Religion, Ain't It Grand: Chapter 8,346
- Thread starter Y.A.G Si Ye Nots
- Start date
I thought proper honor killing protocol was to kill your own child in the religion of peace.
This story is a problem for liberals. They hate religion, but love them some Muslims.
This story is a problem for liberals. They hate religion, but love them some Muslims.
No, they hate hypocrites. The issue is that most Republican Christians are hypocrites, so in calling them out, it makes us defend the barbaric and illogical Muslim beliefs in pointing fingers at the barbaric and illogical Christian beliefs.
Nobody needs religion. Its a Personel relationship with God. We need God, especially Christians who have put their faith that Jesus Christ's death,burial, and resurrection allows us to have a relationship with God. Judge not or thou should be judged. Riflearm just judged a whole lot of people and I promise Pullman square he does not know their heart.
Oh that’s why you defend Muslims .....and all this time I just thought you all were useful idiots of the left repeating talking points and identity politics like good puppets
What riflearm really means every time he posts a thread like this is “Islam, Ain’t It Grand.” But he won’t single out Islam, even though they commit far and away the most atrocities in the name of their religion, bar none. This is his way of still bashing Christianity in the process...by lumping them together.
If they're both wrong, then why can't you just not defend either and call out Christians AND Muslims?
This is just like how Dtard and other Liby's want to see the US economy collapse, just to spite Trump.
Ugh, is that not what I am doing in this thread? The article is clearly about Islam/Muslims, and I am calling out Muslims and Christians (and all of the other major religions).
It isn't a contest about which religion pushes a more harmful agenda to humans. All of them have their own special ways of doing it. Christians, previously, were the leaders in violence. Currently, Muslims take the cake in that, but Christians promise they ("He") will be back very soon to once again seize the crown of violence.
Since you admit that Muslims are far more violent, how about being intellectually honest and just naming them specifically from now on. None of this happens in the name of “religion.” It happens in the name of a Islam. You call it “religion” so you can lump in Christians when Christianity is irrelevant to nearly every post you make like this.
This is one of the things that is so frustrating about people like you. You see something so obvious right in front of you (Islam is evil), but because it doesn’t jive with your political beliefs, you have to lump in an entire group of people who think and behave differently, solely to fit your agenda.
No, Islam is more violent CURRENTLY than Christianity. That hasn't always been the case and won't always be the case.
Hell, you're one who claims that someday, very soon, your god will arrive on Earth and terminate millions of non-believers all in the name of Christianity. It doesn't get any more violent than that and it doesn't get any more religious than that.
According to you, Christianity could immediately become more violent tomorrow based on what you promise (and no Christian disputes) is going to happen. Yet you want me to claim Islam is the only violent religion and that Islam is the evil religion.
The hypocrisy knows no ends with you brainwashed morons.
Until something like that happens, don’t lump me in every time a Muslim does an honor killing, flies a plane into a building, or cuts someone’s head off.
When a Christian does something, call them out. But until then, at least stop being a pu$$y and call Muslims out for what they are.
What? Are you denying that your god will come back and terminate all of the non-believers?
Like I said, when that happens you can call Christians whatever you want. Until then, focus on the religion who is currently killing people.
Irsan’s trial in Houston lasted five weeks, but jurors deliberated for just 35 minutes
God bless Texas.
God bless Texas.
I believe the Book of Revelations has already been fulfilled. I'm sure Keeper will call me a heretic, but that's my stand.
Your view is a view held by some in Christendom. Preterists believe that all the prophecies found in Revelation were fulfilled in AD 70 and that we are now living in the eternal state, or the new heavens and the new earth. Some Preterists believe that most of the prophecies of Revelation were fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem but that chapters 20-22 point to future events such as a future resurrection of believers and return of Christ to the earth. This view is certainly not the most widely held but some have held it. See Raoul you might be a closet theologian!
Raoul you believe in the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Believing revelation has been fulfilled is believed by a lot of christians and does not hinder your salvation. Amen?
Correct. I simply believe the Book of Revelations describes the 70 AD Siege of Jerusalem. And I fully realize this is not popular.
The Siege of Jerusalem is exactly what I am referencing.
I do not believe in a literal resurrection of believers. It is a metaphor for our souls.
Jesus said, "But my kingdom is not of this world."
Ha. So, you either are calling your religion fake or you are excusing the pure hate and violence it condones (and in most cases, is excited to have happen). Brilliant!
1) Book of Revelation, singular.
2) I believe that the Apocalypse of Jesus Christ (as it was traditionally called and titled) is roughly divided up into three main parts, Ch. 1-3, Ch. 4-19 with Ch.20 being a transition to Ch. 21-22.
3) Ch. 1-3 speak about contemporary events John witnessed personally (especially obviously the letters to the Seven churches).
4) Ch. 4-19 is the history of the Christian Church on Earth, from A.D. 70 to the end of the Age. (Beast and the Harlot being Roman Catholicism with the Christian heresy of Islam and the anti-Christian nations being in league with Antichrist, who is the Papacy (the office, not necessarily the Pope himself), all being destroyed by Christ in Ch. 19).
5) The Millennium of Ch. 20 is currently taking place. It is a symbolic 1,000 years, not literal, and was inaugurated at the Resurrection.
5) Ch. 21-22 being the Age to Come, when Christ returns in power and glory. The coming of Christ the Second Time will be the end of history. It will not usher in a physical Millennial Kingdom, nor will there be stages of judgment or a "rapture". All of what passes for modern evangelical readings of Revelation have no historical basis and were practically invented whole cloth in the 19th Century. Nearly every popular American TV preacher is heretical when it comes to this subject. Ignore every teacher on TBN, the 700 Club, etc... Especially John Hagee.
And you are basing your opinion of Christians partly on something that hasn't happened and you don't even think will happen. But yeah...that's the moral equivalent to this man killing his daughter or someone flying an airplane into a building.
This is great. So, when the superhero comes back, the universe will cease existing? There will be nothing? The world ends. No life. No space, even the places hundreds of millions of light years away.
Will this be a flash of light and everything is gone or will it be a long, drawn out process where fire and brimstone are shooting down and wiping everyone out? I'm asking for the director of the next Marvel movie.
It's irrelevant if I think it will happen or that it hasn't happened. Christianity includes the belief that your god will return and eternally destroy anyone who doesn't believe in him. Hell, a large part of your religion greatly anticipates and is excited for it to happen.
That's as violent as one can get.
There is a logical problem here.
1) On what basis do you judge it to be "good" or "bad"? At the end of the day you have no standard as to what constitutes "good" or "bad" other than "because I think" or "because culture says so". Your understanding of "good" and "bad" is culturally conditioned by the fact you were born and raised in a Western Culture that, due to its Thomistic and Augustinian moral and ethical heritage, teaches that violence, unjust physical destruction to another person, is "bad".
Violence is only "bad" in contradistinction to a belief that non-violence is "good", and only after you have defined what words like "violence", "good, and "bad" mean.
Oh, the typical theistic argument that religion has been mankind's basis of what is right vs. wrong. The arrogance theists have with this argument never gets old.
You're correct, society establishes accepted norms and guidelines for what is right vs. wrong. That's why we know killing, outside of necessity, is wrong. It's why we know that the guy in my article is wrong for having his daughter's husband killed for being a Christian and marrying his daughter. That, based on societal guidelines, is wrong.
In a different culture, honor killings are not viewed as wrong. In a different culture, severe discrimination against women, gays, and Christians is not viewed as wrong.
Why do we, in this society, view those things as wrong? It's definitely not because of any Christian teachings. It is because society has established those guidelines as being unacceptable.
All of that leads us to this, which refutes your failed point: Christians speak out against the honor killings because it goes against what our society considers acceptable. Most Christians speak out against the murder of homosexuals in certain regions of the world.
In our society, we (which includes Christians) are against unjust killings and violence especially based on people simply not following a certain religion. That's why we, including Christians, are deeply troubled by those who murder in the name of religion simply because others don't follow their religion. Yet, suddenly, Christians must accept that a sudden killing of millions of people is acceptable and correct when their god does it simply for not following a certain religion.
Amen Amen1) Book of Revelation, singular.
2) I believe that the Apocalypse of Jesus Christ (as it was traditionally called and titled) is roughly divided up into three main parts, Ch. 1-3, Ch. 4-19 with Ch.20 being a transition to Ch. 21-22.
3) Ch. 1-3 speak about contemporary events John witnessed personally (especially obviously the letters to the Seven churches).
4) Ch. 4-19 is the history of the Christian Church on Earth, from A.D. 70 to the end of the Age. (Beast and the Harlot being Roman Catholicism with the Christian heresy of Islam and the anti-Christian nations being in league with Antichrist, who is the Papacy (the office, not necessarily the Pope himself), all being destroyed by Christ in Ch. 19).
5) The Millennium of Ch. 20 is currently taking place. It is a symbolic 1,000 years, not literal, and was inaugurated at the Resurrection.
5) Ch. 21-22 being the Age to Come, when Christ returns in power and glory. The coming of Christ the Second Time will be the end of history. It will not usher in a physical Millennial Kingdom, nor will there be stages of judgment or a "rapture". All of what passes for modern evangelical readings of Revelation have no historical basis and were practically invented whole cloth in the 19th Century. Nearly every popular American TV preacher is heretical when it comes to this subject. Ignore every teacher on TBN, the 700 Club, etc... Especially John Hagee.
I knew it would drift to gay people. God loves them and his grace is sufficient for them too. Apostle Paul had a thorn in his flesh. Doesn't say what it was but God told him his grace is sufficient
.They can overcome something God plainly stated is a abomination.
Pray for those folk. Pray they are treated well by others. Pray for their safety in some places. In Jesus name amen
amen to the fact you are sharing the gospel. I believe in the rapture. Followed by a tribulation of 7 yrs.. I believe a person can be saved thru the tribulation but it will most likely cost you your life. I believe you must be saved and how it all ends is not the big issue but are you ready to meet the Lord. All your son's covered by the blood of Jesus. He laid down his life for everyone. Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon. The Lord gave the ultimate pardon. Praise his name.
1) Book of Revelation, singular.
That big church we attended when I was a kid...the older head minister there always called it plural. He was born in Tennessee. I guess it is a country thing.
I don't think you have to worry about me watching TV preachers, unless it is for a laugh. I do wonder if they believe their own BS, or just figured out how to get rich.
I remember where they showed that scary movie in church about Revalation. Where they gave you the mark of the beast and cut your head off.
I am being serious. It scared me when I was a kid.
I am being serious. It scared me when I was a kid.
Apparently Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson are selling out auditoriums having this keep/rifle morality debate.
I enjoy both of their podcasts.
I enjoy both of their podcasts.
I answered it directly. Why did your scenario change? Society, as a whole, evolves into less barbaric lifestyles.
Sixty years ago, in many places in the country, it wasn't acceptable for a black man to hold the hand of a white woman in public while out on a day. Fifty years ago, if your drunk husband came home once a month and put you in your place with a backhand, it was acceptable and shouldn't be discussed. Forty-eight years ago, doctors and women would be imprisoned for having an abortion. Thirty years ago, it wasn't acceptable for two guys to kiss in public. Twenty years ago, gays couldn't marry in any state. Fifteen years ago, it was taboo in many areas of the country to publicly state that you were an atheist.
Why did all of those things change?
