Part of your Islamic Fundamentalist future

[Lincoln]

You have just as much evidence of love as Jack Chick does. Your "truth" means as much as his.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Lars was the culprit, so you can blame him for this path of discussion.

It was che that jacked the thread on this anoying tangent. I blame him.

[Lincoln]

Give Etheired a break. He only missed it by one post. Lars posted right after Che. I guess this is like who fired the first shot. We cannot let the one who returns fire off the hook either. And what is amazing about this thread is that I agree with Mr. Fun!

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lincoln
I said that you were sincere like he is. You are both firmly convinced that you have the truth and can ridicule others who do not see it your way.

Who did I ridicule on this thread? No one. Not even you and you call me things frequently. Like putting me in the same class as Jack Chick. Or your present claim seen below.

You are the most antichristian poster I have seen on this forum with one exception. I suppose that your motivation is love.

I am not anti-chrisitian. I simply am not a christian and don't see any reason besides inertia or wishfull thinking for anyone being a christian. I don't think wishfull thinking is a good reason. Even inertia is better.

You seem to think there is something awfull in my disagreeing with you on pretty much anything. Too bad. If you say something questionable like claiming the words of Jesus have been proven when they haven't I will point it out. If you want to pretend that it somehow constitutes hate towards christians when I point out your errors there is nothing I can do about except call you on it. Which is what I am doing.

I dare you to show one post of mine that shows hate towards christianity. Even one. I bet you think you can do it. I know you can't because I don't hate christianity.

[Dr Strangelove]

Just so that those who are getting a little lost at the shift in the focus of discussion on this thread, let me recap what's been said: The thread started out with a condemnation of a certain application of "Sharia" law in which a couple were being punished for kissing in public. The thread degenerated into a general condemnation of Islam, then "someone" jumped in with a condemnation of religion in general. Yours truly alluded to certain non-religious movements which have garnered a reputation for brutality and corruption over the years, then the discussion degerated into a general free for all.

Hope that helps. I'm always glad to be of service.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
It was che that jacked the thread on this anoying tangent. I blame him.

I have doubts about who is responsible so I blame Skanky.

[DinoDoc]

Always a good choice.

[Lincoln]

Thanks for the Bible lesson Etheired. You have given as much evidence as Jack Chick has for his views. You are on one extreme and he is on the other. I will leave you two to sort out your differences. If you don't hate then good for you. Neither does Jack Chick then. You accused of him of hate for telling what he sees as the truth. Now I turned the tables on you and you are offended. Why? Because you are just as convinced as he is that you have the truth. He says that he is not hateful either. Maybe you are both right but you are both in the same boat.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
It was che that jacked the thread on this anoying tangent. I blame him.

OK. Maybe Lars was responding to something Che said. It was Lars that stood out in my mind.

What Che said was

I am getting tired of the "that's not really Islam" ****. Yes it is. Just as much as the Jerry Falwell's and the Torquemada's are really Christian.A religion is not defined by a particular (and happy liberal) subset of the religion, but by all the variations of it. Christianity is both a wonderful liberating force in people's lives, and a barbaric, murdereous force. Islam is the same. Judaism is the same. Hinduism is the same. And so on.

All religion is equally invalid.

I don't think that is quite a thread jack. Maybe the last line counts as one. The rest was simply an example based on history.

I think it was this line that sent the thread into another direction.

Lars:

It's absolute nonsense saying that a christian theocracy or government would impose sharia-like laws.

Its the line I was thinking of. It certainly flew in the face of historical reality and deserved to be rebutted.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lincoln
You have just as much evidence of love as Jack Chick does. Your "truth" means as much as his.

I never claimed love. I only said I didn't hate. You are still trying to put me at Jack Chick's level. That is pretty hatefull right there. Not much love in your action now is there?

[Lincoln]

Meanwhile the theadjack marches on...

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Yours truly alluded to certain non-religious movements which have garnered a reputation for brutality and corruption over the years, then the discussion degerated into a general free for all.

Hope that helps. I'm always glad to be of service.

Thank you for that concise and accurate recap.

Wether it helps or not is another question. Off topic threads wander. Especially ones involving either religion or government and this one has both.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Ethelred


I never claimed love. I only said I didn't hate. You are still trying to put me at Jack Chick's level. That is pretty hatefull right there. Not much love in your action now is there?

I don't think that telling the truth is being hateful unless it is done with a hateful motive. What evidence do you have that Jack Chick is motivated by hate? He is firmly convinced that the truth is on his side as are you. Like I said in the previous post, maybe neither one of you are hateful but you are in the same boat.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Thanks for the Bible lesson Etheired. You have given as much evidence as Jack Chick has for his views.

Far more then he or you but in other threads. I don't see you justifying your claim of proof. Instead you resorted to this ad-hominym attack. Which is becoming standard for you. You didn't used to do this. You used to actually try to discuss the issues.

You are on one extreme and he is on the other. I will leave you two to sort out your differences. If you don't hate then good for you. Neither does Jack Chick then.

Except that Jack clearly does hate and you can't show hate on my part. You do this all the time lately. Instead of dealing with what I said you attack me as a person.

You accused of him of hate for telling what he sees as the truth. Now I turned the tables on you and you are offended. Why?

Because he clearly does hate. His comics drip with hate and loads of falsehoods, inuendo, strawmen, and just plain lies.

Because you are just as convinced as he is that you have the truth. He says that he is not hateful either. Maybe you are both right but you are both in the same boat.

I am waiting for you to back up that claim of hate on my part. I dare you again. Show it. Or back off and drop this evasive tactic you have engaged in. You had no answer for what I said so you accused me of hate.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Meanwhile the theadjack marches on...

Yes you are still doing it. You have turned the thread into a personal attack.