Je Suis Charlie - Showing solidarity against terrorism and for free speech
- Thread starter Nazaroo
- Start date
This also is Islam:
Ahmed Merabet, the Muslim police officer, who died defending the people who mocked his faith in God.
Lassana Bathily, the Muslim grocer whose quick thinking saved a number of Jewish customers as he hid them, and then made his escape, showing police how to quickly enter the building.
Ahmed Merabet, the Muslim police officer, who died defending the people who mocked his faith in God.
Lassana Bathily, the Muslim grocer whose quick thinking saved a number of Jewish customers as he hid them, and then made his escape, showing police how to quickly enter the building.
Morpheus
New member
So is your post supposed to be an example of Christianity?
I thought I would start this off with some graphics:
Nazaroo
New member
You want it BOTH WAYS:
(1) You want to claim that Christianity and all other religions are also violent.
(2) You want to deny that Christianity has the authority and right to defend itself with force.
Guess what:
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.
Nazaroo
New member
This also is Islam:
Ahmed Merabet, the Muslim police officer, who died defending the people who mocked his faith in God.
They didn't mock his faith in God.
And while you're at it,
this guy Ahmed Merabet knew exactly what he was doing,
and he did it willingly, and died carrying out his duty,
which he willingly committed to, and knew the possible consequences of.
Have you done any military service?
Lassana Bathily, the Muslim grocer [EMPLOYEE] whose quick thinking saved a number of Jewish customers as he hid them, and then made his escape, showing police how to quickly enter the building.
This guy is certainly a hero.
but he wasn't much of a muslim according to most muslims,
working for Jews, and assisting them to escape islamists.
Morpheus
New member
I never claimed that Christianity was violent. In fact I claimed that neither Christianity nor Islam are inherently violent, but they are frequently portrayed as such because there are always people and groups who will use religion as an excuse for their violent words and acts. Hitler claimed he was Christian, but his actions proved him otherwise. Likewise you claim to be Christian. I'm simply pointing out that your behaviors are inconsistent with Christian values.You want it BOTH WAYS:
(1) You want to claim that Christianity and all other religions are also violent.
(2) You want to deny that Christianity has the authority and right to defend itself with force.
Guess what:
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.
Either you don't understand what Christian values are, or you're being intentionally rebellious. In either case it is my responsibility to point it out so:
1) you might correct your behavior, and
2) so that others will realize that Christianity does not really look like you.
I'm only addressing you the way many want mainstream Muslims to address radical Islamists.
On a side note, my wife found the irony of your positions obvious. Ranting about "Islam is violent" while simultaneously, in the name of Christ, calling for their extinction. Do you really not listen to yourself?
I don't think that the police officer is any less a hero for doing his sworn duty. Sure he knew this might happen, and he might have to lay down his life to protect Christians. That doesn't diminish his courage or Christlike sacrifice.
And neither of these two Muslims would be considered "real Muslims" by the radical Islamists. But the "no true Scotsman" argument is belied by the fact that the two Muslims who happened to be in the area both heroically protected Christians and Jews from the terrorists.
Do you think that those terrorists would rather use Westboro Baptist Church as an example of Christianity?
If so, isn't that a moment for some serious introspection?
Edit: Yes, I have done military service, and yes, I was aware of the possible consequences.
And neither of these two Muslims would be considered "real Muslims" by the radical Islamists. But the "no true Scotsman" argument is belied by the fact that the two Muslims who happened to be in the area both heroically protected Christians and Jews from the terrorists.
Do you think that those terrorists would rather use Westboro Baptist Church as an example of Christianity?
If so, isn't that a moment for some serious introspection?
Edit: Yes, I have done military service, and yes, I was aware of the possible consequences.
Last edited:
Nazaroo
New member
My bad then.
Rather than being an obvious hypocrite, you are simply a muddled thinker.
This won't apply however to other "objecters" I find throughout my threads.
This is a meaningless statement, as will become apparent in what follows.
You are sounding quite the Fundamentalist extremist.
It is not an "either, or" situation.
Lets see why:
(1) There are NO modern demoninations of Christianity
that take the whole Bible literally, or hold it all of equal importance.
That is left to a very very tiny number of semi-literate extremists
who are both powerless, insignificant, and get zero media access,
such as a pastor or two from the Ozarks or the Louisiana swamps.
(2) Those denominations which DO exist in significant numbers and
with significant influence and claim to actually represent modern Christianity,
or part of it, cannot agree on which parts of the Bible are most important,
or even what the Canon of the Holy Scriptures should be:
Examples: Roman Catholics include Apocrypha of the Old Testament,
Protestants use the Hebrew text and Canon for the Old Testament,
and Coptics include the Book of Enoch.
As for the New Testament, the most ancient copies include Hermas
and I and II Clement among other NT writings.
Most scholars exclude letters like Jude as late,
consider the Pauline corpus to have been heavily edited,
and regard the Johannine writings as belonging to an isolated sect.
Mormons regard the Book of Mormon as Holy Writ.
All modern versions of the NT have crudely removed 200 whole and half verses from the Received text or the King James version.
Martin Luther rejected Esther entirely, as well as James,
Thats just the canon.
As for doctrine,
Luther overemphasized Romans and other Pauline texts.
Roman Catholics insist on earning salvation by works,
while Scottish hyperCalvinists think they have been predestined to be saved,
and cannot lose their salvation, even by horrific murders.
Jehovah's Witlesses don't accept the Trinity, or the Divinity of Christ,
Mormons still practice polygamy, SeventhDay Adventists keep the Food Laws,
and Jews reject the Messiahship of Jesus.
You haven't even told anyone what version of Christianity you yourself
have selected from the gigantic Salad Bar of Christian denominations,
sects, and churches.
Why I should judge myself according to YOUR favourite doctrines and beliefs,
is not only incomprehensible, but impossible to do, since you haven't
articulated them, or even on what basis or what version of the Bible(s)
you have come to believe them yourself.
Why should I care, and how is this any justification, or even explanation
for why I should embrace your personal view, when you probably can't
even articulate it?
Think of what you are saying here:
You appear to simply be posturing for Islamic readers,
and have no real concern for Christian doctrines, true or false,
or their implications.
(1) I call for the extinction of a paramilitary cult and an unholy handbook for religious warfare, not the extinction of any people or races.
(2) I must suppose your wife will find it equally ironic defending her children
from being beheaded by violent criminals, rather than simply
laying herself down to be raped, sodomized and burned as an infidel in a pacifist manner.
I hope she never has to discover the irony of that.
Nazaroo
New member
He was certainly courageous for taking the job on.
The 'no true Scotsman' argument is neither a fallacy nor an airtight case.
The main problem with it in regard to Islam is that
the numbers of Muslims in agreement with Jihad is legion
compared to the tiny number of Christian fundamentalists in existance.
The problem is they didn't "happen to be in the area", and (2)
the number of Muslims on the side of radical Islam IN THE AREA
far outnumbered them.
Bad choice here.
I found the Westboro Baptist Church to be offering a far more authentic
version of Christianity than any secularized pro-gay mainstream denomination of today.
To this day, I can find no flaw whatever in my favourite sermon from them,
about Jon Stewart and the other idiot:
| America: Fag Enabling FOOLS | |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e647x8xFKTs
The real irony here is that Westboro picketed soldiers,
whereas I am supporting soldiers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9dD9v2cIMU
You can't have it both ways.
Glad to hear that.
War is serious business,
and its policies can't be decided by fools and faggots.
genuineoriginal
New member
Violent Christians are refusing to follow the words of Jesus.
Violent Muslims are following the words of Muhammad.
:think:
Why do you mistakenly believe that Islam is not inherently violent?
genuineoriginal
New member
Naz,
Your hate-mongering is stupid and evil. Calm down and think things over.
I am certain that I have many more real reasons to hate Muslims as a group than you do- but I don't.
By the way, my (or anybody else's) military service is of no relevance in the discussion.
Nazaroo
New member
You're right.
I should probably go back to exposing the Jews running the porn industry.
http://www.jewishquarterly.org/issuearchive/articled325.html?articleid=38
http://davidduke.com/jewish-profess...ornography-used-as-a-weapon-against-gentiles/
http://www.darkmoon.me/2014/pornography-as-a-secret-weapon-by-lasha-darkmoon/
http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=67
http://radioislam.org/crime/sex/jew_porn1.htm
Why bother with the escalating Muslim threat?
Or, you could just get out of my threads, you troll,
before you regret the damage.
Barbarian observes:
And neither of these two Muslims would be considered "real Muslims" by the radical Islamists. But the "no true Scotsman" argument is belied by the fact that ...
By defining those who oppose violence as not being real Muslims, you close the circle in your argument that Muslims are violent.
Barbarian continues:
the two Muslims who happened to be in the area both heroically protected Christians and Jews from the terrorists.
You think that the policeman was deliberately assigned there? And how, exactly did the grocer know his store was going to be hit?
So far, we've got a sample of two. And both of them risked their lives trying to save Christians and Jews from the terrorists.
Tens of thousands of Frenchmen, who happen to be Muslim, are making their point:
Barbarian asks:
Do you think that those terrorists would rather use Westboro Baptist Church as an example of Christianity?
If so, isn't that a moment for some serious introspection?
Surprised you would side with anyone who celebrates the death of soldiers fighting Islamist terrorists.
And neither of these two Muslims would be considered "real Muslims" by the radical Islamists. But the "no true Scotsman" argument is belied by the fact that ...
By defining those who oppose violence as not being real Muslims, you close the circle in your argument that Muslims are violent.
Barbarian continues:
the two Muslims who happened to be in the area both heroically protected Christians and Jews from the terrorists.
You think that the policeman was deliberately assigned there? And how, exactly did the grocer know his store was going to be hit?
So far, we've got a sample of two. And both of them risked their lives trying to save Christians and Jews from the terrorists.
Tens of thousands of Frenchmen, who happen to be Muslim, are making their point:
Barbarian asks:
Do you think that those terrorists would rather use Westboro Baptist Church as an example of Christianity?
If so, isn't that a moment for some serious introspection?
Surprised you would side with anyone who celebrates the death of soldiers fighting Islamist terrorists.
Nazaroo
New member
Surprised you would side with anyone who celebrates the death of soldiers fighting Islamist terrorists.
I already noted the irony above.
But no Christian on this entire forum has been able to find a fault
with this classic sermon by WBC:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e647x8xFKTs
It's telling that Fred assailed Stewart for "blaspheming" the Westboro Baptist Church.
Not the only failed Christian who set himself up as God. No wonder decent people despise him.
Not the only failed Christian who set himself up as God. No wonder decent people despise him.
Not that it will dissuade anyone who's been seduced into believing him.
You are a sick bigoted man who can't handle criticism.