The way Christians terrorize

[DMC]

Philo, fundamental Christianity has nothing to do with the legal system. It wasn't their legal system in the time of Christ, for Christ's sake.

You misunderstand fundamentalism. It's not just the time when the clergy ruled the laity. One person can be a fundamentalist. Your narrow definition is more akin to an escape hatch for you than a true caveat.

So you said fundamental islam is the worst. When a belief is practiced fundamentally, it's practiced at its true core, and Muslims purport to have one book and one belief, unchanged since inception. Name off some muslim denominations.

[DMC]

suddenly youve invented a new conversation out of thin air that we werent having.

go reread the thread and try again, idiot.

Because those guys, they were the US version of fundamental Islam, more user friendly, amirite?

[spurraider21]

Philo, fundamental Christianity has nothing to do with the legal system. It wasn't their legal system in the time of Christ, for Christ's sake.

You misunderstand fundamentalism. It's not just the time when the clergy ruled the laity. One person can be a fundamentalist. Your narrow definition is more akin to an escape hatch for you than a true caveat.

So you said fundamental islam is the worst. When a belief is practiced fundamentally, it's practiced at its true core, and Muslims purport to have one book and one belief, unchanged since inception. Name off some muslim denominations.

if we're going to define fundamentalism as an individual belief, then i retract my comment saying fundamentalist islam is "the worst"

i know plenty of muslim people who believe in the quran literally, which would be considered fundamentalist according to the dictionary. but they dont go around stoning people or raping women or w/e

[DMC]

forget the crusades. look at the spanish inquisition.

i'm not turning this into a christian vs muslim pissing contest regarding which is better or worse. i think religious fundamentalism is the enemy.

That's chicken leveling Philo. You go to extremes to appear neutral. You already stepped outside your box of neutrality and called fundamentalist Islam the worst. Then you said they are both the worst. Then you wanted to go back to medieval days to compare the Templars the RCC to modern day Islam.

or get off the pot Philo.

[spurraider21]

look, just go read up on nagaland and come back after.

and the problem there is their fundamentalism (the group you are referring to wishes to establish a theocracy). they're not "worse" because they're christian as opposed to muslim or vise versa. that's my underlying point in all this. nutjobs who bas ize their religion to that level are the danger.

[spurraider21]

That's chicken leveling Philo. You go to extremes to appear neutral. You already stepped outside your box of neutrality and called fundamentalist Islam the worst. Then you said they are both the worst. Then you wanted to go back to medieval days to compare the Templars the RCC to modern day Islam.

or get off the pot Philo.

i called them the worst in the context of the definition i gave.

you urged me to adjust the definition of the term, and therefore my characterization was no longer accurate.

[Adam Lambert]

Because those guys, they were the US version of fundamental Islam, more user friendly, amirite?

what was fundamental about any of those? they were murderers who were muslims. what, you dont think chicago gangstas go to church on sunday? i guess if jamal goes to church to see grandma sing in the choir, then goes and knocks off a corner full of hoppers that night, thats fundamental christianity.

you cant even keep up with your own argument. the san bernadino shooting wasnt some execution of domestic sharia law, it was a couple of assholes who got inspired by a bunch of assholes overseas.

idiot.

[spurraider21]

1. muslim person in a vacuum - not inherently dangerous, even if they take the book literally
2. christian person in a vacuum -not inherently dangerous, even if they take the book literally

3. muslim theocracy (fundamentalist society) - dangerous
4. christian theocracy (fundamentalist society) - dangerous

i'm also well aware that #4 essentially does not exist in today's world, and #3 does.

that's my general dumbed down position

[Adam Lambert]

and the problem there is their fundamentalism (the group you are referring to wishes to establish a theocracy). they're not "worse" because they're christian as opposed to muslim or vise versa. that's my underlying point in all this. nutjobs who bas ize their religion to that level are the danger.

so we agree.

[DMC]

if we're going to define fundamentalism as an individual belief, then i retract my comment saying fundamentalist islam is "the worst"

i know plenty of muslim people who believe in the quran literally, which would be considered fundamentalist according to the dictionary. but they dont go around stoning people or raping women or w/e

You're leveling agai

Entire countries are run by Imams and Clerics and just being promiscuous can get you shot in the head in a public venue. How is that on par with the Holy See of the exact same time period?

I'm atheist through and through, but there's a huge difference between Christianity and Islam in terms of social construct. Pretending fundamental Islam isn't a cancer to a democracy might get you through a forum banter segment, but it's just a fantasy.

I hate Christianity and I hate Islam, but I can say that about Christianity and not get beheaded or have a fatwa issued against me. I can draw a depiction of Jesus without being gunned down on my front porch or in my office like Charlie Hebdo. Now go ahead and give some anecdotes about how someone you know who wears a hijab seems ok.

[DMC]

and the problem there is their fundamentalism (the group you are referring to wishes to establish a theocracy). they're not "worse" because they're christian as opposed to muslim or vise versa. that's my underlying point in all this. nutjobs who bas ize their religion to that level are the danger.

There's nothing about fundamental Christianity that says anything about establishing a theocracy. Quite the opposite actually. The theocracy is a political move by niche, character actors like that got Pat Buchanan and other piece of posers. Churches exist all across the USA, everywhere, yet we had a guy named Hussien Obama as a President and now Donald Trump who grabs her by the pussy.

We're hardly moving toward theocracy. We started by moving away from it, and we were most theocratic at the inception. That doesn't mean we're moving away from tenets of fundamentalist in Christianity. It means our basic tenets never recognized them to begin with. We don't credit the CoN with establishing basic social structure. It wasn't ok to kill before the 10 Commandments, and that wasn't just in Egypt.

[spurraider21]

You're leveling again

... if my position was based on a certain definition, and we are changing the definition, of course that's going to happen

Entire countries are run by Imams and Clerics and just being promiscuous can get you shot in the head in a public venue. How is that on par with the Holy See of the exact same time period?

and i've repeatedly said that entire countries run by clerics are dangerous/ ty

I'm atheist through and through, but there's a huge difference between Christianity and Islam in terms of social construct.

and as i've said in other posts numerous times now, i agree with this. muslim theocracies exist, christian ones dont

Pretending fundamental Islam isn't a cancer to a democracy might get you through a forum banter segment, but it's just a fantasy.

an individual who believes in the quran literally yet still abides by our laws is not dangerous.

I hate Christianity and I hate Islam, but I can say that about Christianity and not get beheaded or have a fatwa issued against me.

you literally just said "i hate islam" and i don't think you've been behaeded yet

I can draw a depiction of Jesus without being gunned down on my front porch or in my office like Charlie Hebdo. Now go ahead and give some anecdotes about how someone you know who wears a hijab seems ok.

you can draw funny pictures of muhammad and post them online right now. i dont think you'll get gunned down anytime soon.

[DMC]

1. muslim person in a vacuum - not inherently dangerous, even if they take the book literally
2. christian person in a vacuum -not inherently dangerous, even if they take the book literally

3. muslim theocracy (fundamentalist society) - dangerous
4. christian theocracy (fundamentalist society) - dangerous

i'm also well aware that #4 essentially does not exist in today's world, and #3 does.

that's my general dumbed down position

So your position is to compare something nonexistent with something that does?

Do you think Vatican City is dangerous? Maybe you'll get your pee pee sucked, but compare that to Mecca.

[spurraider21]

There's nothing about fundamental Christianity that says anything about establishing a theocracy. Quite the opposite actually.

disagree. this is why religious voters continually try to push their religious agenda into legislation.

The theocracy is a political move by niche, character actors like that got Pat Buchanan and other piece of posers. Churches exist all across the USA, everywhere, yet we had a guy named Hussien Obama as a President and now Donald Trump who grabs her by the pussy.

we also have mosques all across the USA and we dont see mass beheadings even though people order bacon at restaurants and gays get married

We're hardly moving toward theocracy. We started by moving away from it, and we were most theocratic at the inception. That doesn't mean we're moving away from tenets of fundamentalist in Christianity. It means our basic tenets never recognized them to begin with. We don't credit the CoN with establishing basic social structure. It wasn't ok to kill before the 10 Commandments, and that wasn't just in Egypt.

i dont think we're moving toward theocracy either. and of course we're moving away from tenets of fundamentalist christianity. do you really want to go looking up bible verses and finding all the tenets that we'd find inhumane today?

[spurraider21]

So your position is to compare something nonexistent with something that does?

Do you think Vatican City is dangerous? Maybe you'll get your pee pee sucked, but compare that to Mecca.

except the laws of vatican city are derived from the secular law of italy

their statutes dont make citations to the bible. for instance, consenting adults can have gay sex in vatican city without being arrested for violating the law of the lord

[DMC]

... if my position was based on a certain definition, and we are changing the definition, of course that's going to happen

and i've repeatedly said that entire countries run by clerics are dangerous/ ty

You said fundamentalist theocracies of either belief are dangerous. I give you the Vatican City. You can say they aren't fundamental but aren't they the subject of this thread to begin with? Wasn't the comment that they are basically the same as muslim terrorists?

The issue is that you use the word "dangerous" twice and means something different each time. It's like saying a slippery floor is dangerous, and so is a nuclear bomb.

and as i've said in other posts numerous times now, i agree with this. muslim theocracies exist, christian ones dont

Then why did you invoke them as a comparison? I asked you to name a fundamentalist Christian sect. Would you say the Mennonites are fundamentalists? Apostolics? Evangelical Christians? Assembly of God? Pentecostals who speak in tongues and roll around the floor with the "Holy Spirit"?

The first Christians were more of a secret society, but somehow fundamental Christianity has become the Tudors and Borgias.

an individual who believes in the quran literally yet still abides by our laws is not dangerous.

Then you're ignorant of the Qu'ran or you need to brush up on epistemology just a bit if you think the two can co-exist (belief and "abides").

you literally just said "i hate islam" and i don't think you've been behaeded yet

I laid that out there for you, you're struggling and I knew you'd take that one right away. When you decide to drop the 15 year old fat girl schtick, let me know. I thought you went to law school.

you can draw funny pictures of muhammad and post them online right now. i dont think you'll get gunned down anytime soon.

Are you saying the Charlie was killed in a botched robbery attempt and the two gunmen who were killed in Garland Texas at a police rally were strippers who took it just a bit too far?

you downplay that like it's a myth but hide here in your neutrality in fear that one day someone might trace this meaningless forum back to you. #comfortablecourage

[DMC]

except the laws of vatican city are derived from the secular law of italy

their statutes dont make citations to the bible. for instance, consenting adults can have gay sex in vatican city without being arrested for violating the law of the lord

Why don't Islamist theocracies behave in such a manner? I mean, they are basically the same.

[spurraider21]

this all goes back to my characterization of the "bad fundamentalism" as those where their governing law comes from scripture

because that is a society that will foster further fanaticism/extremism

[spurraider21]

and if you're all about being secular and avoiding theocracy, you might want to ask yourself which people are trying to inject their religion into US law? are their droves of muslim parents going to school board meetings in texas trying to get them to ease up on their evolution curriculum because there is no evidence for evolution?

was the dover intelligent design case brought by hijab wearing soccer moms?

are there local muslim politicians using local resources to build monuments of islam?

as long as people keep their beliefs to themselves, they aren't harming anybody

[mavsfan1000]

The Bible says to turn the other cheek. Much different from Sharia Law. But continue listening to people that say it is their job to control what you think. Mika.

[Blake]

I hate Christianity and I hate Islam, but I can say that about Christianity and not get beheaded or have a fatwa issued against me. I can draw a depiction of Jesus without being gunned down on my front porch or in my office

Lol.

I bet there are plenty of nuts out there that will mow you down for drawing a funny picture of their Jesus.

[Blake]

The Bible says to turn the other cheek. Much different from Sharia Law. But continue listening to people that say it is their job to control what you think. Mika.

The Bible also says eye for an eye.

But continue to listen to cherry picking Christians that ignore the bad parts of their holy book

[Clipper Nation]

Child abuse always leads to SRA (Satanic Ritual Abuse) In short they like to tramautize a child early on with sex and animal mutilation which leads to dissociation or MPD. Higher up in the food chain you have to sacrifice children...they get high on their blood especially if the child is in terror which creates adrenaline. It has been going on for thousands of years. Check out this recent interview with a banker elite

You make Alex Jones look sane by comparison.

[Chris]

The Bible also says eye for an eye.

But continue to listen to cherry picking Christians that ignore the bad parts of their holy book

Link?

[spurraider21]

I like the part where it's immoral to wear clothes made of two different types of threads