Christian violence

It is intriguing that when a Muslim commits a heinous, violent act that folks quickly respond that you cannot blame the religion for the act of one(?) radical person.

Yet anytime someone who claims to be Christian does something outrageous it is because the religion is to blame.

One is judged as an individual; the other leads to an indictment of an entire theology.

Looks like Rob wasn't interested in fair debate after all.

Sam37 said:

It is intriguing that when a Muslim commits a heinous, violent act that folks quickly respond that you cannot blame the religion for the act of one(?) radical person.

Yet anytime someone who claims to be Christian does something outrageous it is because the religion is to blame.

One is judged as an individual; the other leads to an indictment of an entire theology.

Click to expand...

Agreed; it's an intellectually bankrupt double standard that most people seem entirely unaware they're playing into.

Have we compared this too the violence against Christians by Muslims....Wheres the Media in Egypt now...

Sam37 said:

It is intriguing that when a Muslim commits a heinous, violent act that folks quickly respond that you cannot blame the religion for the act of one(?) radical person.

Click to expand...

Well do you think you can?

I mean, like, I grew up in London during the 70’s & 80’s were IRA (catholic) bombings were a regular occurrence, the closest one just one mile from my house (Woolwich pub bombing).

So should I blame the whole of Catholicism for these heinous, murderous acts?

Sam37 said:

Yet anytime someone who claims to be Christian does something outrageous it is because the religion is to blame.

Click to expand...

Really? Where? Link? Because it sounds like you are just making shit-up which shows your bias/predudice.

Sam37 said:

One is judged as an individual; the other leads to an indictment of an entire theology.

Click to expand...

Well what do you think, shall we blame Catholicism and ALL who practice it?

And seeing as Christian Protestants were also committing murderous acts against Catholics at this time; should we also blame ALL Christian Protestants too?

Or should we blame the fanatical elements with-in those religions, specifically those who carried out these crimes and facilitated them? (ignoring how moderates inadvertently aid radicals for the moment)

Woof!

EllieTalbot said:

So let's say (just as an example) the motion is "Pop-Tarts are Good for You." I'd have to argue with evidence that they are, you'd have to argue with evidence that they aren't, and the audience decides who was more persuasive.

• It opens with a preliminary poll of the audience to determine how many are already for, against or undecided on the motion before the debate begins

• Pro Opening Statement (addressed to the audience): 7 minutes (paragraphs)
• Opp Opening Statement (addressed to the audience): 7 paragraphs
• Pro Rebuttal (to opp): 5 paragraphs
• Opp Rebuttal: (to pro): 5 paragraphs

***During the openings and rebuttals, it should be insisted upon that no one else post in the thread. Only the panelists have "the floor" for those rounds, and there should be time limits between their posts. Opening statements should be all ready to go, posted one right after the other. After them, the space between rebuttals shouldn't be longer than, say 25-30 minutes.

Which brings us to the next round, questions from the audience. Usually audience Q&A is moderated to filter out bombastic rants and such, but here people would just be asked to self-moderate. Audience members who want to ask a question will get one civil, topical question each, and after they've been answered by the panelist(s), it's the next person's turn. Only the questions for panelists would be allowed, and side-debates among the audience prohibited; the panelists are supposed to be the only ones responsible for swaying audience opinion. And to put a cap on it, let's say two pages are sufficient for a fair amount of Q&A, and then it goes to closing statements (no longer than 10 minutes between them).

• Opp closing (to audience): 2 paragraphs
• Pro closing (to audience): 2 paragraphs
  
• Lastly a new audience poll is taken with the same yes, no and undecided options for the motion, and the results are compared to the first poll, which determines who was more persuasive and therefore won.

For the polls: They should be closed as people feel freer to vote in anon conditions. The preliminary poll would be posted 24 hours prior to the debate and contain an announcement of it. People would be asked to make their preliminary vote and then come back to read/participate in the debate, and vote again afterwards. The second poll should be posted immediately after the debate and then left open for voting for 24 hours.

Naturally the content of the arguments should be based on logic, facts and be as good-natured as possible. No ad-hominems, straw men, cheap diversion tactics - all stuff you regularly engage in.

That would be acceptable. Can you live up to it?

Civilian in Civerna,
Ellie

Click to expand...

Yeah!

And through the window in my South German home I want a view of Sydney opera house, the hanging gardens of Babylon and herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically across the plain in the background.

Woof!

Bad_Doggie said:

Yeah!

And through the window in my South German home I want a view of Sydney opera house, the hanging gardens of Babylon and herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically across the plain in the background.

Woof!

Click to expand...

Sure, sure. I was asking for the moon. Well, maybe it is the moon for someone like Rob. But if you're suggesting coordinating something like that is impossible around here, I beg to differ.

Believe it or not, I've done multi-thread projects on the GB before, coordinated with several others - they had real world results and required far more participation, detail, scheduling, and work than establishing a little old debate. You underestimate your fellow GBers.

What about you, Doggie? Unlike Rob, you aren't trollish in your opining around here. You have a habit of backing up your statements and you're usually pretty civil. You could handle that format, no prob. Are you up for a real debate?

Inquisitive in Ilinois,
Ellie

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/nyregion/brothers-beating-at-upstate-new-york-church.html?_r=0

The Christian "Word of Life" Church becomes the "fists of death" church.

Authorities have charged the brothers’ parents, Bruce T. Leonard, 65, and Deborah Leonard, 59, with first-degree manslaughter in the death of their son Lucas Leonard, 19. Another son, Christopher Leonard, 17, was seriously injured in the attack, which the authorities said took place in a sanctuary of Word of Life Christian Church, in the town of New Hartford, N.Y., and involved punches and kicks delivered over several hours.

The police have said the beating began after Sunday services at the former schoolhouse where congregants gather for prayer, when the brothers were called in for a counseling session about their “spiritual state.” They suffered blows to their stomachs, genitals, backs and thighs, the police said, and four other church members, including an older half sister, were also charged with assault.

Click to expand...

So are you planning to update this thread every four years?

Christian violence is way cooler than other violence because Jesus.

phrodeau said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/nyregion/brothers-beating-at-upstate-new-york-church.html?_r=0

The Christian "Word of Life" Church becomes the "fists of death" church.

Click to expand...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/seven-people-facing-murder-charges-6896255

Names and pictures. But they didn't behead their children, so they aren't as bad as that.

Oh_That_Guy said:

Christian violence is way cooler than other violence because Jesus.

Click to expand...

Buddhist violence is way cooler than other violence because Buddha.

Oh_That_Guy said:

Christian violence is way cooler than other violence because Jesus.

Click to expand...

Jesus doesn't tell people to be violent like Allah does. People in this thread miss the entire point. There's nothing in Christianity that tells people to be violent but in Islam being violent and killing infidels is part of the religion.

Where's the Bible verse approving of arson?

http://www.grandforksherald.com/new...aled-after-east-grand-forks-man-charged-arson

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/...e-coachella-valley-mosque-20151211-story.html

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/14/us/hawthorne-california-mosques-vandalized/

One mosque had "Jesus is the Way" spray-painted across the front. Another mosque was defaced and left with a fake grenade in the driveway.

Both acts of vandalism took place in the same California city, about an hour west of where the San Bernardino terror attack took place this month.

And Hawthorne police said both incidents are now classified as hate crimes.

Click to expand...

I haven't read the thread yet to figure out if my comment has any relevance to it. But still :

I noticed that certain atheists and religious people keep pointing fingers at and demonizing each other. Saying something in the line of '90% of the things brought on by religion were bad' etc..

When in fact, as I see it, it's not the belief that counts, as much as how one goes about it. And imo fundamentalistic atheists and fundamentalistic religious people have much more in common than they think they do.

In the modern sense of the word all the american revolutionaries were terrorists, at least up until they won and could rewrite their history and make themselves heroes and patriots.

magicalmoments said:

In the modern sense of the word all the american revolutionaries were terrorists, at least up until they won and could rewrite their history and make themselves heroes and patriots.

Click to expand...

if they had lost it would have been more like

"colonists in north america rebelled in attempt to protect their right to own slaves and not pay taxes"

The infamous non-minister Dr. James Dobson has come out in favor of shooting people who use public restrooms without the correct body parts.

http://www.wnd.com/2016/05/protect-your-kids-from-tyrant-obama/

If you are a married man with any gumption, surely you will defend your wife’s privacy and security in restroom facilities. Would you remain passive after knowing that a strange-looking man, dressed like a woman, has been peering over toilet cubicles to watch your wife in a private moment? What should be done to the pervert who was using mirrors to watch women and girls in their stalls? If you are a dad, I pray you will protect your little girls from men who walk in unannounced, unzip their pants and urinate in front of them. If this had happened 100 years ago, someone might have been shot. Where is today’s manhood? God help us!

Click to expand...

The less well-known Anita Staver let us know that she's on the hunt.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/04/chr...et-ladies-room-it-identifies-as-my-bodyguard/

The president of theocratic law group The Liberty Council announced on the social medium Twitter that she plans to carry a gun with her to the women’s restroom at Target stores so that she can “protect” herself from anyone she thinks is transgender.

@Anita Staver "I'm taking a Glock .45 to the ladies room. It identifies as my bodyguard." #BoycottTarget @Target

Anita Staver is married to Mat Staver, head of the legal team that defended Kentucky’s outspoken anti-marriage equality county clerk Kim Davis in her effort to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

Click to expand...

The links may crash your computer. Those sites are treacherous.

Vetteman said:

Jesus doesn't tell people to be violent like Allah does. People in this thread miss the entire point. There's nothing in Christianity that tells people to be violent but in Islam being violent and killing infidels is part of the religion.

Click to expand...

Bull fucking shit!

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace but a sword. However, Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible,[30] as well as other Christian sources[31] note that the context of the discussion is Jesus sending out his disciples with a warning that they will face "the sword" of persecution by those outside of the Christian faith. This contributes to the "non-violent picture of Jesus and his disciples by envisaging the opposition they will face without recourse to violent resistance"[31]
And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough

Sounds just as much a call for violence as the Quran.

Make ready to slaughter the infidel’s sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and possess the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants.[24]
Then I heard God say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children.”[25]
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.[26]
If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you

Not Islam either.

I would settle for a debate with verifiable facts and no internet whining/name calling between the two debaters.

If this can't happen then I side with the person that have the largest following. I maintain my integrity that way.

God is always right. All 57 of them.

Allahu Akbar but I think Frodough's brain has stretch marks...

https://www.sott.net/article/362125...er-over-coming-movie-about-Nicholas-II-affair

Hard-core Russian religious activists firebomb St. Petersburg theater over coming movie about Nicholas II affair

In January, Andrei Alekseyev received a letter from religious activists warning that movie theaters like his "could burn" if they showed a forthcoming film about a romantic liaison of Russian Tsar Nicholas II, who has been canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church.

The letter, signed by a group calling itself Christian State-Holy Rus, claimed to have members across Russia prepared to sacrifice their lives for its "true Orthodox Christian path" and said that showing the film, titled Matilda, could lead to bloodshed and "civil war."

Over the past two weeks, unidentified assailants tossed Molotov cocktails into the St. Petersburg studio of Matilda director Aleksei Uchitel and set fire to two cars near his lawyer's Moscow office, leaving behind leaflets reading, "To Burn for Matilda."

Authorities also said that a man who opposed the film, set for nationwide screenings on October 26, set fire to a car at the entrance of a cinema in the city of Yekaterinburg on September 4, and that the small blaze spread to the theater's entrance.

Click to expand...