I don't believe in evolution... (2)

[Lion Hearted Man]

This makes perfect sense to me. Again, I believe everyone is hyper-focused on the 3rd, last resort, self-defense, stage of this punitive process.

We can tolerate evil and sin, we are imperfect, but when habitual sin and evil begin to threaten the existence of good-intentioned people, we must defeat it or suffer the consequences. Clirus is right, had we not stopped the Nazi's there's a decent chance we'd all be speaking German.

Her position is a strict no nonsense position, but it is one that is grounded in Biblical principle, and one that I respect and admire. She's right, God has another side, he is loving, but he is also righteous. He does not tolerate, nor should we, habitual sin.

So you do agree with clirus in that atheists should be executed?

 

[TheReasoner]

This makes perfect sense to me. Again, I believe everyone is hyper-focused on the 3rd, last resort, self-defense, stage of this punitive process.

We can tolerate evil and sin, we are imperfect, but when habitual sin and evil begin to threaten the existence of good-intentioned people, we must defeat it or suffer the consequences. Clirus is right, had we not stopped the Nazi's there's a decent chance we'd all be speaking German.

Her position is a strict no nonsense position, but it is one that is grounded in Biblical principle, and one that I respect and admire. She's right, God has another side, he is loving, but he is also righteous. He does not tolerate, nor should we, habitual sin.

Self defense? Killing disobedient children, carpet-nuking countries whose ideologies differ from hers or gathering up socialists, homosexuals, atheists and more to be executed is self-defense? You know that's false through and through Z. This is no more self-defense than Hitler's 'last solution' of concentration camps and attempt at extermination. In fact the only difference is that Clirus excludes the Jews from that madness and includes others in the Jews' stead.

What Clirus preaches is antithetical to Christianity.

 

[rjc34]

This makes perfect sense to me. Again, I believe everyone is hyper-focused on the 3rd, last resort, self-defense, stage of this punitive process.

We can tolerate evil and sin, we are imperfect, but when habitual sin and evil begin to threaten the existence of good-intentioned people, we must defeat it or suffer the consequences. Clirus is right, had we not stopped the Nazi's there's a decent chance we'd all be speaking German.

Her position is a strict no nonsense position, but it is one that is grounded in Biblical principle, and one that I respect and admire. She's right, God has another side, he is loving, but he is also righteous. He does not tolerate, nor should we, habitual sin.

And so your true colors are revealed (again).

I've called you a [sectarian] before, and I'll call you it again. You're just a [sectarian].

 

[HosannaHM]

This makes perfect sense to me. Again, I believe everyone is hyper-focused on the 3rd, last resort, self-defense, stage of this punitive process.

We can tolerate evil and sin, we are imperfect, but when habitual sin and evil begin to threaten the existence of good-intentioned people, we must defeat it or suffer the consequences. Clirus is right, had we not stopped the Nazi's there's a decent chance we'd all be speaking German.

Her position is a strict no nonsense position, but it is one that is grounded in Biblical principle, and one that I respect and admire. She's right, God has another side, he is loving, but he is also righteous. He does not tolerate, nor should we, habitual sin.

Ok... your not answering anyone. You may not rebuke other people in the name of the Lord, if you feel like you are never needing it yourself.

 

[Nathan Poe]

This makes perfect sense to me. Again, I believe everyone is hyper-focused on the 3rd, last resort, self-defense, stage of this punitive process.

because clirus has a bit of a hair-trigger when it comes to those things which "threaten her existence."

For example, she calls for the execution of deadbeat dads, but doesn't say how they are a threat to her.

 

[TerranceL]

PS - It drives Atheists crazy when you show America was founded as a Christian Nation, even though America did lie to the Muslims in the Treaty of Tripoli.

I would make a comment about slavery and genocide but I guess to you those ARE christian ideals.

 

[tulc]

PS - It drives Atheists crazy when you show America was founded as a Christian Nation, even though America did lie to the Muslims in the Treaty of Tripoli.

I don't know about atheists, but it drives many Christians crazy. Like those who take the Bible seriously and try to follow the Lord and not Church myths.
tulc(one of the reasons he would no doubt be standing against that wall with the rest of the "heretics")

 

[Zongerfield]

And so your true colors are revealed (again).

I've called you a bigot before, and I'll call you it again. You're just a religious bigot. Get your head out of the sand and smell the reality.

Name calling? Why resort to such a childish tactic?

This is America, we have the right to disagree. I have said nothing to personally offend you, yet you strike a blow that is meant to hurt me personally. This is unwarranted and downright mean.

As you may know I am a forgiving man, not a spiteful one, but I don't know if I can forgive you for this vicious attack that is meant to belittle me in front of my peers. I believe calling someone a bigot is one of the worst things you can call someone. I'm really not sure if I can forgive you but I will pray on this and give you an answer in the near future.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Name calling? Why resort to such a childish tactic?

This is America, we have the right to disagree. I have said nothing to personally offend you, yet you strike a blow that is meant to hurt me personally. This is unwarranted and downright mean.

As you may know I am a forgiving man, not a spiteful one, but I don't know if I can forgive you for this vicious attack that is meant to belittle me in front of my peers. I believe calling someone a bigot is one of the worst things you can call someone. I'm really not sure if I can forgive you but I will pray on this and give you an answer in the near future.

Well, on the plus side, you can always make a claim that he threatens your existnece, and have clirus destroy him.

 

[rjc34]

Name calling? Why resort to such a childish tactic?

This is America, we have the right to disagree. I have said nothing to personally offend you, yet you strike a blow that is meant to hurt me personally. This is unwarranted and downright mean.

As you may know I am a forgiving man, not a spiteful one, but I don't know if I can forgive you for this vicious attack that is meant to belittle me in front of my peers. I believe calling someone a bigot is one of the worst things you can call someone. I'm really not sure if I can forgive you but I will pray on this and give you an answer in the near future.

[Sectarian]: a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.

Sorry, describes your view perfectly. You advocate the rebuking (and eventual execution) of any and all who don't conform to your biblical worldview.

If you don't like the word, then don't let your views put you into the definition of it.

 

[Charlie V]

I don't know about atheists, but it drives many Christians crazy. Like those who take the Bible seriously and try to follow the Lord and not Church myths.

At the time of the founding of the United States of America, most Christians, and especially, most Christian leaders, with the probable exception of the Anglicans/Episcopalians who wanted their own denomination to become the established religion, did not want America established as a Christian nation.

For one thing, established religion would lead to established denomination (which probably would have been the Episcopalians.)

But more to the theological point, they thought it was an insult to God to suggest that God is not powerful enough on his own, not to require established religion. They considered the truth of God to be it's own evidence, and any establishment of America as a Christian nation would be another way of saying, God's truth isn't powerful enough or well evidenced enough for a free people to become convinced of it.

Thus, if someone at the time of the nation's foundation had asked the most devoted and religious Presbyterian or Baptist or most any other denomination of Christian, "Do you think America should be established as a Christian nation," the vast majority of them would have said, "No," and would have expounded on how the very idea of such was an insult to God, that God is too weak to convince the people on His own, without the establishment of America as a Christian nation.

The Founding Fathers, furthermore, strongly felt that the people had the right to choose, by their own enlightened thinking, prayer, reading and general education, the religious path of their choice.

Charlie

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This makes perfect sense to me. Again, I believe everyone is hyper-focused on the 3rd, last resort, self-defense, stage of this punitive process.

We can tolerate evil and sin, we are imperfect, but when habitual sin and evil begin to threaten the existence of good-intentioned people, we must defeat it or suffer the consequences. Clirus is right, had we not stopped the Nazi's there's a decent chance we'd all be speaking German.

Her position is a strict no nonsense position, but it is one that is grounded in Biblical principle, and one that I respect and admire. She's right, God has another side, he is loving, but he is also righteous. He does not tolerate, nor should we, habitual sin.

Except liberals, Atheists, homosexuals and various others that Clirus says 'are the ones that should be executed' pose no tangible threat to 'the existence of good-intentioned people'. In fact, many of these liberals, Atheists, homosexuals and others who are short-listed on the 'should execute' list are themselves good-intentioned people who pose no significant threat to the existence of other good-intentioned people, including Christians.

I also wonder what you mean by not tolerating habitual sin. If certain sins don't affect you, but they do affect that person's own relationship with God, then how is it even any of your business? Their sinfulness is a matter between them and God. Whether you or tolerate it or not is entirely irrelevant.

But, since you believe that 'habitual sin' should not be tolerated... what do you say should be done about it? Should society, as Clirus suggests, oppress and execute these individuals because they are Atheists or homosexuals? Interestingly you haven't answered this question: which of Clirus' specific policies are you willing to endorse? Do you, like Clirus, believe that society ought to execute those who habitually violate the commandments/doctrines of Scripture (as an aside, aren't Atheists habitual violators of the first commandment, and therefore 'habitual sinners' on the execution list)?

Also, you haven't yet shown us where the alleged 'misrepresentation' of Clirus' positions has occurred. Are you ready to acknowledge that no such misrepresentation ever happened?

 

[sdmsanjose]

I have been trying to think of something good to say about Clirus and her sidekick, Zongerfield
I now have one. They both make such outlandish statements that it provides for a heated thread.

We do not have to take them too seriously because they have every little or no influence. Clirus has been saying the same thing for years and has not been able to recruit 1% of the population on this forum.

There is no chance that the Non-Christians are going every agree with them. Furthermore, the vast majority of main-line Christianity will never consider their beliefs as legitimate. So they have no influence in the non-Christian population and no influence in the main line Christianity. Every religion has their extremists that twist the scriptures of their holy book and Christianity is no exception to such radical and manipulated beliefs.

We can continue to respond to Clirus because it is helps to solve temporary boredom

 

[rjc34]

We can continue to respond to Clirus because it is helps to solve temporary boredom

This is true.

 

[badtim]

well, Clirus also provides me with a great example to point to when discussing the dangers of dogmatic excess in religion, as well as a perfect explanation of what an "American Taliban" is!

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

In the Cultural War, the Atheists would like to make people believe Christians advocate slavery and genocide, but reality shows that it is Atheists that advocate slavery and genocide.

The "cultural war" is a phrase belligerent talk radio hosts use in order to justify more aggressive factionalism. There is no cultural war - only a bunch of fringe nuts who'd like to imagine themselves as rogue heroes of their own epic poem.

And here I was wondering how you could possibly jump to your ridiculous conclusion about atheists and slavery/genocide. After all, *you* are the only one here who wants those who do not conform to your ways dead.
Luckily, you explained it in the next sentence:

The worst slavery that can exist is the slavery to sin, and Christianity offers freedom from the slavery to sin.

This is Orwellian Newspeak at its best. Wrap it up in nice sounding words that mean nothing, really, and you can even justify executing those who do not conform to your world view.

Slavery/Ownership as developed by the European Atheists was a perversion of the Servitude of the Bible.

I beg your pardon?
Slavery had long been abolished in Europe by the time the "Great Christian Nation" called the United States even considered the idea that enslaving thousands of Africans might not be such a good idea.
And it took the USA nearly another century to officially put an end to racial segregation - but not before they had dabbled into eugenics to save the "white race".

Two of the very notable Atheist that advocated genocide were Hitler and George Bernard Shaw. Actually many think Hitler got his ideas from Shaw.

1. Hitler was not an atheist.
Maybe he did not really consider himself a Christian, and only said so in public, but his theism is undisputable. This was a man who thought that he was acting in accordance with Divine Providence.

2. Even the churches flirted with Eugenics at the beginning of the 20th century, prior to the disillusioning wake-up-call that was the horrors of the Holocaust. Plenty of people argued that the most humane way to prevent misery would be to sterilize people suffering from hereditary diseases, buying the future health of billions of people at the price of a little personal sacrifice by the present generation.
It's a disastrously wrong idea, of course. But certainly not worse than your and Z's plan of executing unrepentant atheists and environmentalists.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Well certainly what one of us preaches is antithetical to Christianity.

I do not understand why you have to use Straw Man exaggerations to try to win a discussion.

You are well aware my position has always been to use execution as a last resort when rebuke has failed.

It amounts to the same thing: "assimilate or die".

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Deadbeat dads are a threat to every tax paying person in a nation, because the State is expected to provide for the child if the deadbeat dad does not provide for the child.

Deadbeat dads and all other forms of sin are always a threat to a nation and thus every individual of that nation, even though Atheists would like to convince people that sin is acceptable.

If you want advanced notice of sin/evil read the Bible, or just sit around and wait for the disease, death, destruction and poverty produced by sin/evil to sit in.

You have a very broad conception of what constitutes a tangible 'threat' to society. Under such a definition every sinner is a threat to society, and therefore subject to the possibility of elimination. Trouble is... the Bible says we are all sinners...

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have been trying to think of something good to say about Clirus and her sidekick, Zongerfield
I now have one. They both make such outlandish statements that it provides for a heated thread.

We do not have to take them too seriously because they have every little or no influence. Clirus has been saying the same thing for years and has not been able to recruit 1% of the population on this forum.

There is no chance that the Non-Christians are going every agree with them. Furthermore, the vast majority of main-line Christianity will never consider their beliefs as legitimate. So they have no influence in the non-Christian population and no influence in the main line Christianity. Every religion has their extremists that twist the scriptures of their holy book and Christianity is no exception to such radical and manipulated beliefs.

We can continue to respond to Clirus because it is helps to solve temporary boredom

I agree. Clirus has been reposting the same outlandish claims on CF (and other message boards) for years. Her posts have often consisted of copy-and-paste responses from statements that she's already repeated ad nauseum. And yet, despite her persistence she has failed to recruit anymore than about 1% (or less) of respondents. The overwhelming majority of responses, from Christians and non-Christians alike, has ranged from polite scrutiny to blunt rebuke.

 

[Nathan Poe]

You are well aware my position has always been to use execution as a last resort when rebuke has failed.

So rebuke me, clirus.

Go ahead.

Watch how easily it fails.