Common Sense vs. The Bible.

[PoliticalChic]

Nothing new has been said in the OP. She makes grand assertions that are unfounded and rely on logical fallacies galore. With religion, it all comes back to: is it actually true? Does god actually exist?

Everything that would follow, such as morality as granted by this supposed being, is secondary. Being that no such proofs of good exist, discussions on morality or intelligence becomes a red herring when it is used to justify belief. And, that's all this OP was. One big red herring. You can not prove gods existence, so don't knock atheists or those that don't believe. Have fun, but stay out of other people's way.

This is a public message board.

People express opinions, and support them.

Vermin such as you use the neg function when they disagree, but don't have the ability to compete: you couldn’t be a spell-checker at an M & M factory.

 

[newpolitics]

Nothing new has been said in the OP. She makes grand assertions that are unfounded and rely on logical fallacies galore. With religion, it all comes back to: is it actually true? Does god actually exist?

Everything that would follow, such as morality as granted by this supposed being, is secondary. Being that no such proofs of good exist, discussions on morality or intelligence becomes a red herring when it is used to justify belief. And, that's all this OP was. One big red herring. You can not prove gods existence, so don't knock atheists or those that don't believe. Have fun, but stay out of other people's way.

This is a public message board.

People express opinions, and support them.

Vermin such as you use the neg function when they disagree, but don't have the ability to compete: you couldn’t be a spell-checker at an M & M factory.

you posted a godamned thesis. try and shorten it up next time so we don't have to spend our lives debunking all the bullshit you just put out, because, I am almost certain that you are the kind of person that is narcissistic enough to think that an absence in response means that your right. In reality, its more like "let the crazy person talk. nothing will change their mind, anyway." Just to let you know. I probably shouldn't have given you a neg, but you the second you start making arguments about morality being necessitated by a deity without showing exactly why, then you get negged. You also commited a "complex question fallacy" throughout your entire post. It's really quite annoying for anyone that wants to engage in an honest debate, not one ripe with presupposition. Make your damn point.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Faith is not common sense.

They are diametrically opposed.

Actually, they aren't. Faith is trusting your neighbor to help because you would help him. Common sense tells you that it is better to cooperate than to make enemies of of the people you live with.

 

[JoeB131]

[

1. "I have a simpler approach. Does my action hurt someone? If not, there's nothing immoral about it."
Based the abilities you've revealed, any approach to which you could subscribe would, of necessity, have to be simple.

The OP explains that subjective approaches have, historically, resulted in the moral relativism that allowed Nazi doctors to perform such atrocities as injecting the eyes of children to see if they could be made to have 'Aryan' characteristics.

Again, I have to wonder if you are some kind of retard.

There's no moral "relativism".

Harm another person- Immoral.

No one is harmed (except maybe yourself knowing the consquences) - Not Immoral.

I mean, JESUS FUCKING CHRIST, do you not understand the difference.

(I do that intentionally. My saying "Jesus Fucking Christ" really harmed no one, but would have resulted in severe punishment for most of history.)

 

[JoeB131]

[




2. "Nice quote for a stupid person... but what did that have to do with the original point about morality and religion?"
You chose a handful of items in the Bible which may appear outdated today. The quote which you were afraid to address, points out that Leftists such as you, subscribe to far more deleterious views.

In other words, you evince no ability to weigh beliefs as to importance, having referenced items so minor as to be inconsequential.

a. "...ascribing everyone who thinks that the runaway crony corportism is a bad thing (demonstrated by the disaster that was 2008) is a Marxist is just lazy thinking.."

I do like to write....but at times shorthand is more efficacious. Choosing Obama over Romney is Leftist. I have no objection to your use of Marxist.

b. "...you try to change the subject ..."
No, I haven't. I've addressed your examples.

.

I didn't choose things that "may be outdated".

They are wrong now, they were wrong then, and there wasn't a moral universe where they were ever right.

Economic systems aren't moral or immoral. A communist who executes someone for trying to make a profit is immoral. So is a Capitalist who loots a pension fund to make a quick buck.

 

[JoeB131]

[

3. "....I know a lot of religious people who are nice folks,..."
You have the ability to reveal already known facts! No doubt, you are a product of government schools!
a. "...What did this have to do with my point?"
I was making clear that one can be moral without religion. But not as a societal generalization.

b. "...The bible contains a lot of [batty] insanity...
Do you really think that mentioning such is wise in light of your support for Barack Obama?

.

As I explained many times, I'm a product of Catholic Education, Which is why I hate religion with such a passion and hope for the day God goes the way of Zeus and Odin and every other useless fairy tale.

Point is, sorry, if Obama is insane, then we are insane as a country for voting for him. I don't think most people who voted for McCain or Obama last time were "insane".

Or at least not as insane as murdering a new bride on her wedding night if she wasn't a virgin.

Which is EXACTLY the kind of batshit insanity you find in the bible.

 

[JoeB131]

4. "Slavery can ONLY exist if society and law supports it."
Really? I suspect that you have an intimate knowledge of whips and chains.

Well, no, I'm not into the BDSM scene.. but the fact you go immediately into a sex reference is telling. For the record, if you are what you claim to be, I do have an Asian fetish, though.

5. "Soceity (sic) for thousands of years condoned slavery.. until people- not religion, not a magic man in the sky- decided it was wrong."
Not true. See the OT for instructions on treating and freeing slaves.

That would be the same bible that said you really couldn't abuse HEBREW slaves, but those pagan slaves, you could abuse the shit out of those poor bastards?

Slavery WAS ALWAYS WRONG. Yet not even Jesus spoke out against it in the New Testament.

6. "No, murdering children is wrong because it harms a child and by extention his family."
It is wrong because of the Ten Commandments, and subsequent memorialization into law.But, in antiquity, individuals would say as you did earlier: "Does what you are doing effect me in any way? If not, it's none of my business."

You might pick up Goldberg's "Vlad the Impaler," to see that view throughout societies not far removed in time.

Again, Vlad murdered people. Already violates my first rule...

a. " "Gott Mit Uns"
Exactly why morality and religion are necessary: anyone can claim that God gives them the right to do as they wish.....slavers and childkillers included.

No, humanism is necessary. God isn't. Because if God isn't going to provide clear moral guidance and bitchslap those who kill in his name, he's probably not helping the situation.

Point is, every evil dipshit in history thought God was on his side, from the slaver to Hitler to David Koresh fucking 11 year old girls. And God usually didn't do anything about it. People had to.

9. "Most of our common law and morality actually comes from the Pagans."
Wrong again.
In 528 Tribonian was selected, with John the Cappodocian, to prepare the new imperial legal code, the Codex Juris Civilis, or the Code of Justinian.. Rome had a legal system dating back to the ‘Twelve Tables,’ written in 451 BCE, based on the 6th century BCE work of Solon of Athens. Fifteen centuries later it was called the Civil Law.
Salic law (Lat. Lex Salica) was an important body of traditional law codified for governing the Salian Franks in the early Middle Ages during the reign of King Clovis I in the 6th century.
See "Justinian's Flea," Rosen...one of the best books I've read.

Actually, in terms of civil law, freedom and even capitalism, the Romans were waaaaay ahead of the Abrahamic religions. The "Dark Ages" were the first "Faith Based" iniative.

BTW....the Jews were 10% of the Roman Empire.

Probably not even close to that. And you work on the assumption Christianity is the heir to Judaism.

It takes jsut as much influence from Hellenic Mysticism and Zoroasterism. All that shit about Messiahs and Satan... Pure Zoroasterism.

 

[mlw]

It boils down to the conflict between the spiritual worldview and the ideology of materialistic physicalism, embraced by the atheists. A scientific worldview cannot take into account moral, spiritual, and psychological factors, as reality is portrayed without relation to the human soul. It implies that the scientific paradigm is not quite adequate as a worldview on its own. For instance, medieval paintings have a value perspective in which important persons look larger than others. This is a moral perspective that is equally relevant as the optical perspective, and it is not a sign that medieval man was ignorant. Science and faith ought to be viewed as parallel worldviews that aren't quite self-sustaining, in themselves, and therefore must be brought to completion by their counterpart.

The medieval painter wasn't realistic in the optical sense, but neither are today's scientistic materialists realistic in the moral sense. That's why there is today no morality of the heart. People instead follow ideological tenets which they have programmed into their heads. This gives rise to an awkward and hypocritical ethics which is neither rooted in the heart nor in the instincts. The consequences are very destructive. For instance, empathy is today viewed as the function by which you donate money to the poor people of the world, to subsidize the growth of vegetative and meaningless human life. This is a robotic definition of empathy. In truth, empathy is the feeling you have for creatures in your vicinity, such as your cat.

The distribution of material resources to people who don't deserve it is by the atheists viewed as the epitome of goodness, which shows that physicalism and atheism cannot function as a groundwork of morality. The moral perspective comes skewed, perverted, and robotic. The materialistic form of goodness has only evil consequences, because it is not founded in the heart, nor in our natural instincts. It is merely a product of the intellect. The foremost example is Marxism, which was created during an epoch in the 19th century when suffering due to poverty and inhumane working conditions was immense. The appalling situation was documented by Friedrich Engels and Charles Dickens.

But Marxist goodness was merely a product of the intellect. The ideal of goodness was "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Atheists, Socialists and Communists programmed this tenet into their heads, aiming to do good, but the result was the opposite. It gave rise to the greatest evil and suffering in world history. Many people still believe in this tenet in some form. According to the American Declaration of Freedom, every person should have equal opportunities to build a good life of their own, but they do not have the right to have all their needs satisfied, which is a Marxist doctrine.

As soon as we program ideological tenets into our heads, and stop listening to our heart, we draw the wrong conclusions. Suddenly we start thinking that millions of Third World people have the right to immigrate to our country, and with time take over our country, causing the demise of our civilization. But if we listen to our heart, we realize that it's not right to give away our country and undermine the civilization that we have inherited from our ancestors.

The conclusion is that atheistic morals don't work, because it is based on mere materialistic premises, just as Marxism.

Mats Winther

 

[PoliticalChic]

Are you saying religious people who belong to any of the 3 abrahamic religions don't use any reason?

No.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Chic seems to be saying that if humans did not have God to ascribe morality to, morality would not exist. That does not prove God exists.
That a higher authority seems to a validate practice is a human truism. The higher authority is not thus created, however.
Belief makes it so.

It would exist to a far lesser degree than currently.

People have the almost unlimited ability to rationalize and accept as good and right that which accommodates their wishes and desires. In “The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism,” Hayek shows the primary conceit, that the human mind can a) conceive, and b) implement a better way of accomplishing a process than the one worked out over millennia by a mechanism more suited to the task than the human mind….

...and the origin of justice, of the proper ways of dealing with one another?


The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, ....
Proverbs 9:10

Should this not exist, attitudes toward these situations must be learned by the individual later in life, at such time as he is burdened with his own pressing needs, without the surety and experience of millennia.

The flaw is that one must substitute his own intellect for that of myriad interactions of a society. To see the result of this process one need only review the success of Liberal government programs.

Morality is not based on ‘reason,’ so less susceptible to casuistry.

If a child does not learn through observation, through family, school and church, they may be considered arbitrary, and he may endeavor to create rules of his own, based on reason. This secondary process can only be a self-excusatory rationalization for his desires: copulate freely, do not take on responsibility through marriage, do not respect or trust authority, demand governmental support, base political choices upon feelings rather than experience, don’t bother to learn a trade, and so on.
Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge."

 

[PoliticalChic]

[

1. "I have a simpler approach. Does my action hurt someone? If not, there's nothing immoral about it."
Based the abilities you've revealed, any approach to which you could subscribe would, of necessity, have to be simple.

The OP explains that subjective approaches have, historically, resulted in the moral relativism that allowed Nazi doctors to perform such atrocities as injecting the eyes of children to see if they could be made to have 'Aryan' characteristics.

Again, I have to wonder if you are some kind of retard.

There's no moral "relativism".

Harm another person- Immoral.

No one is harmed (except maybe yourself knowing the consquences) - Not Immoral.

I mean, JESUS FUCKING CHRIST, do you not understand the difference.

(I do that intentionally. My saying "Jesus Fucking Christ" really harmed no one, but would have resulted in severe punishment for most of history.)

Sure there is.

The question of whether someone is harmed is often in the eye of the beholder.
See item #4 in the OP.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[




2. "Nice quote for a stupid person... but what did that have to do with the original point about morality and religion?"
You chose a handful of items in the Bible which may appear outdated today. The quote which you were afraid to address, points out that Leftists such as you, subscribe to far more deleterious views.

In other words, you evince no ability to weigh beliefs as to importance, having referenced items so minor as to be inconsequential.

a. "...ascribing everyone who thinks that the runaway crony corportism is a bad thing (demonstrated by the disaster that was 2008) is a Marxist is just lazy thinking.."

I do like to write....but at times shorthand is more efficacious. Choosing Obama over Romney is Leftist. I have no objection to your use of Marxist.

b. "...you try to change the subject ..."
No, I haven't. I've addressed your examples.

.

I didn't choose things that "may be outdated".

They are wrong now, they were wrong then, and there wasn't a moral universe where they were ever right.

Economic systems aren't moral or immoral. A communist who executes someone for trying to make a profit is immoral. So is a Capitalist who loots a pension fund to make a quick buck.

Wrong again.

Private property, the lodestone of capitalism, is supported in the Bible.

"Jewish law enumerates 613 Mitzvot or commandments, including prohibition of stealing and a number of other commandments related to the protection of private property and administration of justice in related cases."
You shall not steal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


As you refer to communism, it is more than of passing interest that the following is in the above: "Maimonides (the Rambam) viewed stealing as one step in the progression from covetous desire to murder"

And, sure enough, the Soviet Union has the deaths of millions on its resume.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlslHXPN2Fo]The Soviet Story The Holodomor Ukrainian SSR Edvins Snore Letvia 2008 - YouTube[/ame]



Do you know the communist view of religion?

Coincidence?

 

[PoliticalChic]

[

3. "....I know a lot of religious people who are nice folks,..."
You have the ability to reveal already known facts! No doubt, you are a product of government schools!
a. "...What did this have to do with my point?"
I was making clear that one can be moral without religion. But not as a societal generalization.

b. "...The bible contains a lot of [batty] insanity...
Do you really think that mentioning such is wise in light of your support for Barack Obama?

.

As I explained many times, I'm a product of Catholic Education, Which is why I hate religion with such a passion and hope for the day God goes the way of Zeus and Odin and every other useless fairy tale.

Point is, sorry, if Obama is insane, then we are insane as a country for voting for him. I don't think most people who voted for McCain or Obama last time were "insane".

Or at least not as insane as murdering a new bride on her wedding night if she wasn't a virgin.

Which is EXACTLY the kind of batshit insanity you find in the bible.

This is the kind of willful blindness with which you excel.

1. The suggestion of killing one who perpetrates a deception was penned some 3000 years ago, in a very different culture and location.

2. I challenge you to find religious people today who follow that dictate.


3. On the other hand, secularists such as yourself support and intend to vote again for an individual who supports the killing of unwanted infants. That's today...not 3000 years ago.

And, yes, I can document same.


And, btw, the icon of your party, today...not 3000 years ago, is a rapist.


Takes the wind out of your sails, doesn't it.

a. Aside from cultural norms, which can change, values of 3000 years ago don't.
If you need a refresher, they are written in the Ten Commandments.



4. "I'm a product of Catholic Education, Which is why I hate religion with such a passion and hope for the day God goes the way of Zeus and Odin and every other useless fairy tale."


Logic is hardly your strongsuit, is it.
B doesn't follow from A.
You don't seem to have a strongsuit.


Since there are Catholics who do not share your resentments, there must be some other provenance. Something within you, perhaps?

 

[The Irish Ram]

1. In a recent thread, one of my usual opponents took the opportunity to explain how common sense is a far better guide to life than the Bible, as there are so many outdated ideas therein. Here, he explains: “…there are a whole bunch of Bible Rules you don't follow... You don't own slaves, stone your neighbors for working on the Sabbath, kill your gay neighbor, ask the town to help you stone your kids when they talk back, chop off body parts as punishment for crimes….I have a simpler approach. Does my action hurt someone? If not, there's nothing immoral about it. Does what you are doing effect me in any way? If not, it's none of my business. No sky pixies, no goofy verses about slaughtering animals to appease sky pixies, and so on.”

I'm glad you included my original statement, since you spend the next six paragraphs addressing just about everything else to avoid the point. .

2. The first thing that occurs to me, is that many with his views subscribe to views far more inimical to society. ‘The Left says of the Right, “You fools, it is demonstrable that dinosaurs lived one hundred million years ago, I can prove it to you, how can you say the earth was created in 4000BCE?” But this supposed intransigence on the part of the Religious Right is far less detrimental to the health of the body politic than the Left’s love affair with Marxism, Socialism, Racialism, the Command Economy, all of which have been proven via one hundred years of evidence shows only shortages, despotism and murder.’ David Mamet, “The Secret Knowledge.” a. So much for the idea that more intelligent folks oppose religion.

Nice quote for a stupid person... but what did that have to do with the original point about morality and religion? Incidently, ascribing everyone who thinks that the runaway crony corportism is a bad thing (demonstrated by the disaster that was 2008) is a Marxist is just lazy thinking. So your first crack at the topic, and you try to change the subject to something no one was actually discussing here.





Again, this wasn't the point. I know a lot of religious people who are nice folks, and a few athesists who are dicks. And vice versa. What did this have to do with my point?

The bible contains a lot of batshit insanity that the people of the time considered "MOral", but would get you thrown in prison today. So how can you claim the bible is the source of all morality.




I think you miss an important point here. Slavery can ONLY exist if society and law supports it. Otherwise, the slave could run away the first time he's asked to do something he doesn't like. Soceity for thousands of years condoned slavery.. until people- not religion, not a magic man in the sky- decided it was wrong.





No, murdering children is wrong because it harms a child and by extention his family. It's like you ignore my argument, or maybe you just didn't understand it.

"I have a simpler approach. Does my action hurt someone? If not, there's nothing immoral about it."

Wow. that was pretty simple, wasn't it? A moral standard that was pretty clear cut, without the need for a God.







Prager? Sowell? Can I give you a bit of advice. Expand your horizons, read opinions from both sides, and kind of make up your own mind.

the thing is, God did nothing about the Holocaust, and these were supposedly his "Chosen" people it was happening to. The people who carried out the Holocaust wore belt buckles that read "Gott Mit Uns" (God With Us) and God didn't object one little bit.

We are not a wonderful species. We are apes that like to eat meat and are a little too clever our own good. But believing in imaginary friends in the sky doesn't change that. And we are probably closer to that morality to day than the people who wrote the bible were.







Except this isn't really the case. Most of our common law and morality actually comes from the Pagans. Christianity itself is a weird melding of Judiasm, Zoroasterism and Greco-Roman theology that contains so many contradictions, you have had hundreds of years of people killing each other over whether wafers turn into Jesus or not.

a. What atheists who speak in terms of good and evil have done is appropriated religious dialogue for themselves. They have kidnapped our way of speaking and said what was rooted in God doesn't need God any longer. Can We Be Good without God

Only 2 billion of the world 7 billion people believe in the Christian God. Maybe three billion if you admit that Muslims worship the same God, but you guys don't go there. Most people are moral without that particular sky pixie. Most people would be moral with no sky pixies. Some people are immoral with them. God =/= Morality.

6. If there's no God - making ourselves the source of ethics for everybody, or declaring that nobody can be the source of ethics for anybody, and therefore morality is, again, purely subjective. Abortion may be legal, and a woman’s right….but this doesn’t it is ethically right. The Greeks believed in a version of same in which they placed deformed babies on the hillside. The reason I use the Greek example of ugly children is not because we do it today, but because they had reason on their side. Reason supports a lot of things, as for example, a very liberal position on abortion. If there is no God, "Love your neighbor as yourself" is just a good idea. That's why it is written, incidentally, in Leviticus, "Love your neighbor as yourself, I am God." I, God, tell you to be decent to other people.
Dennis Prager, a lecture.

The Greeks didn't expose ugly children, they exposed ones that were so deformed they weren't expected to live. Keep in mind, we are talking Iron Age medicine, and even up until the 18th century, the infant mortality rate was still pretty high.

People in that time period didn't get attached to babies the way we do today. It was too iffy of a proposition. Life in general was cheap in that time period, which is why the bible - which again, you argue is a source of "morality" - really didn't place a very high premium on it.

Ironically, for all your Ayn Randian spew, the Bible actually was more interested in the welfare of the tribe, which is why it proscribed such harsh punishments for things like marrying outside the tribe or disobedient children or even being gay.

The Greeks didn't expose ugly children, they exposed ones that were so deformed they weren't expected to live. Keep in mind, we are talking Iron Age medicine, and even up until the 18th century, the infant mortality rate was still pretty high.

Why refer to ancient Greece? Let's see what Godlessness is responsible for right now.
We kill 90% of Down Syndrome babies, as well as perfectly healthy babies that simply don't fit into our lifestyle at the moment. We slit their necks and crush their skulls. Greece's hillside is our trash can. We've come a long way relying on our own morality.

God does indeed care about His chosen people and will deal with the Holocaust horror. He will judge Germany. In His time, not yours. As for the Holocaust victims, they are safe and sound and sitting with their Father, and grandfather Abraham, absolutely dumbfounded that the Godless here on Earth are about to repeat the scenario.
But that is what happens when we rely on our own wisdom and goodness, instead of God's.

God's welfare is inclusive. He does what is best for the individual and the tribe, and the children and the gays.
Marriage to insure purity. As for disobedient children, read about the prodigal son. Luke 15:11-32 And He admonishes those that sin to preserve them.
God addressed everything necessary to protect our place in eternity.

It is when we stray from God's wisdom and rely on our own goodness that we get into trouble.
What would the Earth gain if we kept one single God given rule:
Love one another as I have loved you...........

 

[BecauseIKnow]

That's the holocaust victims?

Lmao what everyone else who was murdered?

 

[The Irish Ram]

Their deaths will also be avenged. By the God of Abraham.
And take heed, for those that have lost their heads to Muslim goodness, and political correctness, will also have their day.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

Their deaths will also be avenged. By the God of Abraham.
And take heed, for those that have lost their heads to Muslim goodness, and political correctness, will also have their day.

What about the Muslims murdered by American forces, Iraq for example, half a million civilians killed. Will the God of Abraham avenge them?

You seem to make like only jews can martyrs. Is that what a modern day American Christian is? Kissing jews asses?

Real middle eastern Christians don't do that.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Sure there is.

The question of whether someone is harmed is often in the eye of the beholder.
See item #4 in the OP.

No, actually, in most cases, it's fairly easy to figure out.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Or at least not as insane as murdering a new bride on her wedding night if she wasn't a virgin.

Which is EXACTLY the kind of batshit insanity you find in the bible.

This is the kind of willful blindness with which you excel.

1. The suggestion of killing one who perpetrates a deception was penned some 3000 years ago, in a very different culture and location.

2. I challenge you to find religious people today who follow that dictate.

There was no culture where that was really an acceptable sort of thing. It's a feature of a culture where women are property.

And, um, yeah, there are religious people today who follow that dictate. Maybe you need to look up "Honor Killings"... And they ain't limited to Mulsims.

[
3. On the other hand, secularists such as yourself support and intend to vote again for an individual who supports the killing of unwanted infants. That's today...not 3000 years ago.

And, yes, I can document same.

Fetuses aren't infants... no matter how much you want them to be.. Next.

[And, btw, the icon of your party, today...not 3000 years ago, is a rapist.

Really? Was he convicted of rape?

[
Takes the wind out of your sails, doesn't it.

a. Aside from cultural norms, which can change, values of 3000 years ago don't.
If you need a refresher, they are written in the Ten Commandments.

Not really. The first four are largely ignored today, because we have religious pluralism. You can also through out "Thou Shall Not Covet", because we have a whole economic system based on Covetting... The rules on adultery are largely ignored today. Most people have sex before they are married and half of married couples either get divorce and cheat...

So really, right off the bat, six of your commandments are largely ignored today.

But "Thou shall not Murder" is in there, so let's give the Hebrews credit for Western Civilization, even though there were shitloads of people Yahweh wanted killed.

[4. "I'm a product of Catholic Education, Which is why I hate religion with such a passion and hope for the day God goes the way of Zeus and Odin and every other useless fairy tale."

Logic is hardly your strongsuit, is it.
B doesn't follow from A.
You don't seem to have a strongsuit.

Since there are Catholics who do not share your resentments, there must be some other provenance. Something within you, perhaps?

Um, no, it means most of them are too stupid or too scared of what happens after they die to apply reason and logic.

I figured out Catholicism was full of shit when I was 11. Right after the nun said it was okay that God drowned every baby in the world because they were "WIIIIIIIICKED". I shit you not, this crazy old frustrated lesbian got up in front of a group of fifth graders and said this with a straight face.

 

[Gadawg73]

Their deaths will also be avenged. By the God of Abraham.
And take heed, for those that have lost their heads to Muslim goodness, and political correctness, will also have their day.

What about the Muslims murdered by American forces, Iraq for example, half a million civilians killed. Will the God of Abraham avenge them?

You seem to make like only jews can martyrs. Is that what a modern day American Christian is? Kissing jews asses?

Real middle eastern Christians don't do that.

Half a million civilians have not been killed by American forces in Iraq.
Try again.