It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

You Don't Agree With ME? Then YOU Must Be Terminated!

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 12:21 AM
a reply to: nenothtu

Explicitly nowhere. These sentiments derive directly from the Christianity embedded in American culture though. Can I prove anyone on that site is Christian? No. Is it likely? Yes. Is it likely that at the very least raised by Christians? Incredibly so.

If you want me to find explicit examples of Christians saying this I'd be happy to. I've definitely heard it said on talk shows and on message boards.

I chose that site to just show how common anti Muslim sentiment is in America, a Christian nation.

posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 02:06 PM
a reply to: tavi45

Ah, I see. It's by assumption and inference, then. "Guilt by association", with an assumed association, rather than a concrete one. OK.

I know a lot of Christians. I don't always (or even usually, it seems) agree with them, but I can think of no instance in all my years of ever having heard one call for the wholesale slaughter of another group. They can usually be found praying for their enemies, as their religion dictates.

It appears that your mileage varies.

edit on 2014/11/8 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 8 2014 @ 09:00 PM
a reply to: nenothtu

It seems you made uninformed inferences and assumotions about me and failed to read the thread in its entirety with an unbiased mind.

If you read the thread I already said I don't think all Christians are bad and even had a nice chat with one who was offended. Since you decided to call me out for making assumptions, here is a concrete examples of what I based my assumptions on, namely hearing people say exactly that numerous times including on MSM.

The first example shows the use of the exact phrase. Again he may not be Christian but he is conditioned towards accepting Christianity and rejecting Islam by the nature of being American. I included this because I wanted to highlight how common the phrase itself is, which is nowhere near as common as the idea of nuking the middle east in general.

The second examine doesn't use the exact phrase but shows a CLEARLY CHRISTIAN blogger advocating the same thing but without the exact phrase.

"You do not reason with Ted Bundy, you do not reason with John Wayne Gacy or Jeffery Dahmer, the sooner we accept that 99% of the Muslims in the Middle East are every bit the homicidal psychopaths that Bundy, Gacy or Dahmer were the sooner we can take reasonable actions. In the case of the middle east, reasonable actions would be turning Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan into giant puddles of molten green glass." [My emphasis added]

"Put simply, we should employ tactical nuclear weapons to wipe out the enemy. We cannot worry that Islamic civilians will be killed in the process. In the end this strategy, as was true of the Japanese in World War II, saves not just American but Muslim lives as well."

"And, all of this points out that We the People not only have a Muslim enemy in the Middle East to defeat, but also a Muslim sympathizer in the White House that is bent on destroying our Judeo-Christian heritage and way of life.

Yes, these are the times that try men’s souls. No more “sunshine patriots”! The time to fight back with overwhelming force is now before it is too late. Let the Islamic terrorists be destroyed totally with our strongest weapons – giving them an early burial in hell replete with 72 virgins for each one."

Perhaps you should not make assumptions about the whole of Christendom based on your friends and neighbors.

I guess your mileage varies too, whatever that's supposed to mean.
edit on 8-11-2014 by tavi45 because: auto correct mistake

posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 12:00 AM
a reply to: tavi45

Oddly, perhaps, my "assumption" was reading you make a bold and unambiguous statement in this post. That statement was:

I've heard many right wing Christians say we should bomb the middle East until it's glass.

It's pretty clear. I do love the way you felt a need to add right wing Christians in there. I've seen that sort of thing before, often, but won't go any deeper into that, to avoid casting the thread adrift.

You backed that unambiguous statement up with this web page. I went to the webpage, read it in it's entirety, and found NO support for the statement you so boldly made. I don't know - maybe you thought no one would actually check it out, maybe you didn't really read it yourself, or - most likely - you read things into it that simply weren't there, but which you WISHED were there.

1) "Conditioned toward accepting Christianity" is not "Christian".

2) There is nothing about being American that would "condition one towards accepting Christianity" - America is not a theocracy, and most of the Americans I know are "conditioned" AGAINST Christianity. We see that often enough even at ATS.

3) "Rejecting Islam" does not automatically make one a "right wing Christian".

4) There is nothing about being an American that would cause one to "reject Islam" - again, America is not a theocracy, and surprise surprise, I actually know Americans who not only fail to reject Islam, but actually ARE Muslims.

"Bat # insane" (from your first link in this post) is not a typically Christian phrase. The link again fails to support your contention.

This leaves us with your final link, to WND. The ONLY indicator of the author's religion I could find in that entire mess was "How dare we Christians and Jews think...", which, I presume, is what you are basing your contention that the author is a Christian on. There was nothing else in the entire gob of muck that would indicate such. How do you know he's a "Christian", and not a "Jew"? it could go either way from that statement, and the link certainly didn't amount to a sermon, or anything else that could be linked with either Christianity or Judaism - other than that single ambiguous phrase.

In any event, one man is not "many right wing Christians", even if that one man DID pan out to be a Christian (by no means proven) AND right wing.

Perhaps YOU should not make assumptions about the whole of Christendom based upon a single WND posting - which was, apparently, the best you could come up with in an effort to support your statement, and which was definitely NOT your initial attempt to support it, NOT what you based it upon to begin with. That link was not in the original post where the bold statement was made.

Yes, apparently my mileage DOES vary. You seem a bright lad - I think you can figure out EXACTLY what that means.

ETA: Let me help you:

Here you go

Klayman was born to Jewish parents, and identifies himself as "both a Jew and a Christian".

It seems Mr. Klayman just can't decide WHAT he is.

The only "Jewish Christians" are "Messianic Jews" - which I suppose he would claim to be, if he were one.

You should read that Wiki page. that dude is a real piece of work! he sued his own mother, then blamed the Clinton Administration for putting out the information about the suit that his own brother was responsible for releasing to Newsweek! it's a laugh a minute! He seems fairly unable to get much of anything right, at all.

I just expected more reliable sources from you is all, given the boldness and precision of the original statement. My mistake. Sorry 'bout that.

edit on 2014/11/10 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 01:17 AM
a reply to: nenothtu

I've heard many right wing Christians say we should bomb the middle East until it's glass.

Nice post and all but you apparently can't read. I said "I've heard". I have. Last I checked I'm the best judge of what I've heard

I've heard it from others who aren't right wing or Christian.

This thread is long dead until you revived it. Nor does this thread have any real purpose in revealing facts so I fail to see the point of your entire purpose here, especially since I already made up with the Christian who was offended.

So what is your purpose? That I shouldn't judge all Christians the same?

posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 11:20 AM
a reply to: tavi45

No, that's not my purpose. You should judge all Christians any way you like - it's YOUR judgement to make, not mine. My purpose is to point out for the general readership an error you made. Whether or not you want to accept it was an error and move on is another judgment you'll have to make.

I'm married to a Muslim. Up until a few months ago, we lived in a city of 1.3 million people. One would think that, if anyone were going to hear Christians say something like that, it would be me, and I'd have the lumps to show that I heard it - yet I haven't.

Don't get me wrong - I've heard people make that statement, in those exact words...

... but it wasn't Christians saying it.

Christians were too busy praying for their enemies and trying to convert my wife. I think, perhaps, that somewhere deep in their core, at some level, they may have realized that offering to bomb her into oblivion might not be the best way to go about the conversion process.

OR - maybe they just weren't a people prone to violent behavior.

posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 11:43 AM
a reply to: nenothtu

There's a lot of studies that show that people are much less hateful of a particular group if they've met people from that group. Many Americans have not met Muslims. I'm not surprised they weren't hateful. It's much harder to be hateful to a real person you've met.

"Similarly, Muslims get a neutral rating (49 on average) from those who know a Muslim, and a cooler rating (35) from those who do not know a Muslim."

You'll notice from this poll that Muslims are rated poorly by most groups but the list rating comes from Evangelicals.

Thanks for showing the readers of a thread that was dead before you got here that not all Christians hate Muslims. I clarified my position already.

I just have a huge problem with people raging about Muslims and how violent they are while our predominantly Christian nation has started more wars and caused more death and suffering to Muslims then they have ever done to us.

Thanks for the clarification though. It was sorely needed. I guess many people, like yourself, won't read the thread in full and instead choose to attack me before they get the whole way through.

posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 04:12 PM
a reply to: tavi45

This is like beating a dead horse. it can't say "well, I might have been mistaken", no matter how much you beat it, so I reckon we're done here. YOU may have "a predominantly Christian nation", but I don't, so there is no "our predominantly Christian nation" shared between us. I live in America. It's secular, not Christian. Has that whole "First Amendment" and "separation of church and state" thing going on. Back when it was formed, most of the folks here WERE here because they were running away from "Christian" nations. That's why they set it up the way they did.

"Starting wars" is a whole 'nother topic.

posted on Nov, 10 2014 @ 07:04 PM
a reply to: nenothtu

I live in America. It's a predominantly Christian nation. That's why my assumptions were statistically valid even if not explicitly concretely true.

"Eighty-three percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Most of the rest, 13 percent, have no religion. That leaves just 4 percent as adherents of all non-Christian religions combined — Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and a smattering of individual mentions."

We were supposed to be secular. We are most definitely not. We're as secular as Israel or Iran. Our deep Christian roots and predominantly Christian population have long infected our secular government. Bush and one of his generals both made explicitly Christian fundamentalist comments about why we needed to/were invading Iraq. Not to mention how much of our legislation and judicial actions are based in Christian reasoning.

I'm well aware most Christians are good people but not all or even close to all.

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in