Shooting in San Bernadino, California

Boy, you LOVE going to that drone strike well, don't you? Do you know that those were designed specifically to REDUCE civilian casualties, as opposed to the thousands who would die using old techniques? Shall we go back to those? Or hey, maybe we should just let these high value targets run free, aided and abetted most of the time by the local government? Or maybe we should accept that war is messy, and it fucking sucks?
Because thats the only fucking strategy being deployed and its not fucking working at all. And that doesnt mean you go back to the dumbass ways of before (i.e Vietnam) or other ways that have failed previously. It means lets develop a new strategy. If that means we put troops in on the ground so be it, they knew what they were signing up for.

Probably because he wasn't a religious person, and hadn't discussed pro life views with anyone he knew prior to the incident.
Part of me finds it hard to believe, but that might have to do with the fact that my trust in modern journalism is at an all time low due to matters entirely seperate to this issue
 
It means lets develop a new strategy. If that means we put troops in on the ground so be it, they knew what they were signing up for.

Other than the callousness of this, I will say that's one of the old strategies I was reffering to. Drones don't have feelings, cant get shell shocked, don't rape anyone, etc. Collateral damage is part of war. Drone strikes mitigate them greatly.



Part of me finds it hard to believe, but that might have to do with the fact that my trust in modern journalism is at an all time low due to matters entirely seperate to this issue

Well they were direct quotes from people who knew him. Disappointing, I know.
 
Ok. I meant the 99% of non Muslims that DON'T study Islam for a living. Like everybody on this site. The ones that search up "violent Quran passages" on google and than post it on a forum like they're proving some magnificent point or argue that "Islam stands for violence" with little reasoning to back up the claim. Don't necessarily understand how one can become an "expert" on a specific religion seeing as religion means something different to everybody, but if they are knowledgeable of the Quran, than by all means the names you mentioned have a right to an informed opinion.

Studying it for a living would just make them theologians, historians, etc. People who are paid to do so. That doesn’t make them any more or less credible than someone who isn’t paid to do so, provided they have an equal understanding of the texts, or the religion, or the region, or the history, etc. You’re basically playing one giant appeal to authority game.

Everyone has a right to an opinion, informed or uninformed. Not everyone has the right to actually be right in their opinion, informed or uninformed. The more uninformed, the more likely it is your opinion will be wrong.

I’m not a historian, or a theologian, or a writer or a philosopher, etc. Do I have no right to speak about the influence of Islam, or religion because I was never a Muslim? Because again, this harkens back to what I just said above — that allowing religious leaders, or even the religious themselves to be the only ones allowed to speak about their beliefs leads to ignorance. You are creating a protected bubble around people who can potentially harbor pernicious thinking that can lead to real harm, all in the name of what — not wanting to be offended? Or not wanting to offend someone else?

Sorry, but that’s not good enough. Whether you are offended by that opinion or not.

All I'm saying is, that if a Muslim or a Buddhist came up to me and told me what it means to be a good Christian from a literal interpretation of the bible, I would tell them to shut the hell up. I imagine it's much the same with Muslims and all the "analysis" of their religion they must endure by a majority of people who have very little understanding of it.

And you’d probably have your head cut off for it if you did so in Syria. Because many of the Muslims in that nation, or in Egypt, or other fundamentalist Islamic countries believe in things like Sharia law, and believe in blasphemy laws and similar constructs that prohibit their religious positions from being questioned or challenged in any way.

But hey, we don’t want to offend their beliefs though, right? I mean, clearly their “culture” is more important than you being harmed for saying anything they don’t agree with, right?
 
So its the only thing relevant to our discussion?

How is it the only thing relevant to our discussion? My point is that an entire community shouldn't be called on to defend their community due to the actions of someone they don't identify as part of their community. Therefore, any time an entire community is called on to defend their community after an unassociated member of their community commits a crime, it it relavent to this discussion.




Inner city violent crime is not even close to the same realm of what we are discussing here. Im sure the next time some black person goes on a robbery spree and then charges a cop in a cybernetic samurai suit and gets shot over it, we will be jumping back into that can of worms, were no one other than white people can be held accountable at all for any of their own willful decisions

I don't understand what point you're trying to make here, but it reads like you're saying only white people feel they are responsible for their actions, which I know isn't what you meant so I'm going to skip that part.

I'm not comparing inner city crime to terrorism because I'm not in this thread to talk about terrorism or gun control or whatever at this point. I'm just here to talk about how I think it's dumb that when a person that is associated with a religious/racial/cultural/ethnic/national group, people who don't have anything to do with that person are called on to defend the group as a whole. It would be like blaming all filmmakers because every year there's like, 100 bad movies released. You don't expect filmmakers to come out and say, "Oh, it's only a few bad filmmakers who make that shit," because that's obvious.

????? Care to elaborate?

Just didn't expect you to have that viewpoint. Didn't mean anything positive or negative by it.
 
It shouldn't surprise if you think about it.

I side with the truth, regardless of how uncomfortable it might be.

There are certainly a large number of people in the world who act that way. I'd like to think it isn't most religious people, but between the crazy shit you hear Christians say in America and the state of Arab countries and Islamic countries in Africa and parts of Asia, it's certainly plausible that it's a majority.
 
There are certainly a large number of people in the world who act that way. I'd like to think it isn't most religious people, but between the crazy shit you hear Christians say in America and the state of Arab countries and Islamic countries in Africa and parts of Asia, it's certainly plausible that it's a majority.

Ive spoken to many people from many places of all the major faiths

I can say with deep confidence that 95% of people fall into those categories I laid out. 5% truly seek to learn, to ask questions, to become closer to whom they think is their creator.
 
Muslims shouldn't have to account for the Islamic State. But they have to acknowledge that they are also Muslims. They're simply literal ones. Ones who take the scripture literally. As a moderate, you can call them extremist, so as to divorce them from the version of the faith you believe, but you can't say they aren't Muslim. They are. They're just following the letter of the law while you follow the spirit of it.
 
Other than the callousness of this, I will say that's one of the old strategies I was reffering to. Drones don't have feelings, cant get shell shocked, don't rape anyone, etc. Collateral damage is part of war. Drone strikes mitigate them greatly.

When the people launching the missiles cannot see what they are aiming at due to technical failure and they hit a hospital instead surely the tactic has to be reviewed. You can have drones, but you need to be 100% on what you are hitting, who you are hitting and why you are hitting them. Plus you'd wanna be able to prove you were right.

Well they were direct quotes from people who knew him. Disappointing, I know.
Thats nice. Merely for the sake of being a prick, is it possible that he just kept his faith private. You know like you are meant to. It says so in the bible does it not?

And to go back to your point about racially profiling him, i didnt. I actually never referred to him as a white, black, asian, african, etc. I also said I cant say he's definitely a christian. However I will admit I implied it. It wasnt based on race though. He was pro-life, religous people are the segment of society most commonly associated with this stance, the average religous american man would be christian of some sort. I also accounted for the fact that if he was muslim, threads like this would have likely been taking place a little earlier.
 
Yes, he was.

"I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work."

— Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."

— Adolf Hitler

"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith. . . we need believing people."

— Hitler, April 26, 1933, during negotiations which led to the Nazi-Vatican Concordat of 1933.

"Embued with the desire to secure for the German people the great religious, moral, and cultural values rooted in the two Christian Confessions, we have abolished the political organizations but strengthened the religious institutions."

— Adolf Hitler, speaking in the Reichstag on Jan. 30, 1934

"We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."

— Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on Oct. 24, 1933

--

He wasn't just Christian, he was Catholic, and in bed with the Roman Catholic Church, whose associations with Nazi Germany are a stain on their history and something many in the RCC have apologized for after-the-fact for decades.
 
1. There are plenty of Bible verses that talk about the evils fake Christians will bring. Such as...

"For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds." - 2 Corinthians 11:13-15

2. The Bible teaches Christians to view Jewish people as God's chosen people. Anyone who is Anti-Semitic is not a true Christian.

3. A lot of Christians view Catholicism as a completely different religion. There are TONS of differences. But to even say Hitler was a Catholic is an insult. Just because the asshole claimed to be one doesn't make it such. Can I claim to be a scientist because I passed Physical Science, Biology, Earth Science, and Chemistry in high school?
 
1. There are plenty of Bible verses that talk about the evils fake Christians will bring. Such as...



2. The Bible teaches Christians to view Jewish people as God's chosen people. Anyone who is Anti-Semitic is not a true Christian.

3. A lot of Christians view Catholicism as a completely different religion. There are TONS of differences. But to even say Hitler was a Catholic is an insult. Just because the asshole claimed to be one doesn't make it such. Can I claim to be a scientist because I passed Physical Science, Biology, Earth Science, and Chemistry in high school?

Isn't this a similar argument that a lot of Muslims are making right now?
 
Yeah, "prophecy" isn't a negation of the fact he was a Christian, and neither is the No True Scotsman fallacy for that matter.

Much like moderate Muslims don't have to make excuses for the actions of ISIL, they do have to acknowledge that they are in fact Islamic. Just as Hitler was Catholic/Christian.

Hitler believed himself to be a prophet acting in accordance with Catholic/Christian teachings, sent from God to lead the chosen people — the Aryan race — to glory. You can hate what he stood for, but you don't get to label him "not a Christian" after the fact, simply because you disagree with his particular justifications.

All that does is set up a never-ending, circular argument as to who is or isn't true. To Hitler, you aren't true. To you, he isn't. So who is actually right?

For my money, I've always said the most true believers are those who follow the tenets of their faith to the letter of the law, not the spirit. But the most liberal, moderate believers of religion tend to be less true, and that's a good thing. They take the religion far less seriously, which means they often won't die or kill for it.

And yes, you can call yourself a scientist so long as you abide by the scientific method to determine your theories and findings, and the more you write about them, the more compelling your research, and the more you submit it for peer review, the better respected your scientific opinions would be.
 
Hitler believed himself to be a prophet acting in accordance with Catholic/Christian teachings, sent from God to lead the chosen people — the Aryan race — to glory.

But can you point out those teachings in the Bible? With the Quran, I can point out where ISIS gets their messed up ideologies, but what verses in the Bible can you point to and say, "This is what influenced Hitler's actions"?
 
I have no idea what exactly influenced Hitler's actions. All I know is he believed himself to be acting in accordance with commandments from "the Creator", and that he was a Catholic. That makes him Christian. He was also evil, but still Christian. Let's not pretend being Christian makes one exempt from being evil. Kim Davis, anyone? Joseph Kony?

Finding specific verses in the Bible similar to the Koran that call for war, or prescribe violence isn't difficult. Read the Old Testament again. Like Mohammed's Koran, it's basically a call for war. Just be thankful your ancestors weren't Hittites, or Canaanites.

This is why both Christianity and Islam have such bloody pasts. In the case of Islam, it's not yet reached the age of Enlightenment.
 
Judaism, Islam and Christianity are basically the same thing. In the same way that lutherans and anglicans are variations on christianity, Muslim Jews & Christians all just had a disagreement over the structure of faith or disagreement over the message God gave an individual.

Although that is a very very basic summarisation of thousand of years
 
Judaism, Islam and Christianity are basically the same thing. In the same way that lutherans and anglicans are variations on christianity, Muslim Jews & Christians all just had a disagreement over the structure of faith or disagreement over the message God gave an individual.

Although that is a very very basic summarisation of thousand of years
Abraham the father of Judaism had 2 sons.

Ishmael his first born with his wife's maid got the same promise Abraham did in that God told him that he would be the father of many nations. From Ishmael we get Islam.

Through his 2nd son Issac (The son of promise) we get not only Judaism but Christianity as well because Christ is a decedent of Abraham.
 
3. A lot of Christians view Catholicism as a completely different religion.
No offense intended to you, but anyone who doesn't think Catholics are Christian is just downright stupid. It is not a completely different religion. In fact, the argument could more appropriately be made that anyone who is not Catholic is not Christian, since most Protestant denominations are offshoots of Catholicism, not the other way around.

The idea that Catholics are not Christian is simply stupid.

There are TONS of differences.
There are tons of differences between Mountain Dew and Dr. Pepper, but we still call both of them soda.
 
I have no idea what exactly influenced Hitler's actions. All I know is he believed himself to be acting in accordance with commandments from "the Creator", and that he was a Catholic. That makes him Christian. He was also evil, but still Christian. Let's not pretend being Christian makes one exempt from being evil. Kim Davis, anyone? Joseph Kony?

Finding specific verses in the Bible similar to the Koran that call for war, or prescribe violence isn't difficult. Read the Old Testament again. Like Mohammed's Koran, it's basically a call for war. Just be thankful your ancestors weren't Hittites, or Canaanites.

This is why both Christianity and Islam have such bloody pasts. In the case of Islam, it's not yet reached the age of Enlightenment.

Kim Davis is evil? She's misguided surely, but you're limping her with Kony and Hitler.
 
Kim Davis is evil? She's misguided surely, but you're limping her with Kony and Hitler.

I believe her behavior is evil, yes. Similar to how the behavior of Fred Phelps is evil. He too is not nearly as egregious as Hitler or Kony, but if we're plotting all these folks on a spectrum, they all make hits within the range. Kony and Hitler at the top of it for being murderous, and Davis and Phelps near the bottom of it for still supporting and acting in an evil manner.
 
Every morning before they go off to school I like to kiss my little ones the forehead, give them both a big hug and let them know that they are not as evil as Hitler.
 
No offense intended to you, but anyone who doesn't think Catholics are Christian is just downright stupid. It is not a completely different religion. In fact, the argument could more appropriately be made that anyone who is not Catholic is not Christian, since most Protestant denominations are offshoots of Catholicism, not the other way around.

The idea that Catholics are not Christian is simply stupid.

No offense taken.

I get what you are saying, and while I'm sure there are plenty of things you can point to that says they're the same as Christians, there are also things that point to them not being Christian. For example the infallibility of certain men, ala Popes and Priests; their version of Baptism; the Church forgiving sins; the Virgin Mary being a part of the Trinity; the Sacraments; etc. etc.

So can you see or at least understand why some people do not view them as what they identify with as Christian? To me it's no different than someone claiming Mormons shouldn't be linked with Christians. I understand Catholicism was around first, but it's still vastly different from the Protestant denominations. Just because something came first doesn't mean they got it right.

There are tons of differences between Mountain Dew and Dr. Pepper, but we still call both of them soda.

I view soda in your analogy here as religion, not Christianity. Christianity and Catholicism are different religions with some similarities, but still very different.

I was raised Catholic, btw. Then as a teenager I started going to a Christian church. They're two different Worlds.
 
What do you mean by a 'Christian Church'?

The Catholic church is a Christian church.

'Christian' is the umbrella term; Catholic, Protestant etc. are the denominations. To say that Catholicism and Christianity are separate is factually incorrect.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,826
Messages
3,300,732
Members
21,726
Latest member
chrisxenforo
Back
Top