombings is also a relatively new concept, where individuals are willing to become such cowards, that they are willing to sacrifice themselves to kill as many other opposing innocents as they can. To my knowledge, the idea of self-sacrifice in the past was more limited to the battlefield.

[HuMz]

Originally posted by Melinda


ISIS isn't a religious organization, though they claim to be. It's a group of mentally ill fanatics who use the usual brainwashing and recruiting tactics used by any organization that preys on young desperate minds to gain their 'soldiers'. They just use religion as a poor excuse to carry out their insanity. Fanatics of any sort are dangerous, be it Muslim, Christian, atheist, sports fans, hockey parents, etc. These attacks shouldn't have people pitting religion against religion, it should be a united world against this particular group of fanatics. Blaming an entire religion and subsequently attacking them for the horrific actions of a few are actually doing ISIS's work for them. No one likes to have to continuously fight off people saying they're something that they're not. Bullying people leads them to desperate measures of needing to fight back in whatever way they can.

Let's morn the victims and push our governments to join forces with the rest of the world to end organizations like ISIS, not try to force an entire group of peaceful people out of 'our' countries. Newsflash, most terror attacks are carried out by home grown terrorists, they can't be deported anywhere because they are natural born citizens of the country they're attacking.

What makes a group not a religious organization? You acknowledge that they claim to be one and that they are using religion to carry out their means, so what is it that excludes them having a religious nature?

Clearly you see that there is a difference between a fanatical hockey parent, and a suicide bomber, so I am not sure why you would try and imply that there aren't vastly different varying degrees of fanaticism between the categories you listed.

Criticizing a religion, and attacking a muslim are two different things. So when you claim that we should not judge the ideology of Islam, and attack Muslims - those two things don't go together. One can rightly criticize the religion of Islam, while still not feeling the need to attack a Muslim.

I do find it odd when some (usually progressives) claim that those who criticize Islam are actually motivating ISIS. When in reality, if you or anyone else here actually bothered to read what motivates ISIS. You would see that a big reason for their motivation are the progressive ideals you probably hold, like feminism, gay rights, a free and open democratic society. These are all things that motivate ISIS to gain recruits. Progressives truly are the useful idiots in this regard.

[SportEL]

Originally posted by HuMz


I think that it is because radical Islam transcends a simple political state and the methods they use , that makes it so different and dangerous. They willingly admit that they love death, more than we love life. The whole idea of suicide bombings is also a relatively new concept, where individuals are willing to become such cowards, that they are willing to sacrifice themselves to kill as many other opposing innocents as they can. To my knowledge, the idea of self-sacrifice in the past was more limited to the battlefield.

Exactly and to clarify a sense. Muslims do it because its straight from the Quran and Hadiths. This isn't no perverted version of Islam. It's straight from the scripture and sayings of Muhammad. No misinterpretation. These are the beliefs of the Islam ideology. It is not Radical Islam. Islam is Islam. It is just Islamic extremists carrying out violence as their holy book commands or what their prophet said to do or did. There are Muslims who don't act out on infidels but hate and intolerance against non-Muslims are the tenets of Islam.

Sahih Bukhari (52:54) - The words of Muhammad: "I would love to be martyred in Allah's Cause and then get resurrected and then get martyred, and then get resurrected again and then get martyred and then get resurrected again and then get martyred."

Sahih Muslim (20.4635) - Muhammad: "Nobody who enters Paradise will (ever like to) return to this world even if he were offered everything on the surface of the earth (as an inducement) except the martyr who will desire to return to this world and be killed ten times for the sake of the great honor that has been bestowed upon him."

Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."


--->.http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pa...e-bombing.aspx

[Gestalt]

Christian America kills 106 more, including 45 children in Syria.

5 times the death toll of Manchester, just another day in America's Christian Crusade across the mid east.


http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/0...132541011.html

[ZenOps]

According to many who are religious, atheism is immoral because non-belief is immoral. Telling religious people you don't believe in Jesus is very hard for some people, even more difficult than telling scientific people that you don't believe man landed on the moon.

If you don't believe in Muhammed it can be pretty tough for someone else to understand. The only one you could probably get away with is not believing in Bhudda.

There is a certain amount of blind trust in any belief system. There are those that believe that the US has not killed ten of millions of innocent civilians in the last 50 years.



I've always likened it to cheering for a local sports team, I mean - you wear the colors and cheer them on, but even if they suck and lose badly to everyone else you still keep with them.

[01RedDX]

.

[Gestalt]

Of course it's on purpose. Just becuase they don't scream _Alla_ before they bomb something, doesn't mean this isn't a Christian crusade. Just because they scream freedom like braveheart while dropping bombs on countries half way around the world doesn't make it beleivable

America, a Christian cuontry run by old white Christian men and millitary industrial complex has killed more civilians directly than any Muslim.

225 civilians in Syria, directly last month, tlhousands more by creating and arming Isis, and millions refugeis caused.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7751911.html

I would say killing children, is killing children, no matter what your rationing.

And no one has killed more children than well you know the stats.

[HuMz]

Originally posted by Gestalt
Christian America kills 106 more, including 45 children in Syria.

5 times the death toll of Manchester, just another day in America's Christian Crusade across the mid east.


http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/0...132541011.html

There is two massive problems with your line of thinking. The first is that you claim this is a Christian Crusade. I can't see there being any evidence that supports this statement being true. Almost every single western government either supports the war against ISIS. This is also true for most of the populace, regardless of political leanings. All of the governments of the west have made there opinions in regards to this topic public, and not a single one has ever claimed that their justification for fighting ISIS is because of their Christian mission.

Christianity doesn't govern the US, or any western nation. In fact, as most recent polls show, Christians who actually think that their faith is applicable in anything other than their private life, are a minority. Putting that all aside, I would be curious how you would respond to large number of secularists who support fighting ISIS, are they just deluded to the Christian motivation behind it all? If you actually thought this through, I think you would see that many people want ISIS dead, because ISIS is an evil entity that is trying to conquer the world, much like the Nazi's. Or was the allied mission to fight the Nazi's a Christian crusade as well? If not, why? What about the muslim nations who support the fight against ISIS?

The second problem with your position is that you act like there is a moral equivalency between a country who when bombing, makes all available efforts to limit civilian casualties, and a entity that openly encourages the direct targeting of innocent civilians. Clearly, these are two fundamentally different mindsets in terms of engagement. Just because you want to act like they are the same, doesn't mean they are.

[duaner]

Originally posted by Melinda

Haha okay, sure. These are the rationalizations that make you sleep at night, good for you.

I'm sorry, I thought it was common knowledge that stats can easily be manipulated to mean something they don't, can be misunderstood, or can fail to take everything necessary into account which can cause people to draw false conclusions.

There is simply too much that such a stat doesn't show. Neither of us have any idea what that stat actually and accurately takes into account. For instance, it doesn't tell us how many became Christian while in prison, as some (many?) prisons have such ministries. And it most certainly cannot tells us who is actually a Christian and who is Christian in name only. For example, many in the US are "cultural Christians," those who claim to be Christian on the basis that their parents were Christians, or some other such reason. But that in no way whatsoever means that they are actually Christian.

Originally posted by Melinda
Have you actually read the bible? Or do you just have a religious preacher that teaches you the 'love' part of that fairy tale? Your book of infinite wisdom and morality preaches the virtues of violence and murder, person ownership, misogyny, rape, human and animal sacrifice and slavery. You seem to be denying all of that and saying Christianity is all about love. Sure, that sounds great.

Of course I have read the Bible. If you had bothered to go back and follow along in the discussion, you would clearly see that I have not once denied that the Bible speaks about violence and all sorts of things. And I never would deny it.

What I did clearly say, in response to 01RedDX on page six, is the following:

"All of that can be addressed, and I certainly would like to, but it is beyond the scope of this thread and the attention spans of the millions of you who have discussed such things before with me. In all seriousness, there is quite a bit of background context--historical and theological--that needs to be understood before moving into the Old Testament texts.

I know that atheists love to quote such passages as showing "Christianity" is violent, but hardly a single atheist has shown that they have even tried to understand the contexts. And that is at the academic and popular (Dawkins, Hitchens, et. all) levels.

In the New Testament, violence simply is not promoted. It is quite the opposite as the "Against violence" passages show."

Anyone can read the Bible but that doesn't mean they have actually understood what they have read. It may seem like you have but when things are ripped out of their theological and/or historical contexts, they can appear to say something quite different.

And by no means do I take those things lightly. They are cause for discomfort but understanding the background does go a long way.

Originally posted by Melinda
You misunderstood me. I meant that atheists do not believe in a higher power. Good and evil are not a 'higher power', you just believe they are because your book told you so. It's possible to have a conscience without needing to believe someone is telepathically telling me how to behave. Good and evil exist in every religion and belief system in history, it's not exclusive to Christianity. It's also not exclusive to religion either.

Just how did I misunderstand, "Atheists don't believe anything is evil. They just don't believe it exists in the first place."? You clearly said "[atheists] just don't believe [evil] exists in the first place." Perhaps you misspoke but I really don't see how I misunderstood what you said.

I have never said that good and evil are a higher power or that they don't exist outside of Christianity or are exclusive to religion. My point was that outside of theism, particularly the main three religions, the words "good" and "evil" become entirely relative, which essentially makes them meaningless; they become personal preferences.

I think we all know instinctively that there really is evil (Hitler; raping babies; etc.) and there really is good (Mother Theresa; self-sacrifice to save another; etc.). But, long story short, this points to the existence of God, quite apart from anything the Bible says.

This is something that some atheist philosophers acknowledge, such as Kai Nielsen. On the one hand, Nielsen believes that objective morals do exist, but on the other hand, he admits that naturalism cannot account for morality. Without God, there is simply no way to ground the idea that morality is objective.

Originally posted by Melinda
Not in my opinion, no.

There you go. You have a belief, which is a part of your belief system. Every single person on the planet has a belief system, a worldview if you like, through which they understand or try to understand reality.

So your argument that "It's not a belief system, it's a total lack of belief in the first place," is false. Not to mention it is self-refuting and as such is irrational and should be discarded.

Originally posted by Melinda
There are always the fanatics of every sect, but you generally don't hear about an atheist going on a killing rampage in the name of atheism. Nearly every other group of people (religiously speaking) cannot say the same.

For killing in the name of atheism, see Stalin and any number of other Communist leaders, who killed tens of millions (some number into the 100's of millions) of their own people in an attempt to get rid of religion.

That is hypocrisy for you. Atheists blame religion for all the wars and violence (I gave the stats which show this to be blatantly false), and use that as an excuse to not believe in God. Yet we have some like Dawkins, and a few on these forums that say that religion needs to be eradicated, something which was attempted by atheistic Communism, with devastating results.

Originally posted by Melinda
Listen duaner, you think we're wrong and you're right and we get that. We aren't trying to change your beliefs and after this response, I'm done pandering to your closed minded view of the world outside your church. I've read your books and I've visited your houses of worship. My position is an educated one, so don't assume that I'm ignorant to your teachings just because I don't believe them.

And you think you're right and I'm wrong. That all goes without saying.

In what way, exactly, have I shown to have a "closed-minded view of the world outside [my] church"? Your position might be somewhat educated, which is good, but it is still deficient; you gave up too soon and now you're the one that is closed-minded. I think you may listen too much to people like Dawkins.

Originally posted by Melinda
And your perpetual attitude of love and 'true christianity' doesn't really shine through all that well when you're implying atheists are murders and rapists and have no concept of good vs. evil. It actually makes you look like an epic hypocrite. I for one, can promise you that I am neither a rapist or a murderer But then again, I'm a godless heathen, maybe you can't trust me

Good grief. It is stunning the number of times you guys just have completely failed to understand an argument.

I have not once implied that atheists are murderers and have no concept of good vs. evil. Not once. Regarding the first point, my argument was that it most certainly is not just Christians, or those that claim to be Christian, that commit murder or rape. I was simply showing how someone else's argument was erroneous. Regarding the second point, atheists understand good and evil, and live accordingly, but as far as those two ideas go, atheism cannot account for them in any real meaningful sense; they are merely personal preferences. Only if there is an objective moral standard do the ideas of good and evil actually have meaning.

[duaner]

Originally posted by Gestalt




Get lost. Wow. Religious nuts, all the same. But but but, I'm a good nut.

What, exactly, do you disagree with and why? Try without ad hominems.

[duaner]

Originally posted by Gestalt

America, a Christian cuontry run by old white Christian men and millitary industrial complex has killed more civilians directly than any Muslim.

First, America is most certainly not a Christian country. Second, what do you mean by "America...has killed more civilians directly than any Muslim"? What proof do you have?

[duaner]

Originally posted by revelations

10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

This is where context is important. Please bear with me.

Starting in Matthew 10:5, Jesus sends out the twelve apostles to go "proclaim...,'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'" (ESV) He then gives them a list of instructions, ending in verse 15. What follows after that, is what they can expect to encounter:

Mat 10:16 "Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.
Mat 10:17 Beware of men, for they will deliver you over to courts and flog you in their synagogues,
Mat 10:18 and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them and the Gentiles.
...
Mat 10:21 Brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death,
Mat 10:22 and you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.
Mat 10:23 When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
Mat 10:24 "A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master.
Mat 10:25 It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household. (ESV)

Then just a few verses later we have:

Mat 10:32 So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven,
Mat 10:33 but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven. (ESV)

So why is all of this important? Because Jesus is showing that when they go out to preach, they will be persecuted and maligned just as he was, and that there are those who will acknowledge him and those who will deny him.

What does all the mean for the verses in question?

Mat 10:34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Mat 10:35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.
Mat 10:36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. (ESV)

It means that his message, his reason for coming, is going to cause division, even at the close family level. He had come to bring judgement on those Jews who rejected him as Messiah and those who acknowledge him will be at complete odds with those who reject him.

Does that make sense?

Originally posted by revelations
- Jesus also beat the fuck out of the people in the temple with a weapon.

He made a whip of cords to drive people from the Temple but there is absolutely no mention that he actually hit anyone. And this is descriptive, not prescriptive. That is a difference that many who don't understand the Bible fail to understand.

Originally posted by revelations
- Revelations is full of wars and strong imagery of violence.

Of course. It is a book about the end times; it is apocalyptic literature. There is a fair bit of disagreement about all that is going on in it because the significant amount of imagery. Some believe the entire book has come to pass, which doesn't make sense, but most believe some of it has come to pass, to varying degrees.

The only war in Revelation one needs to worry about is at the very end and is carried out by God himself; justice meted out.

Suffice to say, there is absolutely nothing in Revelation that is prescriptive; it is descriptive.

Originally posted by revelations
Why are you ignoring the OT? Its just as relevant to christians and their actions. Churches teach from the OT all the time. Otherwise it would have been removed from the canon and left to the jews.

I haven't entirely ignored the OT. I responded to someone before you and someone since, with the issue being there is a large amount of background--historical and theological context--that needs to be put in place first in order to be able to address individual passages.

I really would like to, as I find it quite interesting, but I really don't think anyone here has the attention span and most certainly do not have any interest, as this thread attests to. Most, if not all, atheist scholars that use the OT against Christianity do not even bother to consider the necessary contexts, so I really don't see why I would waste my time in here (unless someone is actually interested, in which case I would rather meet for coffee to discuss; either way).

What is very important to note here, is that there is absolutely no violence prescribed to Christianity in the OT. The violence was actually rather limited in time and scope (again, background context would bear this out)--it was for a certain period of time, for specific reasons, under specific conditions, for a specific people (the Israelites).

No Christian can ever legitimately use the OT text to justify slavery, murder, rape, etc.

Originally posted by revelations
Anyone who believes in christ, and what he did, is by definition, a christian. Whether or not they interpret the bible as others do, is irrelevant.

How they interpret the Bible is entirely relevant. Just as one can take something said in a news interview or written in a newspaper, magazine, book, or social media, out of context and make a person say something they never said, so too, if one interprets the Bible incorrectly, purposely or not, they can make it say all sorts of things it doesn't say.

And this is what is happening throughout this thread. It is a favorite tactic of militant atheists, although I think most here just parrot things they read on the Internet or in a book by Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, Harris, or some other popular militant atheist, and are just ignorant.

As to your definition of a Christian, the Bible disagrees:

1Jn 2:4 Whoever says "I know him" but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, (ESV)

1Jn 2:9 Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness. (ESV)

These two verses alone show why the KKK and LRA are not Christian. They do not follow what Jesus said and they hate others. There are numerous other passages I could cite here, including those about "wolves in sheep's clothing." Not to mention that many who claim to be Christian deny the resurrection of Jesus--very popular in "liberal, progressive" churches. Yet the Bible has something to say about that:

1Co 15:14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
1Co 15:15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.
...
1Co 15:17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. (ESV)

There are central, core beliefs that one must have to be a Christian, including the belief that Jesus rose again. It most certainly is not so simple for someone to say they believe in Jesus (highly subjective anyway) and what he did.

Originally posted by revelations
With the various translation and interpretations, you can conjure up and advocate "christian" things like wife beating, women demeaning and slavery. Remember, women should be quiet in church, as is written. Back in the 1960s, christian married men treated their wives like borderline slaves.

Again, this is when things are taken out of context and misinterpreted--often done purposely to justify ones actions or desires. Those things simply are not taught nor condoned in the Bible.

It is also worth mentioning that based on the Bible and the teachings of Christ, that women's status was elevated and slavery abolished.

[revelations]

Originally posted by duaner
In the New Testament, violence simply is not promoted. It is quite the opposite as the "Against violence" passages show."

You sir, have proven yourself 100% deluded with statements like that - after I directly contradicted this.

In addition, you're conveniently choosing to completely ignore the incessant violence in the OT - when churches and pastors teach from the OT on a regular basis.

I agree that what Western christian leaders generally teach the love and peace portion of the bible - but that's now the case - where as the past 1900 years or so the bible was used to justify may atrocities and ruthless behavioral norms.

[duaner]

Originally posted by revelations


You sir, have proven yourself 100% deluded with statements like that - after I directly contradicted this.

In addition, you're conveniently choosing to completely ignore the incessant violence in the OT - when churches and pastors teach from the OT on a regular basis.

Please tell me you posted this while I was making my post just above.

Originally posted by revelations
I agree that what Western christian leaders generally teach the love and peace portion of the bible - but that's now the case - where as the past 1900 years or so the bible was used to justify may atrocities and ruthless behavioral norms.

That would be less than 1700 years, if it matters.

I actually cut something from the end of my post above to make it a separate post that sort of addresses this.

[duaner]

Jesus never taught violence nor did the early church and Christianity was spread peacefully for the first 300 years. And that was despite persecution, even being labelled atheists by the Romans (how is that for irony?). It wasn't until it became politicized that it became a tool of power and things were done that went directly against the teachings of Jesus. Hence why you should never judge a philosophy by its abuse.

Islam, on the other hand, began with a few years of preaching, during which Muhammad gathered 100 or so followers. In an effort to spread his beliefs, he began killing and subjecting people--something that hasn't stopped for the last 1400 years (some estimate up to 270 million killed). Muhammad taught violence and lived violently as an example, so there is little wonder why so much violence is done in the name of Islam. It is essentially a whole socio-political system under the guise of religion.


Did no one notice my post about the Muslim gunmen who killed 28 or so Christians on their way to a monastery? This was the night before Ramadan.

And it seems no one has mentioned the suicide bombing in Afghanistan today, the first day of Ramadan, that killed at least 18.

Last year Ramadan was the single bloodiest month for Islamic terrorism.

[ZenOps]

But.

Church and state. You could argue that Christianity didn't need to be excessively violent because that's what the European kings were for.

I mean, it was rarely the Pope that called for the eradication of millions of Inca tribes of North America - Because he didn't have to, the kings of the era were already doing it (Spanish kings were far more brutal than British and French kings because of the crazy numbers they racked up)

In many ways its the opposite in the middle east, the religious leaders are the ones who are a little bloodthirsty and the kings are mostly moderate.

Its been rare through history where church and state are aligned on every single issue. Kill off King Khadafi, and what do you get? Zealot Violence. Its also a stern warning to the US, kill of Kim Jong and it could be a suicidical zealot with a nuke strapped to his chest next time.

[Seth1968]

Picture this:

You're on your death bed, riddled with cancer and in excruciating pain. As your organs slowly liquefy, you tell your family that you want the dying with dignity option. They lovingly and compassionately agree, then Duaner walks in.

Duaner says that he has an invisible friend that tells him how to live. He says his friend created us, is very compassionate, and gave us the liberty of free will.

Duaner then tries to encourage you to keep your hellish suffering, as he thinks it's not morally right for you to end your own life. In one fell swoop, he ignores not only the compassion characteristic of his invisible friend, but adds insult to injury by trying to stop you from using the free will that his creator friend gave you.

Thing is, that's exactly Duaner. It doesn't get more hypocritical and delusional than that.

[Gestalt]

Originally posted by duaner

First, America is most certainly not a Christian country. Second, what do you mean by "America...has killed more civilians directly than any Muslim"? What proof do you have?

Most definitely is a Christian country. It's on their money, America's official saying is in God we trust, and the countries aggressive foreign policy is dictated by old white Christian men. They are freaking out now that Christians only ate 45% of the population.

Christian America has killed 37million people since WW2. Posted that earlier.

Another good white Christian slits the throat of two in Portland

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.theg...im-hate-speech

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by Gestalt


Most definitely is a Christian country. /snip/

Don't forget every president ending his speech with, "God bless America". In contrast however, the US constitution makes no mention of a god, religion, or any sort of superstitious belief for that matter. Ok, other than in the manner that religion is to be secluded from politics, law, and public institutions.