Muslims shoot up Kenian University, deliberately target atheists and Christians

[interpreter]

But then shouldn't Islam get the same benefit of the doubt?





But that is exactly what Jesus said to do, slay all nonbelievers.

Luke 19:26-27:
I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. 27"But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence."




But as I just showed in Luke 19, Jesus promoted killing all non believers.

And Jesus also said:

Matthew 10:34
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Jesus did not tell us to kill all unbelievers. He told us to kill His enemies who don't want Him ruling over them. Jesus rules the earth through the US the 4th horseman. Our weapons bring hell and death to the enemies of Jesus. We are now dropping 100 pound "hailstones" on the 7th head of the beast in the Battle of Ar Mageddon which began on 9/11 when the Euphrates was dry.

 

[Sistrin]

No true Scotsman

Does not apply. I understand how giddy and gleeful the left in general was following that incident when they found Breivik cited the Knights Templar and had once gone to church, because to them the tragedy of all those deaths instantly transformed into an opportunity. But Breivik was no more a Christian than was Anton Levay. Again, in order to attempt to make the specious argument Christians are just as bad as Muslim terrorist the left in general defines a Christian as anyone who ever stepped inside a church.

Breivik was insane, but in his case the cry over mental health issues was soft and contained in deference to the opportunity for the liberal/progressive/atheist crowd to cry over how evil Christians are.

...since you seem to be confused.

I am not the one confused, as clearly evidenced here:

Also note: Bill Clinton is still married to his first wife as opposed to say religious right "hero" Rush Limbaugh who is on his what? Third? Fourth?

You are actually going to defend Bill Clinton as a husband? And you have the gall to claim someone else is confused?

Still adultery according to Jesus. In fact Rush Limbaugh is still committing adultery as long as his first wife still lives. So he can't be forgiven. Bill Clinton? Maybe, if he hasn't been already.

This is clear evidence you have no understanding of the very faith you seek to denigrate.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Jesus did not tell us to kill all unbelievers. He told us to kill His enemies who don't want Him ruling over them.

You mean there are non-believers who want Jesus ruling over them? I've never heard of such a thing.

Jesus rules the earth through the US the 4th horseman. Our weapons bring hell and death to the enemies of Jesus. We are now dropping 100 pound "hailstones" on the 7th head of the beast in the Battle of Ar Mageddon which began on 9/11 when the Euphrates was dry.

Um...OK?

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Yes- we're all aware of your point. However, it's down to statistics in the end. What occurs more is what we hear about more. Keep trying to make it about your pet issue though.

You can produce evidence of this?

I'm curious, do you spend an equal amount of time listing to media based in largely Muslim countries as you do listening to media based in largely Christian countries?

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Shall we derail this thread further and discuss the myriad atrocities committed by atheists or pagans in the name of whatever philosophy or religion they might follow?

It would be nice if we could just stipulate that killing people because they simply do not agree with your worldview is probably a bad thing but I am afraid that many would only stipulate that killing people that do not agree with some other worldview than their own is a bad thing.
If one is to take the words of the founder of Christianity as being the foundation of that religion then no one can honestly claim to follow that worldview by using violent means to gain adherents or reduce the number of dissenters. That is not the case with a number of other religions or political philosophies that deem using violence to gain the submission of any opposition as not only necessary but beneficial. A person claiming to be a Christian that uses violence as a tool is doing exactly the opposite of what Christ said and did. It is completely logical and justified to say a person acting in complete opposition to what Christ did and taught is not a true Christian.

I can point out verses in the bible that say to use violence to gain adherents or kill opposition. But Christians will interpret them.

I can point out verses in the Qu'ran that say to use violence to gain adherents or kill opposition. But Muslims will interpret them.

What is the difference?

 

[TheBear]

What is the topic of this thread? With all the talk of 'Christians this' and 'the Bible that', I almost forgot.

 

[NightHawkeye]

What is the topic of this thread? With all the talk of 'Christians this' and 'the Bible that', I almost forgot.

It's almost as if some are saying that the 100+ Christians who were slaughtered by the radical Muslim group al Shabab deserved to die.

 

[Sistrin]

Check my posts, I agree some Muslims are extremely violent, and commit disgusting acts of violence.

Violence and disgusting acts of violence are inherent within Muslim philosophy and practice. Not even the Westboro Baptist Church burns people at the stake.

My point is some Christians are extremely violent too, and also commit disgusting acts of violence. And that there is very little difference between Muslims and Christians.

Your point is the same as made by satanist, and the manner in which you make it is the same as employed by satanist when they speak of Christians and Christianity.

Do you agree or disagree?

Of course I disagree, and nothing you have said has been persuasive in the least.

The Holy Spirit talks to a Christian woman, and tells her to overthrow the Ugandan government, she gathers a Christian army, and that's NOT a Christian group?

As cited in your wiki quote, she claimed the Holy Spirit ordered her. She can claim anything. Regardless, you are being disingenuous in your citations. According to the same wiki page you quoted, Lakwena ordered her men to carry sticks and stones as weapons, as she did not believe in murder. The brutality came after Joseph Kony took control. In addition Lakwena ordered her men to cover themselves with "shea nut oil" as protection from bullets, and to never take cover or retreat in battle.

I must have missed that class in Ranger school. However your claim the LRA is an example of Christian outreach is again based on nothing more substantial than someone called them Christian and therefore is must be true.

If you're going to blame Islam for atrocities committed by Muslims, it is hypocritical not to blame Christianity for atrocities committed by Christians.

When Christians begin beheading people and gunning down innocents in schools and hanging gays in the public square or burning prisoners inside cages all while shouting "Jesus Saves!," you might have a point. Until then you are only promoting an agenda.

At least I'm here now, to inform Christians. Hopefully I can help Christians realize they are no different than Muslims.

Hubris. In the extreme.

 

[interpreter]

You mean there are non-believers who want Jesus ruling over them? I've never heard of such a thing.



Um...OK?

Actually there are many non-believers living in the US, and most of them do not object to being ruled by the 4th Christian superpower to rule the earth for Jesus. So there is no reason to kill them.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Jesus was relating a parable, not a command. If He had intended that to be a command, notice that He--unlike Muhammad--did not practice it. Notice that none of His immediate followers took it as a command either.

I can find Christians who will say those are not parables, that they mean literally what they say.

The thing is, if I find similar quotes in the Qu'ran, some Muslims interpret them away as well. And a few Muslims can do it every bit as well as you.

So apparently He had a wholly different interpretation of His meaning than the one you're attempting to force, and so did all those who were sitting there listening to Him.

Again, interpretations differ. Some Christians and Muslims take a very interpreted view of the bible, others a very literal view.

Reasonable Christians, such as yourself, are comparing yourselves to literalist Muslims. My friend has a Muslim landlord, and this gentleman, and his family, are very nice. If I ask the landlord about his beliefs, he says the same things you say, that the Qu'ran, when interpreted properly, is all about peace. According to him, it's people who don't understand it that are causing violence. Sound familiar?

So in my mind, Reasonable Christians == Reasonable Muslims, Fundamentalist Christians == Fundamentalist Muslims, Psycho Christians == Psycho Muslims.

And you know that--you're not an obtuse person.

I'm sincerely not doing that. I think the previous points make that clear.

 

[Anafany]

Does not apply. I understand how giddy and gleeful the left in general was following that incident when they found Breivik cited the Knights Templar and had once gone to church, because to them the tragedy of all those deaths instantly transformed into an opportunity. But Breivik was no more a Christian than was Anton Levay. Again, in order to attempt to make the specious argument Christians are just as bad as Muslim terrorist the left in general defines a Christian as anyone who ever stepped inside a church.

Actually it fits the no True Scotsman fallacy perfectly, you're just miffed that someone so quickly provided an example of a violent Christian murdering young people (because you confidently believed that there wasn't an example of a murderous Christian). Now, you're claiming Breivik wasn't a "True Christian" because that doesn't fit your presumption (which is incorrect anyway) which is classic "No True Scotsman".

Breivik was insane, but in his case the cry over mental health issues was soft and contained in deference to the opportunity for the liberal/progressive/atheist crowd to cry over how evil Christians are.

Actually if you care to look at the details of the case (you won't because it messing up your confirmation bias) you would note that the prosecution wanted to paint Breivik as insane, a charge he adamantly opposed being used in his defense even though his defense encouraged him to. Additionally, in his manifesto Breivik repeatedly described himself as Christian, pro-Christian government, anti-Muslim, against cultural-Marxism, etc. All things modern "Christians" often support. Granted, not everyone who claims to be a Christian is one, but usually they are.

You are actually going to defend Bill Clinton as a husband? And you have the gall to claim someone else is confused?

This is clear evidence you have no understanding of the very faith you seek to denigrate.

You're right, you bringing up Bill Clinton was just a specious observation designed to provoke a response and should have been ignored by me. Back to the main topic.

 

[interpreter]

It's almost as if some are saying that the 100+ Christians who were slaughtered by the radical Muslim group al Shabab deserved to die.

I see we both have the same scripture in our signature. We are now experiencing the seven last plagues which proves there is a God and that He knows the future. We are now fighting the Battle of Ar Mageddon which began on 9/11 when the Euphrates was dry.

 

[interpreter]

I can find Christians who will say those are not parables, that they mean literally what they say.

The thing is, if I find similar quotes in the Qu'ran, some Muslims interpret them away as well. And a few Muslims can do it every bit as well as you.




Again, interpretations differ. Some Christians and Muslims take a very interpreted view of the bible, others a very literal view.

Reasonable Christians, such as yourself, are comparing yourselves to literalist Muslims. My friend has a Muslim landlord, and this gentleman, and his family, are very nice. If I ask the landlord about his beliefs, he says the same things you say, that the Qu'ran, when interpreted properly, is all about peace. According to him, it's people who don't understand it that are causing violence. Sound familiar?

So in my mind, Reasonable Christians == Reasonable Muslims, Fundamentalist Christians == Fundamentalist Muslims, Psycho Christians == Psycho Muslims.




I'm sincerely not doing that. I think the previous points make that clear.

I agree that it's more than a parable. Jesus is the king of the parable, and He's giving today's followers a command in Luke 19:27. The US, founded by George Washington who rode a pale horse, is the fourth Christian superpower to rule the earth for Jesus, and we are now dropping 100 pound "hailstones" on the enemies of Jesus in the Battle of Ar Mageddon (which began on 9/11 when the Euphrates was dry).

 

[Sistrin]

Actually it fits the no True Scotsman fallacy perfectly, you're just miffed that someone so quickly provided an example of a violent Christian murdering young people (because you confidently believed that there wasn't an example of a murderous Christian).

You have done no such thing. Breivik was both anti-Muslim and anti-Marxist and his expressed views reflected that. His motivations were racism and xenophobia, which I understand is how you would tend to define Christianity, but read his own words and it becomes clear he was no fundamentalist Christian. In addition, as reported by the BBC:

"On the Facebook page attributed to him, he described himself as a Christian and a conservative. The Facebook page is no longer available but it also listed interests such as bodybuilding and freemasonry. "

Source: Profile: Anders Behring Breivik - BBC News

I searched, but couldn't find any other source which doesn't qualify the Facebook admission to being a Christian as only attributed to him as opposed to definitely his.

Now, you're claiming Breivik wasn't a "True Christian" because that doesn't fit your presumption (which is incorrect anyway) which is classic "No True Scotsman".

Strawman. I did not use the qualifier true Christian. I said Breivik was as much a Christian as Anton Levay. Who also once attended church, by the way.

Actually if you care to look at the details of the case (you won't because it messing up your confirmation bias)

The snide commentary does nothing to promote your image or position.

... you would note that the prosecution wanted to paint Breivik as insane, a charge he adamantly opposed being used in his defense even though his defense encouraged him to.

Yeah, I know. Breivik did not want to be labeled as insane because he felt that would diminish his message. But Charles Manson didn't think himself insane either.

Are you really attempting to promote the notion rational, sane Christians just pick up a gun and kill 77 people?

Additionally, in his manifesto Breivik repeatedly described himself as Christian, pro-Christian government, anti-Muslim, against cultural-Marxism, etc. All things modern "Christians" often support.

Your proof then is guilt by association. Christians tend to desire a pro-Christian government and oppose the rot of cultural-Marxism, therefore anyone who believes the same must be a Christian.

Granted, not everyone who claims to be a Christian is one, but usually they are.

Thanks for supporting my point.

You're right, you bringing up Bill Clinton was just a specious observation designed to provoke a response and should have been ignored by me.

It was a comparison, which you should know in debate is a fair tactic.

 

[RDKirk]

I can point out verses in the bible that say to use violence to gain adherents or kill opposition. But Christians will interpret them.

I can point out verses in the Qu'ran that say to use violence to gain adherents or kill opposition. But Muslims will interpret them.

What is the difference?

If the specific words of Muhammad were taken purely literally, all Muslims would be ISIS.

If the specific words of Jesus were taken purely literally, all Christians would be Quakers or something similarly inoffensive. Canadians.

 

[Anafany]

You have done no such thing. Breivik was both anti-Muslim and anti-Marxist and his expressed views reflected that. His motivations were racism and xenophobia, which I understand is how you would tend to define Christianity, but read his own words and it becomes clear he was no fundamentalist Christian. In addition, as reported by the BBC:

"On the Facebook page attributed to him, he described himself as a Christian and a conservative. The Facebook page is no longer available but it also listed interests such as bodybuilding and freemasonry. "

Source: Profile: Anders Behring Breivik - BBC News

I searched, but couldn't find any other source which doesn't qualify the Facebook admission to being a Christian as only attributed to him as opposed to definitely his.

Strawman. I did not use the qualifier true Christian. I said Breivik was as much a Christian as Anton Levay. Who also once attended church, by the way.

The snide commentary does nothing to promote your image or position.

Yeah, I know. Breivik did not want to be labeled as insane because he felt that would diminish his message. But Charles Manson didn't think himself insane either.

Are you really attempting to promote the notion rational, sane Christians just pick up a gun and kill 77 people?

Your proof then is guilt by association. Christians tend to desire a pro-Christian government and oppose the rot of cultural-Marxism, therefore anyone who believes the same must be a Christian.

Thanks for supporting my point.

It was a comparison, which you should know in debate is a fair tactic.

I think it is fairly obvious to the other posters that I am correct. I will waste no more time trying to correct you since you painted yourself into position you cannot get out of without looking disingenuous. I choose to be the better man and let the subject drop.

 

[ananda]

"The attackers separated students by religion, allowing Muslims to leave and keeping an unknown number of Christians hostage, Agence France-Presse reported."

Don't they know, they can't do that because "that's racist"?!

 

[brewmama]

My favourite is McCain. Serial philanderer, then finally dumps his wife when she gets cancer.

Wow. I'm no McCain fan, but that wasn't McCain.

 

[brewmama]

I can find Christians who will say those are not parables, that they mean literally what they say.

Really? Where?

 

[ThinkForYourself]

If the specific words of Muhammad were taken purely literally, all Muslims would be ISIS.

If the specific words of Jesus were taken purely literally, all Christians would be Quakers or something similarly inoffensive. Canadians.

Hmmmm, you've obviously never been near a Canadian with a hockey stick in their hand, and a puck on the ice. (I'm Canadian )

I've said that to Muslims, the answer I get is:

How can they ignore the Old Testament? Is the Old Testament not part of their bible? Do they not believe in the Ten Commandments? And Jesus said to kill non believers! That he brings the sword, not peace!

It's the same record being played over and over by both sides. I think is bad for humanity.