Ban on Christians? Where's trump?

[Kondor3]

...We agree that you are wrong and don't have a good grasp of history is what we agree on.

Funny stuff... I would not have disrespected you in this fashion, but... so be it... doesn't really matter, anyway, I suppose...

 

[Kondor3]

If Christian clerics said any such thing, it was in direct contravention to the Core Teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

Then again, I don't recall Jesus of Nazareth sexually molesting little girls, nor founding a Warrior Religion by plagiarizing others, nor calling for the conquest of the world by force of arms in the name of the godhead, nor of advocating death to Unbelievers, nor promising Paradise to those who died fighting for him against their fellow Man.

Muslims are a far bigger threat to The West in our present age than Christians or Jews or Buddhists et al.

Leviticus says homosexuals should be killed.

When was the last time that you saw a Christian nation-state execute a homosexual?

When was the last time that you saw a Muslim nation-state execute a homosexual?

Your Honor... the Defense rests.

 

[Coyote]

If Christian clerics said any such thing, it was in direct contravention to the Core Teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

Then again, I don't recall Jesus of Nazareth sexually molesting little girls, nor founding a Warrior Religion by plagiarizing others, nor calling for the conquest of the world by force of arms in the name of the godhead, nor of advocating death to Unbelievers.

Jesus did not. The Templars and the Hospitalers etc certainly did use force of arms on all Muslims. Study the siege of Malta. The Christians started off each morning hanging a Muslim (a peasant, a girl, a child, a prisoner) from the highest point of the defense lines.

Oh, hell, I"m quite willing to concede that over the centuries, so-called Christians have done even greater Evil, and on a larger scale, than Muslims.

But when Christians do such things, they do them in direct contravention to the teachings of their Founder - and those teachings are like water on a fire.

On the other hand, then Muslims do such things, they do them in direct obedience to the teachings of their Founder - and those teachings are like gasoline on a fire.

The audience can judge for themselves which belief system is more conducive to peace - either historically, or in our present age, or going forward.

Or maybe NOT. Those teachings also contain considerable material restricting the use of violence, calling for tolerance, and encouraging peaceful relations. Extremists ignore it. So do those who cherry pick out the bad bits and hold them up as examples.

Historically - both religions have had peaceful periods, and periods of conflict so it can be said they CAN both be conducive to peace, and used to promote conflict.

 

[Kosh]

If Christian clerics said any such thing, it was in direct contravention to the Core Teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

Then again, I don't recall Jesus of Nazareth sexually molesting little girls, nor founding a Warrior Religion by plagiarizing others, nor calling for the conquest of the world by force of arms in the name of the godhead, nor of advocating death to Unbelievers.

Jesus did not. The Templars and the Hospitalers etc certainly did use force of arms on all Muslims. Study the siege of Malta. The Christians started off each morning hanging a Muslim (a peasant, a girl, a child, a prisoner) from the highest point of the defense lines.

Oh, hell, I"m quite willing to concede that over the centuries, so-called Christians have done even greater Evil, and on a larger scale, than Muslims.

But when Christians do such things, they do them in direct contravention to the teachings of their Founder - and those teachings are like water on a fire.

On the other hand, then Muslims do such things, they do them in direct obedience to the teachings of their Founder - and those teachings are like gasoline on a fire.

The audience can judge for themselves which belief system is more conducive to peace - either historically, or in our present age, or going forward.

Or maybe NOT. Those teachings also contain considerable material restricting the use of violence, calling for tolerance, and encouraging peaceful relations. Extremists ignore it. So do those who cherry pick out the bad bits and hold them up as examples.

Historically - both religions have had peaceful periods, and periods of conflict so it can be said they CAN both be conducive to peace, and used to promote conflict.

Another far left drone that doe snot understand history or anything beyond far left religious dogma.

"164 Jihad Verses in the Koran -- Passages in the Quran about Islamic Holy War" compiled by Yoel Natan

I have asked many times for the far left drones to show how any other religions compares or is the same, yet none can!

 

[Coyote]

If Christian clerics said any such thing, it was in direct contravention to the Core Teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

Then again, I don't recall Jesus of Nazareth sexually molesting little girls, nor founding a Warrior Religion by plagiarizing others, nor calling for the conquest of the world by force of arms in the name of the godhead, nor of advocating death to Unbelievers.

Jesus did not. The Templars and the Hospitalers etc certainly did use force of arms on all Muslims. Study the siege of Malta. The Christians started off each morning hanging a Muslim (a peasant, a girl, a child, a prisoner) from the highest point of the defense lines.

Oh, hell, I"m quite willing to concede that over the centuries, so-called Christians have done even greater Evil, and on a larger scale, than Muslims.

But when Christians do such things, they do them in direct contravention to the teachings of their Founder - and those teachings are like water on a fire.

On the other hand, then Muslims do such things, they do them in direct obedience to the teachings of their Founder - and those teachings are like gasoline on a fire.

The audience can judge for themselves which belief system is more conducive to peace - either historically, or in our present age, or going forward.

Or maybe NOT. Those teachings also contain considerable material restricting the use of violence, calling for tolerance, and encouraging peaceful relations. Extremists ignore it. So do those who cherry pick out the bad bits and hold them up as examples.

Historically - both religions have had peaceful periods, and periods of conflict so it can be said they CAN both be conducive to peace, and used to promote conflict.

Another far left drone that doe snot understand history or anything beyond far left religious dogma.

"164 Jihad Verses in the Koran -- Passages in the Quran about Islamic Holy War" compiled by Yoel Natan

I have asked many times for the far left drones to show how any other religions compares or is the same, yet none can!

Thanks for providing an excellent example of cherry-picking

Is The Bible More Violent Than The Quran?

 

[Kondor3]

If Christian clerics said any such thing, it was in direct contravention to the Core Teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

Then again, I don't recall Jesus of Nazareth sexually molesting little girls, nor founding a Warrior Religion by plagiarizing others, nor calling for the conquest of the world by force of arms in the name of the godhead, nor of advocating death to Unbelievers.

Jesus did not. The Templars and the Hospitalers etc certainly did use force of arms on all Muslims. Study the siege of Malta. The Christians started off each morning hanging a Muslim (a peasant, a girl, a child, a prisoner) from the highest point of the defense lines.

Oh, hell, I"m quite willing to concede that over the centuries, so-called Christians have done even greater Evil, and on a larger scale, than Muslims.

But when Christians do such things, they do them in direct contravention to the teachings of their Founder - and those teachings are like water on a fire.

On the other hand, then Muslims do such things, they do them in direct obedience to the teachings of their Founder - and those teachings are like gasoline on a fire.

The audience can judge for themselves which belief system is more conducive to peace - either historically, or in our present age, or going forward.

Or maybe NOT. Those teachings also contain considerable material restricting the use of violence, calling for tolerance, and encouraging peaceful relations. Extremists ignore it. So do those who cherry pick out the bad bits and hold them up as examples.

Historically - both religions have had peaceful periods, and periods of conflict so it can be said they CAN both be conducive to peace, and used to promote conflict.

..."restricting the use of violence..."

Not forbidding it altogether...

Just "restricting" it...

Too many loopholes...

Not good enough...

 

[Kosh]

If Christian clerics said any such thing, it was in direct contravention to the Core Teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

Then again, I don't recall Jesus of Nazareth sexually molesting little girls, nor founding a Warrior Religion by plagiarizing others, nor calling for the conquest of the world by force of arms in the name of the godhead, nor of advocating death to Unbelievers.

Jesus did not. The Templars and the Hospitalers etc certainly did use force of arms on all Muslims. Study the siege of Malta. The Christians started off each morning hanging a Muslim (a peasant, a girl, a child, a prisoner) from the highest point of the defense lines.

Oh, hell, I"m quite willing to concede that over the centuries, so-called Christians have done even greater Evil, and on a larger scale, than Muslims.

But when Christians do such things, they do them in direct contravention to the teachings of their Founder - and those teachings are like water on a fire.

On the other hand, then Muslims do such things, they do them in direct obedience to the teachings of their Founder - and those teachings are like gasoline on a fire.

The audience can judge for themselves which belief system is more conducive to peace - either historically, or in our present age, or going forward.

Or maybe NOT. Those teachings also contain considerable material restricting the use of violence, calling for tolerance, and encouraging peaceful relations. Extremists ignore it. So do those who cherry pick out the bad bits and hold them up as examples.

Historically - both religions have had peaceful periods, and periods of conflict so it can be said they CAN both be conducive to peace, and used to promote conflict.

Another far left drone that doe snot understand history or anything beyond far left religious dogma.

"164 Jihad Verses in the Koran -- Passages in the Quran about Islamic Holy War" compiled by Yoel Natan

I have asked many times for the far left drones to show how any other religions compares or is the same, yet none can!

Thanks for providing an excellent example of cherry-picking

Says the far left drone that can not prove their comments!

 

[whitehall]

An entire region? Isn't it reasonable that the U.S. protect it's own people by stopping the unrestricted immigration of people from areas of the world that foster terrorism until we sort it out? What the hell is wrong with the left? Are they suicidal?

 

[IndependantAce]

[QUOTE="IsaacNewton, post: 14512063, member: 54906
[/quote]
But any normal human being watching the news when they run the picture and age of each victim you don't see any of these people as anything but people that are gone.[/QUOTE]
To an atheist it doesn't matter if they're gone, since people are just animals no more significant than a mosquito. An atheist has no reason to believe what he did was immoral to begin with.

 

[IndependantAce]

So much for all that crap about Christians not supporting this kind of thing.

lol, I think I said the other day this tragedy was a huge uncomfortable dilemma for RW'ers...

...someone from one group they hate murders people from another group they hate.

Who do we condemn!? Who do we defend!? waaaaaa...there's no one here to root for...what are we to do?

You can see the various fake kristians having a tough time with this.

But any normal human being watching the news when they run the picture and age of each victim you don't see any of these people as anything but people that are gone.

An atheist has no reason to have any moral problem with this, since according to them a human life is no more significant than that of an insect. And more humans can simply be repopulated just like rabbits breading, so no loss whatsoever.

If anything atheists should support the killer for being more in touch with his primitive animal instinct, like atheist icon Marquis de Sade would have, if they were remotely consistent.

Hell, if the victims had been in their mothers' wombs one day before delivery atheists and progressives would have been cheering for joy at their murders as a victory for "women's rights".

 

[JakeStarkey]

IndependentAce is far less moral than an atheist.

 

[IsaacNewton]

[QUOTE="IsaacNewton, post: 14512063, member: 54906

But any normal human being watching the news when they run the picture and age of each victim you don't see any of these people as anything but people that are gone.[/QUOTE]
To an atheist it doesn't matter if they're gone, since people are just animals no more significant than a mosquito. An atheist has no reason to believe what he did was immoral to begin with.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry for you, really. You live in a world that doesn't exist.

wtf is wrong with you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

IA mistakes himself for Jesus is the issue.

Many of those who call themselves Christians have this problem.

They don't have to think critically.

 

[IndependantAce]

[QUOTE="IsaacNewton, post: 14512063, member: 54906

But any normal human being watching the news when they run the picture and age of each victim you don't see any of these people as anything but people that are gone.

To an atheist it doesn't matter if they're gone, since people are just animals no more significant than a mosquito. An atheist has no reason to believe what he did was immoral to begin with.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry for you, really. You live in a world that doesn't exist.

wtf is wrong with you.[/QUOTE]
If these people had killed 1 second before they exited the mother's womb, progressives would be cheering it.

 

[IndependantAce]

IndependentAce is far less moral than an atheist.

But there is no such thing as "atheist morality'

 

[JakeStarkey]

IndependentAce is far less moral than an atheist.

But there is no such thing as "atheist morality'

Of course there is. You demonstrate you have none when you say others cannot. Such a foolish person you have become.

 

[IsaacNewton]

IndependentAce is far less moral than an atheist.

But there is no such thing as "atheist morality'

You believe in absolutes that don't exist. There is no way to have a normal coherent discussion with you so flame on.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is merely a silly opinion: Muslims do such things, they do them in direct obedience to the teachings of their Founder - and those teachings are like gasoline on a fire.

That's because you lack the objectivity to recognize the truth of the observation... not my problem.

Your objection is fale is the problem, you know it, and you lie about it.