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

[Charlie V]

Just a general statement for anyone here who might find, like at least two people here, that God tells you to kill people:

If you turn to God in prayer, and God says: "The answer to your prayers is, you should go kill the person who offended Me..."

Please, please, please... quickly, talk to a pastor... and consider seeking a psychiatrist... psychiatrists have experience with other people who have had experiences talking to God just like your experience, and they will be able to help you with your communication with God.

But no matter what, don't keep it a secret! Remember, Jesus said, Matthew 10:27 "What I tell you in darkness, [that] speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, [that] preach ye upon the housetops."

Therefore, follow Christ's command, and let as many people as possible know what you plan to do before you follow God's command to kill people. Tell your parents, your children, your friends, your neighbors, your teachers... call 911 and tell them. Flag down a police officer and tell him. He'll listen, and if it really came from God, he won't be able to prevent you. Have faith that God will help you accomplish your task, for if the police can stop you just because you told them God's plan, then it really didn't come from God. God has the power to help you go through with your plan after you reveal it. Don't be vague or cryptic either--God knows it's a sign of lacking faith! Tell them exactly who you plan to kill, how you plan to kill them, when you plan to kill them, where you plan to kill them, tell them it's God's plan and tell them early! Don't be shy about it--you know you have nothing to be ashamed of and nothing to fear if the Lord is on your side! Make sure everyone knows what you're going to do as God commanded, so that they may honor God and not be mistaken about who the command came from, and do this before you take any action to kill anyone, because to do so is to honor God!

 

[Zongerfield]

This is the real recap:

Person A: I support a 3 tier punitive process.

Person B: You're entitled to your opinion.

Person C: You're hypocrites! And hateful people. Blasphemy!

Person B: I forgive you for your antipathy and judgment.

Person C: That's horrible, we've done nothing wrong! You're arrogant.

Person B: I wish to be your friend.

Person C: No one cares, no one respects you.


I've prayed for a solution. God came to me and presented what was fairly obvious from the beginning of this mess. And here is the solution:

I'M SORRY!

Let's work on building a friendship. Let's do the right thing, the Christian thing, and put this stuff behind us. We're better than this. I hope you'll accept my apology. I think you will I've accepted yours.

 

[Snow Phoenix]

I'M SORRY!

Consider yourself forgiven; no strings attached.

While your interpretation of the events is heavily biased towards your position, I think we can all agree that this apology is definitely a step forward!

 

[Snow Phoenix]

This is the real recap:

Let's see how it holds up under a bit of commentary...

Person A: I support a 3 tier punitive process. That ends in execution if the person being punished for sins I believe I should persecute does not change their beliefs to be in line with mine.

Person B: You're entitled to your opinion. And I definitely agree with it! We should apply this process of rebuking ending in execution to atheists, homosexuals and liberal wastrels as well. I agree with you that dead beat Dads and any non-Christians definitely pose a threat to us and we should rebuke them, then if they don't change their ways after 3 rebukes the state should execute them.

Person C: You're hypocrites! And hateful people. Blasphemy! I respect your right to voice an opinion, but you are claiming to voice an opinion supported by Christian scripture and Jesus, and it is simply not. You should apologize for your support of a genocidal member who claims to be a Christian, but is really a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Person B: I forgive you for your antipathy and judgment. And I condescendingly will continue to state how sorry I feel for you, and how you need to stop critiquing and criticizing my support for the genocidal member who I supported earlier! You guys obviously just misunderstand her opinions, and hate her for it. I forgive you for nothing, and will pray for you.

Person C: That's horrible, we've done nothing wrong! You're arrogant. And you continue to voice your support of a genocidal member who supports the killing of many innocent human lives. You also claim to have Biblical support for your positions, which you clearly do not. Please cut out your condescending attitude and apologize for your behaviour and treatment of other members.

Person B: I wish to be your friend. But I still wish death upon those who I deem to threaten my faith. I also forgive you for some animosity that apparently only I can detect, because when everyone else is asked about it, they say your replies are polite and concise.

Person C: No one cares, no one respects you. People here will not support anybody who advocates the killing of innocent human beings. The people here will also pick to the bone anybody who claims their ideas of genocide are directly commanded by God.​

Bolded parts are my additions/correction. I think that much more accurate portrays the real conversation that happened.

 

[TheReasoner]

Is this an honest apology? If so, I think I can speak for us all and say we forgive you Z.

That said I do hope you read Snow's additions quoted below because they really hit the nail squarely on the head. You're not the victim of blind persecution nor hatred. We do not hate you. At all. We've just pointed to a few things you've said which are... Not good. But we do not hate you. You have presented a position we cannot accept - at all. If you've missed why, read Snow's post.

Thank you for the apology however

Let's see how it holds up under a bit of commentary...

Person A: I support a 3 tier punitive process. That ends in execution if the person being punished for sins I believe I should persecute does not change their beliefs to be in line with mine.

Person B: You're entitled to your opinion. And I definitely agree with it! We should apply this process of rebuking ending in execution to atheists, homosexuals and liberal wastrels as well. I agree with you that dead beat Dads and any non-Christians definitely pose a threat to us and we should rebuke them, then if they don't change their ways after 3 rebukes the state should execute them.

Person C: You're hypocrites! And hateful people. Blasphemy! I respect your right to voice an opinion, but you are claiming to voice an opinion supported by Christian scripture and Jesus, and it is simply not. You should apologize for your support of a genocidal member who claims to be a Christian, but is really a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Person B: I forgive you for your antipathy and judgment. And I condescendingly will continue to state how sorry I feel for you, and how you need to stop critiquing and criticizing my support for the genocidal member who I supported earlier! You guys obviously just misunderstand her opinions, and hate her for it. I forgive you for nothing, and will pray for you.

Person C: That's horrible, we've done nothing wrong! You're arrogant. And you continue to voice your support of a genocidal member who supports the killing of many innocent human lives. You also claim to have Biblical support for your positions, which you clearly do not. Please cut out your condescending attitude and apologize for your behaviour and treatment of other members.

Person B: I wish to be your friend. But I still wish death upon those who I deem to threaten my faith. I also forgive you for some animosity that apparently only I can detect, because when everyone else is asked about it, they say your replies are polite and concise.

Person C: No one cares, no one respects you. People here will not support anybody who advocates the killing of innocent human beings. The people here will also pick to the bone anybody who claims their ideas of genocide are directly commanded by God.​

Bolded parts are my additions/correction. I think that much more accurate portrays the real conversation that happened.

 

[TheReasoner]

Not about Z, but back to C:

The following quotes form a decent baseline of Clirus' position. These, or a version of these, tend to be repeated here by her rather often)

The government of good people should go to war with nations or groups of people that are a threat to the government/society as is instructed by the Old Testament of the Bible. The purpose of the war should be to do what ever it takes to win, in the shortest possible time, which includes the elimination/killing of men, women and children associated with the threat ... The war should be concluded only when the threat has been eliminated.

Wars of total annihilation against enemies of clirusianism.

In order to soften up Iran, nuclear weapons should be used to eliminate all military targets, then America should take over all oil production in Iran then implement: 1)American take over of the oil and only reward the Sunni, Shiites, and Kurds when they behave properly. If they don't behave, they starve.

Starve entire populations in nations where some oppose Clirusianism

Atheists do not like the concept of "The wages of sin is death", because that means they should be executed for their evil deeds.

Atheists are usually socialists and pacifists, that oppose war and the death penalty, because they are the ones that should be executed. Opposition to the death penalty is a survival concept for evil people.

Atheists, socialists and pacifists should die.

A better way to deal with this situation is to get rid of guilty parents. America needs to have an Absolute Paternity Law that say parents must provide for their children. Failure to provide for their children (as proved by asking for government assistance) should be punishable by death using the three strikes and you are out concept.

Ask for help due to poverty three times and you're a dead man

What do you do when you read that statement? Too many Christians do nothing. At the very least a Christian should rebuke a person that fails to provide for his own, and if the person is fails to change, then execution under Civil Law is appropriate.

Convert to Clirusianism or die, and conversion means getting enough money to provide for your family.

These quotes form the basis of a report I've posted on Clirus' position.

The quotes do not only reveal her position as antithetical to the bible, but also as illegal according to international law, in direct violation of the human rights, the geneve convention and more.
This means it is not supposed to be tolerated by the mods.

Wonder why it has been... No reports, perhaps? Regardless, I wonder if we have a psychologist or psychiatrist here. I'm no such thing but thinking about Clirus' position and her continued advocacy of these things I am worried she might decide to take matters into her own hands.

i.e. that she might take someone's life.

I do not want such blood even remotely near my hands, and so I wish there was a way to turn said information over to the police with a notice of worry about her mental health and the possible outcome of her being left to her own devices.
We can joke about this all we want. But the fact is Clirus has advocated this mass murder for years now. And if she really means what she persistently insists would be the best way she might decide to do something about it herself.

Jokes aside (I'm not joking at all here), we know we're dealing with a woman with psychological issues here, and we know those issues are centered on some very very violent behavior. I don't know what I can do, if anything, but... Well, we could be dealing with another terrorist here. In all seriousness, we could be.

 

[Zongerfield]

Having read Clirus's quotes, as well as her followups to said quotes, I don't believe she is a threat to humanity, or antisocial, etc... I think she has a very hyperbolic way of conveying her beliefs. I think she feels very passionately about her beliefs and the only way to make her point is too use extreme scenarios.

I personally believe that some of the problems she focuses on are indeed something we, as a country, need to address. For instance, those who squander resources by living off the government, those on extended disability (not because they need, but because they don't want to go back to work), those who take out student loans with no intent of repaying them back, those who never get off food stamps, those who refuse to work, etc... These people are dragging this country down the tubes. Now, I'm not saying we construct gas chambers vis a vis Nazi Germany, but what I am suggesting, and I think what Clirus would like to see, is some type of system that encourages these people to become independent and work six days a week, as the bible states, For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death - Exodus 35:2 not a system that reinforces and apologies for their wastrel behavior.

Also, I am a big proponent of traditional marriage. I think the bible is very clear on the issue of homosexuality. I don't believe homosexuals should be "put to death." Rather, they should be treated for their perversions. Like Walt, homosexuals are engaging in behavior that is dangerous and unnatural. I have actually helped several individuals cure themselves of their homosexual impulses. It's not easy, but with help from the Lord anything is possible.

I suppose what I am trying to say, is that Clirus is passionate about her political views. And while I don't think she always articulates them in the best way, I don't believe she is a serious threat to anyone or anything. However, if you, and others, believe otherwise I understand and respect your efforts to seek clarification on her positions and her mental health.

 

[TheReasoner]

Having read Clirus's quotes, as well as her followups to said quotes, I don't believe she is a threat to humanity, or antisocial, etc... I think she has a very hyperbolic way of conveying her beliefs. I think she feels very passionately about her beliefs and the only way to make her point is too use extreme scenarios.

Have you read them thinking "This is another Christian I need to defend" or have you read them as objectively as possible?
Because you're the only person on here who has drawn that conclusion from her posts and her responses.

Consider her response to when she received criticism for wanting execution:
"Execution isn't killing" she said. That's deflection. It is not a dismissal of the extreme position, it's a justification for it by omission and deceit.

I personally believe that some of the problems she focuses on are indeed something we, as a country, need to address. For instance, those who squander resources by living off the government, those on extended disability (not because they need, but because they don't want to go back to work), those who take out student loans with no intent of repaying them back, those who never get off food stamps, those who refuse to work, etc... These people are dragging this country down the tubes. Now, I'm not saying we construct gas chambers vis a vis Nazi Germany, but what I am suggesting, and I think what Clirus would like to see, is some type of system that encourages these people to become independent and work six days a week, as the bible states, For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death - Exodus 35:2 not a system that reinforces and apologies for their wastrel behavior.

No, Clirus has been very clear Zongerfield. She wants those gas chambers built. Or if not that some other equally efficient or superior method of mass execution. She has made it abundantly clear through a large number of posts over many years that she wants those "wastrels" (a term I take great offense at by the way, at least without any serious discussion prior to it's use) dead. Not cuddled to death either, killed. See the quotes. That's what she's saying and that's what she reinforces when asked. It's been that way for years now.

I wonder Zongerfield, your position here comes across as hateful towards both the poor and those who are left wing politically. So I should probably ask you: Do you hate them? And since I am most definitely left wing, do you hate me?

I also wonder at your logic. You say the charity is the problem with your country. How come other countries which have adopted the system you so harshly criticize are more stable and doing very well economically? And how come the bible tells us to take care for and of the poor, even as a command to kings and rulers? If it's so terrible why does God want us to do it? And why has it been successful to the point of lifting some of Europe's worst and poorest countries up to the richest and most stable? Furthermore, how come your brothers and sisters in Christ abroad and many domestically as well promote the same message of love which - forgive me if I'm wrong - it appears you refuse to consider Christian? I hope I am wrong Zongerfield, but it seems to me you're choosing capitalism over compassion. Can a Christian do that and remain faithful to Christ? I don't think so.

I don't believe homosexuals should be "put to death."

Clirus does.

I suppose what I am trying to say, is that Clirus is passionate about her political views. And while I don't think she always articulates them in the best way, I don't believe she is a serious threat to anyone or anything. However, if you, and others, believe otherwise I understand and respect your efforts to seek clarification on her positions and her mental health.

I've gotten such a clarification, Z. Through asking for it for years. She wants those people dead. Including me, because I'm - politically - left wing.
Do you condone Clirus' intent to see me dead because I want to speak up for the poor Zongerfield?

Yes, I do believe otherwise Zongerfield. I am convinced she is in dire need of professional attention, possible hospitalization. She is, I believe, insane. And I am genuinely afraid she may act out her violent position. And no, there is no doubt in my mind she actually holds the position she promotes.

 

[Charlie V]

How do you feel about putting someone to death for being poor?

(Actually, for being a poor male with a family. Females, children and those without families are exempted.)

Clirus was quite clear that any man who cannot provide for his family should be executed. (No mention regarding to how the family will be provided for after the execution, or how the family would feel about the father being executed for his lack of money.)

Layoff notice from the boss in a bad job environment = death sentence in that world.

Charlie

 

[Charlie V]

I've gotten such a clarification, Z. Through asking for it for years. She wants those people dead. Including me, because I'm - politically - left wing.

Are you serious f.g.?

Wow. Sometimes, all I can say is... wow.

You think you've heard it all, and then, just... wow.

Am I the only one on Earth who has family members and dear friends, close friends, of almost every political and religious persuasions, all of whom I love and none of whom I would want dead?

Politically, I have family and dear friends who are right-wing, left-wing, socialists, progressive liberal capitalists, Glen Beck fans, George Bush fans, Barack Obama fans, people who don't like Barack Obama because he's too right-wing... just about every sort you can imagine. I know Independents. I know people who voted for Nader because Gore wasn't liberal enough, people who voted for Ross Perot because Bush wasn't conservative enough.

Religiously, I have family and dear friends who are evangelical Christians, liberal Christians, Protestants and Catholics, Unitarians, Jews, Mormons, Wiccans, Buddhists, and even a neighbor who I like a lot and whose family is close who are Muslims. Oh, and I used to date a Jehovah's Witness.

I can't imagine wanting someone dead because of their politics or religion or race.

By the way, I also have friends and family who are straight and gay.

And frankly, even those groups I don't know... I don't know any Hindus, or any transsexuals, but I don't want them dead. Why would I?

Charlie

 

[Nathan Poe]

Having read Clirus's quotes, as well as her followups to said quotes, I don't believe she is a threat to humanity, or antisocial, etc...

Well, in all fairness, I don't think anyone thinks clirus is a threat to humanity for the simple reason that none of us believe humanity will ever desend to the point where clirus' ideas seems feasable -- let alone reasonable.

In short, clirus is a crank -- but a harmless one.

Of course, now that she's attracted a following...

I think she has a very hyperbolic way of conveying her beliefs. I think she feels very passionately about her beliefs and the only way to make her point is too use extreme scenarios.

clirus speaks about poverty, disease, politics, and social issues -- there is absolutely nothing "extreme" about the scenarios, only her solutions.

I personally believe that some of the problems she focuses on are indeed something we, as a country, need to address. For instance, those who squander resources by living off the government, those on extended disability (not because they need, but because they don't want to go back to work), those who take out student loans with no intent of repaying them back, those who never get off food stamps, those who refuse to work, etc... These people are dragging this country down the tubes.

Nobody's denying that these are serious issues -- but what we need is a solution that's not worse than the problem.

Now, I'm not saying we construct gas chambers vis a vis Nazi Germany, but what I am suggesting, and I think what Clirus would like to see, is some type of system that encourages these people to become independent and work six days a week, as the bible states, For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death - Exodus 35:2 not a system that reinforces and apologies for their wastrel behavior.

There's a thin line between "encourage" and "force people into a certain scenario or else leave them to die."

Actually, there's not so much a thin line but a pretty wide gap -- and clirus pole-vaults over it.

I don't think that anyone can deny that there are people out there who do seriously need these programs -- and, if we looked at the statistics, we'd find that the cheats and charlatans are far outnumbered by the people who have benefitted from these programs and would've probably found themselves dead in an alley if they hadn't existed.

Clirus, however, doesn't seem to care about any of that -- in her zeal to punish the guilty, she'd happily let the innocent suffer.

Not that she believes in innocents -- she's steadfastly convinced that anyone who is poor, or sick, or out of work, etc., is that way as a direct result of their own sinful nature, and as such, do not deserve help.

Doesn't seem very Christ-like to me -- Christ helped us because we needed it, not because we "deserved" it.

Unless my theology is rusty, in fact, isn't it a tenet of Christianity that none of us "deserve" saving, but are saved anyway as a result of God's grace?

(btw, ask clirus how she interprets the parable of the good Samaritan -- it's a real hoot if you're into tribal thinking)

Also, I am a big proponent of traditional marriage. I think the bible is very clear on the issue of homosexuality. I don't believe homosexuals should be "put to death." Rather, they should be treated for their perversions.

Would you like to be "treated" for yours?

Like Walt, homosexuals are engaging in behavior that is dangerous and unnatural.

I thought Walt was a pedophile, not a homosexual?
(Not that he can't be both, but I do wish you'd be more clear...)

I have actually helped several individuals cure themselves of their homosexual impulses. It's not easy, but with help from the Lord anything is possible.

Give yourself another pat on the back, there -- and don't ask the people you've "cured" what they think about when you're not around.

I suppose what I am trying to say, is that Clirus is passionate about her political views. And while I don't think she always articulates them in the best way, I don't believe she is a serious threat to anyone or anything.

No, she's not -- because her views are so extreme as to be impotent. If the day ever comes when they seem like a good idea, clirus will be the least of our concerns.

However, if you, and others, believe otherwise I understand and respect your efforts to seek clarification on her positions and her mental health.

You play a good Devil's advocate, Zongerfield, and I do understand the need to try to understand why folks like clirus are the way they are.

I also applaud you for keeping the patronizing tones to a respectable minimum this time around -- keep it up.

 

[TheReasoner]

Are you serious f.g.?

Wow. Sometimes, all I can say is... wow.

You think you've heard it all, and then, just... wow.

Am I the only one on Earth who has family members and dear friends, close friends, of almost every political and religious persuasions, all of whom I love and none of whom I would want dead?

Yep. Ditto.

It should be said that when I say left, I mean left:

And no, I don't consider myself a communist at all. But socialist? Yes, I do consider myself a socialist. And I oppose the death penalty. And I haven't always been perfect (just kidding. I'm most imperfect I'm afraid)
I have no kids, but I was not a virgin when I met my wife. I wish I was, but I wasn't. Mistakes made are mistakes made. Can't undo them. Best learn from them and go on says I.

If you read Clirus' posts it appears clear as day I think that she wants me dead because:

• I am a socialist
• I am a borderline pacifist
• I am in opposition to the death penalty
• I wasn't a virgin when I married.

among some things. I'm sure I could find more.

Politically, I have family and dear friends who are right-wing, left-wing, socialists, progressive liberal capitalists, Glen Beck fans, George Bush fans, Barack Obama fans, people who don't like Barack Obama because he's too right-wing... just about every sort you can imagine. I know Independents. I know people who voted for Nader because Gore wasn't liberal enough, people who voted for Ross Perot because Bush wasn't conservative enough.

Religiously, I have family and dear friends who are evangelical Christians, liberal Christians, Protestants and Catholics, Unitarians, Jews, Mormons, Wiccans, Buddhists, and even a neighbor who I like a lot and whose family is close who are Muslims. Oh, and I used to date a Jehovah's Witness.

I can't imagine wanting someone dead because of their politics or religion or race.

By the way, I also have friends and family who are straight and gay.

And frankly, even those groups I don't know... I don't know any Hindus, or any transsexuals, but I don't want them dead. Why would I?

Charlie

You're a lot like me in this respect. I have friends all over the spectrum too. From Beckians to Stalinists. Some friends who are Diametrically opposite myself and I'm fine with that. I disagree with them but I certainly don't dislike them as people because of it. Much less hate anybody over their political position.
Now, I might disagree with them till our respective faces turn blue, but we're still friends and/or family.

I have friends all over the religious spectrum too. Christians of all flavors, muslims, atheists, antitheists

As far as homosexuals I largely don't know, as I don't care to ask but I do know one lesbian (I just recently found out. Nice girl. Very kind. Don't want her dead. At all. Quite the opposite, may she enjoy life to the fullest thankyaverymuch)

All of this is another point in my 'disfavor' as far as Clirus is concerned. I apparently have 'communion with darkness' and I suppose I am 'unequally yoked' as my friends are all over the religious spectrum. Which I suppose might be worthy of another death penalty

 

[Nathan Poe]

As far as homosexuals I largely don't know, as I don't care to ask but I do know one lesbian (I just recently found out. Nice girl. Very kind. Don't want her dead. At all. Quite the opposite, may she enjoy life to the fullest thankyaverymuch)

Well, I know a few homosexuals and bisexuals (I've spent my youth hanging out with a RHPS cast, where one tends to meet folks of very negotiable sexual preferences) and most of them are the nicest, most well-adjusted, kindest people I've known.

Wouldn't want to see any harm come to any of them, either.

 

[sdmsanjose]

Originally Posted by tulc http://www.christianforums.com/t7548635-41/#post57339240
So? Again, unless your goal is to bring us under the Old Testament Law of "An eye for an eye" I'm not sure how that applies.

Reply by Nathan
It only applies to "Christians" who either don't want to or don't believe they're under the new covenant -- My understanding was that Christ fulfilled the old covenant on the cross.

I put "Christians" in quotes here because I can't imagine any Christian claiming that Christ's sacrifice somehow "didn't take," and thus we are still under the old covenant.

Or is my theology missing something?



Reply by Nathan
I don't think that anyone can deny that there are people out there who do seriously need these programs -- and, if we looked at the statistics, we'd find that the cheats and charlatans are far outnumbered by the people who have benefitted from these programs and would've probably found themselves dead in an alley if they hadn't existed.

Clirus, however, doesn't seem to care about any of that -- in her zeal to punish the guilty, she'd happily let the innocent suffer.

Not that she believes in innocents -- she's steadfastly convinced that anyone who is poor, or sick, or out of work, etc., is that way as a direct result of their own sinful nature, and as such, do not deserve help.

Doesn't seem very Christ-like to me -- Christ helped us because we needed it, not because we "deserved" it.

Unless my theology is rusty, in fact, isn't it a tenet of Christianity that none of us "deserve" saving, but are saved anyway as a result of God's grace?

I do not know what Nathan’s spiritual persuasion is but I have noticed something. Nathan has stated above a few sentences that are so much more important than what Clirus has been preaching for years. Clirus has been preaching about who should be punished according to her view points.

It is just noteworthy that Clirus, the self claimed Christian, is so far off the main theme and Nathan’s statements above are right on. Instead of promoting the main theme of Christ’s mission on earth, Clirus posts hundreds of posts about many kinds of groups of people who she makes judgments about. Clirus must think that she has been personally appointed by God to determine who is to die and which groups are a detriment to God and to society.

These so called self proclaiming Christians that constantly point out the failures of all kinds of groups of people but say very little to nothing about the grace of God are an irritant, lack wisdom, are self serving, or all three.


I have had a few strong disagreements with Nathan but I have more respect for some of Nathan’s post than all the hundreds of posts by someone like Clirus.

 

[sdmsanjose]

reply by Faith guardian
Jokes aside (I'm not joking at all here), we know we're dealing with a woman with psychological issues here, and we know those issues are centered on some very very violent behavior. I don't know what I can do, if anything, but... Well, we could be dealing with another terrorist here. In all seriousness, we could be.

I can understand why you may think that Clirus could be a terrorist but there are some reasons to counter that thought.

First, it is very rare that women actually become terrorists

Secondly, if you are talking about a person that could lead a group and do a lot of damage, then Clirus would not fit that profile. She has almost no influence and her ideas are so far out that Christians, and non-Christians find her ridiculous.

Third, she has not stated any plan to kill anyone herself; she wants others to do her dirty work for her. It seems that most terrorist can not refrain from spouting off their disgust for their enemies and can’t keep from talking about how they are going to do something.

Of course there is no guarantee that Clirus will not carry out some of her ideas but I think that it is doubtful. I agree with you that she should see a professional mental health provider just to see if she is dangerous.

I think that Clirus has a twisted political agenda and tries to manipulate the Bible to support her sick ideas.

 

[Charlie V]

I find that the more I experience a large variety of people, the more I learn that we're all basically the same. That anyone would support genocide for anyone else is tragic. That anyone would harbor prejudices is tragic. If we could all embrace our differences instead of fearing and hating others because of differences in race, religion, politics, nationality, color, sexual orientation, economic status, or just about any of the social categories people are put in, we could all learn so much from each other and gain so much depth of knowledge and character. The only place I draw the line is cruel people... people who intentionally hurt other people. Those people, I don't think we have much to learn from, though we do have much to teach them. There is so much for those people to gain from letting go of their hate, and trying to learn to like other people. The best way to destroy enemies is to make them your friends.

That's a genocide I could support: The destruction of all enemies, by making all people friends. Not by "executing them" but by executing their status as enemy. It may sound too big a goal when I say it like that, to make "all people friends," but we can only do it one person at a time. There's an old story, something like this: Every morning, a beach load of starfish wash up on the sand to die, and this guy goes out and starts throwing them into the water. Someone comes up and says, "There's too many to save them, what makes you think you can make a difference?" He throws in another starfish and says, "I made a difference to that one." That's all we can do, think big, do small, do what we can. The only the we can do is just, try to be loving and try to stand up to hate when we can. If one person is helped, we made a difference.

Charlie

 

[TheReasoner]

Charlie V quote

The only place I draw the line is cruel people... people who intentionally hurt other people.

Response

Do you consider advocating, condoning or participating in adultery and homosexual activity as being cruel and hurting other people?

The execution of a few that advocate, condone and participate in evil is a small price to pay to prevent the misery of millions.

Clirus:
I am a socialist.
I am in fierce opposition to the death penalty
I am a veteran yet borderline pacifist
I accept evolution.
I was not a virgin when I met my wife.
I do not and will not discriminate against homosexuals.
I have even been drunk twice

Should I be executed? I will refuse to change those points where change is possible when rebuked by you. More than thrice, at that.






Another question: Why is there far less misery in the nations where the policies you support are NOT followed, whereas misery is FAR more prevalent in nations where your policies are followed?

 

[TheReasoner]

faith guardian quote

If you read Clirus' posts it appears clear as day I think that she wants me dead because:

* I am a socialist
* I am a borderline pacifist
* I am in opposition to the death penalty
* I wasn't a virgin when I married.

Response

What I want for you is a Damascus Road experience.

If I refuse to change, Clirus - after multiple rebukes - should I be executed?


Yes or no.

 

[TheReasoner]

.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I would like to summarize what I believe is the status of this thread on Evolution.

I have been with the Christian Forums for many years and most of my discussions have been to show God as both a Loving God and a Righteous God. My discussions of God as a Righteous God has angered many.

No... your theocratic ideology has angered many. Don't confuse the two.

Atheists were not able to defeat me because I provided Biblical references for my positions, but Atheists were not really concerned because they thought I had no influence (no one agreed with me).

Biblical references that do not support what you say (e.g. the Good Samaritan parable).

For the record, you still have very little influence. In the many years that you've been on here, and on other forums, you've attracted the support of about 1% or less of the respondents. Don't confuse that with influence. The overwhelming majority of people who've responded to your posts, Christian and non-Christian alike, have scrutinized and rebuked your ideology.

Then you came along and that really worried the Atheists. Since they could not kill the message, the Atheists decided to kill the messenger.

I'm sorry, but has anyone actually called for your death (i.e. killing) on this forum? Compare that to the countless times that you've endorsed policies of killing.

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]

How can it be a strawman when it is corroborated by statements that you've actually made on one occasion or another? You've actually said these things Clirus:

When the Bible calls for the execution of disobedient children, I am compelled to comply.

The government of good people should go to war with nations or groups of people that are a threat to the government/society as is instructed by the Old Testament of the Bible. The purpose of the war should be to do what ever it takes to win, in the shortest possible time, which includes the elimination/killing of men, women and children associated with the threat ... The war should be concluded only when the threat has been eliminated.

America needs to have an Absolute Paternity Law that say parents must provide for their children. Failure to provide for their children (as proved by asking for government assistance) should be punishable by death using the three strikes and you are out concept.

Enact Absolute Paternity legislation that would execute the father of a child that fails to make child care payments for an illegitimate child.

I believe the State has the right to either rebuke or execute homosexuals because there is health, safety and economic justification.

I believe homosexuality should be rebuked, but if homosexuals do not return to the closet from which they came, then other measures should be considered by the State. ... I believe the State has a right and a responsibility to protect the health and safety of the nation.

Which is the worse, to execute those that willfully violate the commandments/doctrines of the Bible or to ignore the Bible and let millions die of the disease, death, destruction and poverty of sin? The Bible does call for the execution of those that violate the commandments/doctrines of the Bible. By the tolerance of the New Testament, rebuke should be adequate to prevent execution, but execution must be left open a viable option, especially when the Bible calls for execution.

Atheists are usually socialists and pacifists, that oppose war and the death penalty, because they are the ones that should be executed. Opposition to the death penalty is a survival concept for evil people.

Are Christians to condone people that are infidels or should Christians support Civil Law that deals with infidels, even to the point of execution?

If rebuke and salvation fail to change the lifestyle of the Atheist/unbeliever, the Old Testament of the Bible is quite clear that Civil Law must exist that executes evil people that will not follow the established Civil Law. ... The Biblical authorization/requirement for execution for violation of God's Law/Civil Law.
​

You crying 'strawman' isn't convincing anyone Clirus.