patrick.net

socal2 says

Christianity is literally the most persecuted ideological group in the world today

Well, that's just bullshit. But the disregard for the truth is yet another reason that no religion, including Christianity, should be tolerated.

Dan8267 says

The arrest and prosecution of the boy for blasphemy

Can you send a link to this arrest? Was he really arrested for "blasphemy" or was he arrested for trespassing?

Dan8267 says

Well, that's just bullshit. But the disregard for the truth is yet another reason that no religion, including Christianity, should be tolerated.

You really dispute that Christianity is the most persecuted ideological group on the planet today?

Name another ethnicity or ideological group that has faced more persecution in the last 20 years in terms of being driving from their homes, forced to convert, or jailed by thousands like they are in China simply because of their religious identification.

Dan8267 says

Trespassing was code for blasphemy. One can walk onto church's lot. He was arrested solely because he posted a blasphemous picture on Facebook. Had he taken a picture of himself standing next to the statue, he would not have been arrested, plain and simple. So yes, this was prosecution of a religious crime.

If I did the same thing on PRIVATE PROPERTY to a statue of MLK, Rosa Parks or Harvey Milk - I would be arrested for trespassing and probably charged with a "hate crime" to boot.

All and all, your skate boarding martyr is pretty weak sauce to support your paranoia that America is at risk of becoming like the Taliban.

socal2 says

If I did the same thing on PRIVATE PROPERTY to a statue of MLK, Rosa Parks or Harvey Milk - I would be arrested for trespassing and probably charged with a "hate crime" to boot.

Bullshit. If this guy took a picture of himself just standing next to the statue, he would not have been arrested and the church would not have pressed charges. He was arrested for blasphemy, plain and simple. To say otherwise is a lie. The fact that people can and do visit church grounds without explicit permission is proof positive that it is not trespassing. Furthermore, selecting enforcing one law to in effect enforce an illegal act that cannot be made into law is still enforcing an illegal act.

Dan8267 says

PeopleUnited says

Just because someone claims to be a Christian, doesn't make them a Christian.

What makes a person a Christian is the belief in the divinity and resurrection of Christ. Many such people have committed genocide, rape, torture, and infanticide over the past 2000 years. The Roman Catholic Church is certainly Christian. Again, you don't get to rewrite history.

Actually it is you who are now speaking for God and trying to tell everyone who is a real Christian. Only God knows who the real Christians are.

PeopleUnited says

Actually it is you who are now speaking for God and trying to tell everyone who is a real Christian. Only God knows who the real Christians are.

Sorry, you don't get to define Christian. A Christian is, by definition, one who believes in the divinity and resurrection of Christ. Plain and simple. If such people do bad things then Christianity is a bad thing.

Strategist says

Why would we even target innocent people? There is no benefit.

There are no innocent people in war.

Dan8267 says

PeopleUnited says

Actually it is you who are now speaking for God and trying to tell everyone who is a real Christian. Only God knows who the real Christians are.

Sorry, you don't get to define Christian. A Christian is, by definition, one who believes in the divinity and resurrection of Christ. Plain and simple. If such people do bad things then Christianity is a bad thing.

Sorry YOU don't get to define Christian either. For manifold reasons, not the least of which is that you don't even know who Christ is. But a better definition of a Christian is someone who is Christ like, someone who emulates Christ. Simply believing is not evidence of Christianity. See James 2:9 even demons believe yet they are not Christians.

Booger says

There are no innocent people in war.

That's bullshit.

PeopleUnited says

Sorry YOU don't get to define Christian either.

I didn't. This is what Christian has always meant. It's a self-identifying term. The Christ in Christian stands for Jesus Christ. Once more, you demonstrate how dangerous Christian brainwashing is.

PeopleUnited says

For manifold reasons, not the least of which is that you don't even know who Christ is. But a better definition of a Christian is someone who is Christ like, someone who emulates Christ.

By that definition, no person is a Christian, especially not you.

PeopleUnited says

Simply believing is not evidence of Christianity.

You need to read that dumb ass Bible you proclaim to follow. It clearly states that no amount of good deeds will save you from eternal damnation and the only way to be saved and go to heaven is with faith in Jesus Christ.

101 Verses that Teach: Salvation is NOT by Works!

Eph. 2:8-9 - "For BY GRACE are ye SAVED THROUGH FAITH; and that NOT OF
YOURSELVES: it is the GIFT of God: NOT OF WORKS, lest any man should boast."

Acts 16:30-31 - When the Philippian jailer asked, "What must I do to be saved?" Paul didn't say,
keep the Ten Commandments, but rather, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved."

Luke 7:49-50 - Christ told the woman: "Thy faith hath saved thee," not thy works! (See #1)

Eph. 1:7 - "Redemption through HIS BLOOD, the forgiveness of sins," not through our works.

1 Pet. 1:3-5 - "According to his abundant MERCY," not according to our good deeds. (See #12)

Christianity has a 2000 year history of dogma stating that only through faith in Jesus can you prevent your soul from being tortured in hell for all eternity. So no, you don't get to change 2000 years of history to support your lying ass agenda.

Turns out that religious people really like to write down their dogma, so it's damn easy to verify what it is.

#nextTimeAskForLube

I'm okay with the Christians...this is a free country and we have the freedom of religion. However, all their powerful figures who speak the gospel, sexually assaulting and molesting all those young boys, doesn't sit well with me. Why do so many of the most devout Christians molest young boys? Did God tell them to do it?

Dan8267 says

That's bullshit

You don't win wars by sparing the enemy. If you want to win, you have to fight like we did in WW2, so doing things like firebombing cities is absolutely necessary.

Strategist says

I actually supported Obama for his second term. I fucked up pretty bad.

To the nation and the world, i hereby apologize for supporting Obama for his second term. It gave rise to ISIS. It gave rise to N Korea. It prevented our economy from recovering.
I sincerely apologize for supporting Obama 4 years ago.
Please forgive me.

Dan there is a difference between believing that Jesus died and rose again, (which most nominal Christians do) and having faith that He is your Lord and Savior. Most "Christians" actually don't rest in Jesus, they rather trust in works, religion, church membership, their priest, etc to save them. That is the point I was trying to make. Only God truly knows who has trusted Him.

PeopleUnited says

Dan there is a difference between believing that Jesus died and rose again, (which most nominal Christians do) and having faith that He is your Lord and Savior.

Honey, plenty of very evil people accepted Jesus as their lord and savior. Again, you don't get to rewrite history to fit your No True Scottsman argument. One could just as easily say that any terrorist isn't a Muslim because Islam is a religion of peace and Allah knows who has trusted Him. Allah means god, literally. You sound exactly like a Muslim.

Strategist says

OK, we screwed up about invading Iraq. It's silly to state Iraq, that invaded Kuwait was a peaceful nation. Even sillier to imply we just randomly started killing people.

The truth is, we foolishly attacked Iraq. We took steps to minimize civilian casualties. We helped rebuild Iraq, and attempted to give it democracy.

We made a second mistake by attempting to give it democracy, because Muslims want Sharia laws, not democracy.

The question is, what do we do now?

All the kings horses and all the kings men can't put humpty dumpty back together again.

We made a second mistake by attempting to give it democracy? Do you live in the same reality as everyone else? We threw everyone that knew how to run the country out of their jobs then replaced them with incompetent cronies of the iraq expats the lied us into the war in the first place. Then in a move that has few historical precedents in the bonehead category we put the entire military, which was a lot of the countries law enforcement, out of their jobs leaving millions of unemployed disgruntled armed men walking around looking for someone to blame. What could possibly go wrong? Duh. Then bush stood on the aircraft carrier and declared mission accomplished. It's not like plenty of people didn't say it wouldn't work.

Dan8267 says

PeopleUnited says

Dan there is a difference between believing that Jesus died and rose again, (which most nominal Christians do) and having faith that He is your Lord and Savior.

Honey, plenty of very evil people accepted Jesus as their lord and savior. Again, you don't get to rewrite history to fit your No True Scottsman argument. One could just as easily say that any terrorist isn't a Muslim because Islam is a religion of peace and Allah knows who has trusted Him. Allah means god, literally. You sound exactly like a Muslim.

Sweetheart, I'm sorry I entertained your false dichotomy and other logical fallacies for so long. One such logical fallacy is that you want us to believe that because Christians have done bad things, therefore Christians are bad and you assert (even more illogically so I might add) that Christianity therefore also bad. It is false logic. I suppose because police are capable of doing bad things that police are all bad too? By your logic you would ban police. I suppose because scientists lie and falsify data that all scientists are bad too? Applying your logic, you would ban scientists.

Oh and by the way, Allah may mean "god" in some twisted interpretation, but that does not mean the false god Allah has anything to do with Elohim, the one true God.

Dan literally means judge, therefore by your logic all Dan's are literally judges. It is assinine.

The problem with you is that your logic is flawed, your knowledge is limited and your premise is false. You will never find truth when you start with the false premise that God doesn't exist. It is a foundation on which only lies can be built, because it is a lie.

#nextTimeAskForAdiaper

(Because you just got your Ass handed to you)

By the way, it is not too late. As long as you have breath in you it is evidence that God still wants you to come to the knowledge of Him, once you get that shit out of your head. Seriously, that shit has to go. (oh and before you go accusing me of sounding like a Muslim, know this I am speaking literally. The shit in your head has to go if you are to come to a knowledge of God, or you can just keep believing your shit, I believe in freedom of choice and so does God, that is why Jesus never told his people to do what the violent Koran says to do. The Koran says kill them unless they convert. Jesus was the example for modern day non-violence movements based on reason and religion, including Martin Luther King Jr.)

Islam is also a lie, and it literally teaches its followers to support terrorism and/or become terrorists themselves.

Logic is based entirely on knowledge.
Two types of knowledge bases exist. The absolute knowledge base, and the human knowledge base.
The absolute knowledge base contains the absolute truth about the universe, and everything in it.
The human knowledge base is a subset of the absolute knowledge base.
Premise is based on knowledge + supposition.
Everyone's knowledge is limited, based on the hard evidence that the human knowledge base continues to grow on a daily basis.
Truth is what has been proven at the time of analyzation.
Absolute Truth is what can be proven, at any point in time, past, present, future.
Given the above, Absolute Truth is not knowable by our species, until such a time as we acquire the ability to travel forward in time, to the end of time, if time has an end, and then return back to the same point in time that we left, to update the human knowledge base.

Therefore:
We will never find the absolute truth until we reach the end of time, if there is such a thing.
And at the end of time, we would cease to exist as entities on the rails of time.
Feel better now?

PeopleUnited says

The problem with you is that your logic is flawed, your knowledge is limited and your premise is false. You will never find truth when you start with the false premise that God doesn't exist.

BlueSardine says

We will never find the absolute truth until we reach the end of time

Well I'd like to agree with you, I really would. But if God told us the truth in His word, then we can know absolute truth now. Today. If the Bible is true we can at least know its absolute truths. Better yet, its promises.

BlueSardine says

Given the above, Absolute Truth is not knowable by our species, until such a time as we acquire the ability to travel forward in time, to the end of time, if time has an end, and then return back to the same point in time that we left, to update the human knowledge base.

Unless of course, we are told the truth by a being that transcends time. Jesus is just that, and the Bible is what He wants us to know. That is why He gave us the book, so we would know where we came from, what we are and where we are going. It is a book of history, promises and prophecy. Its promises are true.

But again, I started this thread to discuss Islam and the root of Islamic terrorism. I am happy to discuss Jesus in another venue (or to stop talking about Him as well, as soon as the haters quit spreading lies about Him and His followers).

PeopleUnited says

Sweetheart, I'm sorry I entertained your false dichotomy and other logical fallacies for so long.

Just because you call something a false dichotomy or logical fallacy doesn't make it so. You have to show that it is. You cannot demonstrate a single logical fallacy in any of my arguments. I challenge you to do so. In fact, I'll even show you how to demonstrate a fallacy by using one of your arguments.

No True Scottsman

Form
Person A: Some X do Y.
Person B: No X does Y.
Person A: Here is empirical evidence showing members of X performing Y.
Person B: No true X does Y.

Origins
Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again". Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing". The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again; and, this time, finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion, but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says: "No true Scotsman would do such a thing".

PeopleUnited's use of this fallacy
Dan: Throughout 80% of Christian history, Christians committed atrocities like Islamist do today. Such atrocities include torture, rape, murder, slavery, and genocide.
PU: No Christian does that.
Dan: (cites historic evidence backing up claim)
PU: Those aren't real Christians because they did bad things.

And that's how you demonstrate someone has committed a logical fallacy. Now you go do the same. Oh, you can't.

The bottom line is that your religion has caused billions of people to do evil, despicable things. Your religion is bad.

Booger says

You don't win wars by sparing the enemy. If you want to win, you have to fight like we did in WW2, so doing things like firebombing cities is absolutely necessary.

How exactly does bombing children and babies help us defeat terrorism? It seems to have the exact opposite effect motivating countless to take up terrorism in response.

And yes, there are rules in wars and have been since the end of WWII. A nation that firebombs a city should not be allowed to continue to exist. Our weapons are simply too powerful, and the world too small and interconnected to continue to tolerate the wanton destruction of civilian life.

Even if the moral argument doesn't persuade you, consider the practical one. Do you really think you are safer in a world where any nation-state can simply nuke the city where your family lives without the threat of worldwide backlash?

bob2356 says

All the kings horses and all the kings men can't put humpty dumpty back together again.

We made a second mistake by attempting to give it democracy? Do you live in the same reality as everyone else? We threw everyone that knew how to run the country out of their jobs then replaced them with incompetent cronies of the iraq expats the lied us into the war in the first place. Then in a move that has few historical precedents in the bonehead category we put the entire military, which was a lot of the countries law enforcement, out of their jobs leaving millions of unemployed disgruntled armed men walking around looking for someone to blame. What could possibly go wrong? Duh. Then bush stood on the aircraft carrier and declared mission accomplished. It's not like plenty of people didn't say it wouldn't work.

I agree with you. We made the same mistakes with the Shah of Iran, Mubarak of Egypt, Palestinians when we got them to vote etc. They end up supporting religious wackos.
The moral of the story.......You can't bring democracy to 7th century people.

Dan8267 says

Now you go do the same.

Sweetheart, I just did. You simply ignored it by changing the subject and rehashing your straw man and other logical fallacies. It is like you are a bot.

PeopleUnited says

One such logical fallacy is that you want us to believe that because Christians have done bad things, therefore Christians are bad and you assert (even more illogically so I might add) that Christianity therefore also bad. It is false logic. I suppose because police are capable of doing bad things that police are all bad too? By your logic you would ban police. I suppose because scientists lie and falsify data that all scientists are bad too? Applying your logic, you would ban scientists.

What no response to defend your fallacies. Oh that is right, there is no defense. Your position is indefensible.

Here is another translation of your bullshit.

Dan: makes shit up about world history.
Dan: accuses PU of saying something he didn't say (misquotation and using to create another strawman)
Dan: makes another false claim of violence caused by Christians with no actual basis in reality (For example because some group claiming to be Christian killed people, all Christians are bad).
Dan: inserts head back in his ass while claiming to have said something profound.

Here are some of the results of the teaching of Islam. https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Here are some of the results of the teaching of Jesus.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1964/king-bio.html
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1979/teresa-bio.html
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

I suppose MLK, mother Theresa, Johannes Kepler, Micheal Faraday and all these others were bad people. Can you imagine a world without them? It would be a dark depraved ignorant place, not unlike Dan's head. Thank God for Christians.

PeopleUnited says

Sweetheart, I just did.

Bullshit, don't weasel out of this like a coward. I challenged you to demonstrate my arguments are false dichotomies or other fallacies, and I illustrated exactly how to demonstrate such a point. If you don't rise to the challenge, then you have indicated that you are a lying sack of crap. You don't get to pussy out of this one. Man up or admit you are wrong.

PeopleUnited says

Dan: makes shit up about world history.

Quote one false statement I made about history and the evidence that it is false.

PeopleUnited says

Dan: accuses PU of saying something he didn't say (misquotation and using to create another strawman)

Ditto

PeopleUnited says

Dan: makes another false claim of violence caused by Christians with no actual basis in reality (For example because some group claiming to be Christian killed people, all Christians are bad).

1. Name one such false claim.
2. The claim you made is vague and the conclusion is a straw man. I never stated anything that remotely could be interpreted as "all Christians are bad". This is simply a lie.

In fact, I've never stated that Christians or Muslims are bad. I claimed that Christianity and Islam are bad. That's a huge fucking difference that only someone with the reading skills of a five-year-old would miss.

The actual claims I made is that religions, including Christianity, have throughout history caused people to do evil things. And that's a claim you cannot refute.

PeopleUnited says

Dan: inserts head back in his ass while claiming to have said something profound.

And that would be an ad hominem. Once more you demonstrate the dangers of Christian brainwashing. It causes people to be incapable of rational discussion.

You're on the lowest level of the argument pyramid. You literally used the textbook example.

PeopleUnited says

Here are some of the results of the teaching of Islam.

Here are some of the results of the teaching of Jesus

Cherry picking examples is a logical fallacy. Adolf Hitler, Vlad the Impaler, Vladimir Putin, King Henry VII, and many others are also the results of the teachings of Jesus. One can even make the case that Putin became far more evil after his conversion back to Christianity.

Strategist says

I agree with you. We made the same mistakes with the Shah of Iran, Mubarak of Egypt, Palestinians when we got them to vote etc. They end up supporting religious wackos.

The moral of the story.......You can't bring democracy to 7th century people.

What democracy did we bring that are you talking about? The shah was a monarch. Elections were for the legislature, not the shah. How did we get the Egyptians the vote? Egypt has been holding elections since the brits gave them independence in 1922. Same with Palestine.

The mistakes in Iraq were uniquely stupid and highly original.

Strategist says

They end up supporting religious wackos.

They end up supporting religious wackos after their strongmen leaders become corrupt, viciously repressive, and extremely wealthy while the people live in abject poverty and terror. The same reasons as people fought for communism after the fall of colonialism across the world.

You sound like the domino theory idiots.

Dan8267 says

PeopleUnited says

Here are some of the results of the teaching of Islam.

Here are some of the results of the teaching of Jesus

Cherry picking examples is a logical fallacy. Adolf Hitler, Vlad the Impaler, Vladimir Putin, King Henry VII, and many others are also the results of the teachings of Jesus. One can even make the case that Putin became far more evil after his conversion back to Christianity.

I'm not going to play your little pyramid game, if you want to join the debate club go back to school. I'm sure the JV team could teach you a thing or two.

Are you calling Adolf, Vlad, Vladimir Christians? Because they went to church? What have they ever said about Jesus that made you think they were Christians? You get more absurd with every rat hole you go down. More making shit up. Give me one example of how Vlad the Impaler expressed his undying gratitude for the sacrifice that Jesus made on the cross to make him a new creature in Christ and I'll say Dan is king of the pyramid.

The problem once again is your premise, just as your premise that there is no god is an untenable foundation from which to build anything but lies, claiming someone is a Christian because they said so is untenable.

For example. I can call my self a New York Yankee baseball player but that doesn't get me on the field. The owner of the Yankees is the only one who can give me those credentials. The same is true with Christianity. People can call themselves Christians but unless Jesus gives you the credentials you aren't getting inside those gates. Did Jesus tell you that Vlad the Impaler is a Christian? I'd like to hear more about that!

bob2356 says

Strategist says

They end up supporting religious wackos.

They end up supporting religious wackos after their strongmen leaders become corrupt, viciously repressive, and extremely wealthy while the people live in abject poverty and terror. The same reasons as people fought for communism after the fall of colonialism across the world.

You sound like the domino theory idiots.

They end up supporting religious wackos because they are trying to be good Muslims. The corrupt dictator is a much better option than a religious wacko.

Old time Pat.net religious arguments are back!

Also, Frederick the Great is better than Francoise Holland or Dubya. The only reason Democracy should be preferred over enlightened despotism is the succession issue: who follows the dictator? Otherwise forward-thinking dictators are better.

Better Lee Kwan Yew than the Afghan Jurga.

PeopleUnited says

I'm not going to play your little pyramid game,

You mean being civilized? You don't have to act like an adult, of course. Being childish and petty is your right. However, the audience is not going to respect you if you choose to exercise your right to be a poo-fling monkey instead of honestly debating the issue like an adult.

So go ahead. You're only embarrassing yourself and making your side look even worse.

PeopleUnited says

Are you calling Adolf, Vlad, Vladimir Christians? Because they went to church? What have they ever said about Jesus that made you think they were Christians?

They believe(d) in the divinity and resurrection of Christ. By definition, that makes them Christians. Your No True Scotsman argument fails.

PeopleUnited says

For example. I can call my self a New York Yankee baseball player but that doesn't get me on the field.

If you play for the NY Yankees in official American league games, then you are a NY Yankee even if you suck ass at baseball. The definition of a NY Yankee player is playing official baseball games for the NY Yankee team. Whether or not someone fan calls you a true NY Yankee is irrelevant.

Your analogy is also flawed because Hal Steinbrenner actually exists, unlike Yahweh. You can physically walk up to Seinbrenner and slap him in the face with your dick. He'll probably object, but you can do that because he exists. Here's a picture of him.

You will never get a picture of your god because he does not exist.

As for Jesus, here's an up-to-date picture.

He no longer exists. The person he was has ceased to be. Therefore Jesus cannot decide anything, nonetheless who is a true follower of his.

Dan8267 says

He does not look like someone who is gonna wake up anytime soon.

That just makes my point even more so.

How did a thread on Islam turn into a judgment on Christianity?

FamousInjury says

How did a thread on Islam turn into a judgment on Christianity?

It always does. Same old Liberal circle jerk.

FamousInjury says

How did a thread on Islam turn into a judgment on Christianity?

Dan hijacked it.

It's more fun attacking barbarians that live today, rather than attacking barbarians that lived a thousand years ago.