A Day Without Sharia

[Kidlicious]

Okay, so you concede the 0 for 178, and now want to argue that "terrorist attacks create a motivation for protests?" What protests are we talking about? Protests against terrorism? Of course terrorist attacks create a motivation to protest terrorist attacks! For any X, "Xist attacks create a motivation to protest against Xist attacks." It is a tautology. But I'll bet you thought you were clever to have thought of it. The thought that you actually thought a tautology was clever wouldn't be alarming if you didn't act like this every day.

Dude, what the hell?! If white supremacists committed a terrorist attack would you be telling people not to protest white supremacy?

Other than that I have no idea how to get through to you.

[Dinner]

Don't you do the same if you call christianity a religion of peace, despite the millions of people killed by christians?

The big difference, which you are deliberately ignoring, is that Jesus never instructed his followers to kill anyone (quite the opposite) where are the illiterate goat **** explicitly ordered his followers tokill people.

[rah]

This is exactly what rah/Ming would say so

Feel free to post anything that we've said that indicate that we would say that.

Just more made up crap from you. Do you even know any real facts or is it just one big fantasy land for you?

But then you do get your truths from breitbart.

[Berzerker]

Where does Jesus say that? Or is this just you telling us what Jesus actually meant, because you knew him and talked to him about what he meant?

Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn

‘A man against his father,

a daughter against her mother,

a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.

A man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

Anyone who loves his father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me; and anyone who does not take up his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.

He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives the One who sent Me. Whoever receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and whoever receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man’s reward. And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is My disciple, truly I tell you, he will never lose his reward.

As you can see Jesus is warning his followers embracing his message will come with a cost, they will have enemies from even among what were family and friends. The 'sword' was a metaphorical cleaving of relationships, Muhammad's wasn't a metaphor, it was real and he slaughtered people. Jesus didn't... How do you compare the two with a straight face?

[Kidlicious]

Feel free to post anything that we've said that indicate that we would say that.

Just more made up crap from you. Do you even know any real facts or is it just one big fantasy land for you?

But then you do get your truths from breitbart.

I don't read Breitbart that much, but at least I don't trust MSM like you.

[Proteus_MST]

The big difference, which you are deliberately ignoring, is that Jesus never instructed his followers to kill anyone (quite the opposite) where are the illiterate goat **** explicitly ordered his followers tokill people.

I am sure this wouldn't be much of a comfort for a Cathar in the 20s/30s of the 13th century ... or of any of the thousands of people who were first tortured (in order to enforce confessions) and then burnt on pyres for allegedly commiting witchcraft, havng Sex with succubi or incubi or cnspiring with Satanas in other ways

Religion is made up by he followers of the religion (at their time). Not b their founders..

That is why you also have buddhists ho wage wars and commit acts of terror (despite Siddharta Gautama after his elightenment becoming a pacifist who definitely wouldn't have condoned of such things) and also why you have a split of muslims into Shia and Sunni (and a lot of smaller sects), which partially wage war upon / persecute each other, despite surely Muhammed would have liked his muslim movement to stay united.
.
I am sure that Rabbi Yeshua also woudn't be all too fond of the developments the christian branch of Judaism took after his death

[Kidlicious]

That's why you will always be a Nazi to me Proteus.

[Proteus_MST]

My opinion that religions are defined by theri followers are justification for you, that I am a Nazi.

Could you please enlighten me, ideally in a logical way, what deductions lead you to this conclusion?

[grumbler]

The big difference, which you are deliberately ignoring, is that Jesus never instructed his followers to kill anyone (quite the opposite) where are the illiterate goat **** explicitly ordered his followers tokill people.

"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"
Samuel 13:3

Jesus's dad did. Don't Christians believe in their Old Testament?

[grumbler]

Dude, what the hell?! If white supremacists committed a terrorist attack would you be telling people not to protest white supremacy?

Other than that I have no idea how to get through to you.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here, given that it is the exact opposite of what I wrote and you quoted. If you need help understanding the big words I use, just ask.

[grumbler]

As you can see Jesus is warning his followers embracing his message will come with a cost, they will have enemies from even among what were family and friends. The 'sword' was a metaphorical cleaving of relationships, Muhammad's wasn't a metaphor, it was real and he slaughtered people. Jesus didn't... How do you compare the two with a straight face?

Jesus was saying that his movement was going to cause violence. The argument that "a sword" is just a metaphor for cleaving relationships is unpersuasive. You don't cleave things in the everyday life of Jesus's time with a sword. A sword is a very specific instrument, that would not be seen metaphorically by the common man as a cleaver.

I am not comparing anyone when I note that even Jesus used violent imagery. That is entirely your idea.

[grumbler]

I am sure this wouldn't be much of a comfort for a Cathar in the 20s/30s of the 13th century ... or of any of the thousands of people who were first tortured (in order to enforce confessions) and then burnt on pyres for allegedly commiting witchcraft, havng Sex with succubi or incubi or cnspiring with Satanas in other ways

Religion is made up by he followers of the religion (at their time). Not b their founders..

That is why you also have buddhists ho wage wars and commit acts of terror (despite Siddharta Gautama after his elightenment becoming a pacifist who definitely wouldn't have condoned of such things) and also why you have a split of muslims into Shia and Sunni (and a lot of smaller sects), which partially wage war upon / persecute each other, despite surely Muhammed would have liked his muslim movement to stay united.
.
I am sure that Rabbi Yeshua also woudn't be all too fond of the developments the christian branch of Judaism took after his death

That is my point as well. There aren't "religions of peace" and "religions of violence," there are religious followers of peace and religious followers of violence.

[Kidlicious]

My opinion that religions are defined by theri followers are justification for you, that I am a Nazi.

Could you please enlighten me, ideally in a logical way, what deductions lead you to this conclusion?

Do you know what a "follower" is? A disciple? Christ is he who defines what Christianity is.

At any rate you are defining Christianity by what Christians did thousands of years ago so I define Germans by what they did just a short time ago,

[Kidlicious]

Jesus was saying that his movement was going to cause violence. The argument that "a sword" is just a metaphor for cleaving relationships is unpersuasive. You don't cleave things in the everyday life of Jesus's time with a sword. A sword is a very specific instrument, that would not be seen metaphorically by the common man as a cleaver.

I am not comparing anyone when I note that even Jesus used violent imagery. That is entirely your idea.

Do you believe Gandhi advocated violence?

I expect you to not understand my point.

[Kidlicious]

That is my point as well. There aren't "religions of peace" and "religions of violence," there are religious followers of peace and religious followers of violence.

And some white supremacists are non-violent.