These Muslim Terrorist's are all Cowards and here's Why..

a reply to: OneManArmy

10. Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing, April 19, 1995.

You're kidding right?

McVeigh was Agnostic:

“science is my religion.” - Timothy McVeigh

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: OneManArmy

10. Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing, April 19, 1995.

You're kidding right?

McVeigh was Agnostic:

“science is my religion.” - Timothy McVeigh

Its not my list, and I already added my disclaimer regarding that event.

I only have to say abortion clinic to prove my point.
It wasnt that long ago that Christian neo-nazis were leaving burning CROSSES on the lawns of black people. Or hanging them from trees.

Here you go.. something not old at all...

While the impetus for McQuilliams’ onslaught remains unclear, local authorities recently announced that he may have been motivated by religion — but not the one you might think. According to the Associated Press, police officers who searched McQuilliams’ van found a copy of “Vigilantes of Christendom,” a book connected with the Phineas Priesthood, an American white supremacist movement that claims Christian inspiration and opposes interracial intercourse, racial integration, homosexuality, and abortion. Phineas priests take their name from the biblical figure Phinehas in the book of Numbers, who is described as brutally murdering an Israelite man for having sex with a foreign woman, who he also kills. Members of the Phineas Priesthood — which people “join” simply by adopting the views of the movement — are notoriously violent, and some adherents have been convicted of bank robberies, bombing abortion clinics, and planning to blow up government buildings. Although McQuilliams didn’t leave a letter explaining the reason for his attack, a handwritten note inside the book described him as a “priest in the fight against anti-God people.”

Source

I dont get it, are you trying to deny the existence of christian nutters?
I mean you have to be pretty weak minded to be taken in by religious bulltish, but you cant seriously be saying that Christians arent terrorists?

Lets not forget about Anders Breivik.

Another Source

You want more?

OK...

Non-Musli ms Carried Out More than 90% of All Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil

Since 9/11, right wing extremists have killed more Americans than Islamic jihadists, yet attacks committed by the former don't get anywhere near the amount of coverage-- or government attention-- as violence perpetrated by the latter.

Source

a reply to: OneManArmy

I only have to say abortion clinic to prove my point.
It wasnt that long ago that Christian neo-nazis were leaving burning CROSSES on the lawns of black people. Or hanging them from trees.

But I can show verses from Jesus that anyone engaged in those activities are NOT Christians, example:

"Love your neighbor as yourself"
"Pray for your enemies, bless them."
"He who hates another person has committed murder in his heart"
"An evil tree cannot produce good fruit and a good tree cannot produce evil fruit, by their fruits you will know them"

So my original question in this thread remains "What is the point of judging a religion by it's apostates?"


The same CANNOT be said for Islam, fundamental Islam is to murder people who reject Islam. Muhammad did this himself in the 7th century AD. The Hadiths are the quotes from Muhammad.

Since 9/11, right wing extremists have killed more Americans than Islamic jihadists, yet attacks committed by the former don't get anywhere near the amount of coverage-- or government attention-- as violence perpetrated by the latter.

What an absurd biased sample fallacy. Of course that is true if you purposely draw the line after 9/11!!!!! lol

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: OneManArmy

I only have to say abortion clinic to prove my point.
It wasnt that long ago that Christian neo-nazis were leaving burning CROSSES on the lawns of black people. Or hanging them from trees.

But I can show verses from Jesus that anyone engaged in those activities are NOT Christians, example:

"Love your neighbor as yourself"
"Pray for your enemies, bless them."
"He who hates another person has committed murder in his heart"
"An evil tree cannot produce good fruit and a good tree cannot produce evil fruit, by their fruits you will know them"

So my original question in this thread remains "What is the point of judging a religion by it's apostates?"


The same CANNOT be said for Islam, fundamental Islam is to murder people who reject Islam. Muhammad did this himself in the 7th century AD. The Hadiths are the quotes from Muhammad.

So what?

Exactly the same thing the christians used to do.
Did you ever hear of the Inquisition or the Salem witch trials or the witch trails throughout Europe?

The hadiths are to Islam what the Watchtower bible and tract society is to christianity.
Much of what is wrong with Islam comes from the hadiths.

You can only judge any ideology from its apostates.
Judge them by their fruits.
Religion is just another ideology like all the others. And it can only be judged by the fruit it produces.

Religious fruit tends to be homophobic, paedophilic, wealth hoarding, sexist, racist, self righteous arseholes.

And thats just the Christian contingent.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical



What an absurd biased sample fallacy. Of course that is true if you purposely draw the line after 9/11!!!!! lol

What a surprise, a christian in denial.
Who would have thunk it?

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: NOTurTypical



What an absurd biased sample fallacy. Of course that is true if you purposely draw the line after 9/11!!!!! lol

What a surprise, a christian in denial.
Who would have thunk it?

I'm in denial because I had the nerve to point out an absurd biased sample fallacy?? Are you kidding me?

a reply to: OneManArmy

So what? Exactly the same thing the christians used to do. Did you ever hear of the Inquisition or the Salem witch trials or the witch trails throughout Europe?

I won't argue with the sins ordered by the Roman Catholic church!! No argument from me. Tens of millions of Christians were murdered by the Catholics with orders from Rome just for standing up for Biblical truth.

You can only judge any ideology from its apostates.

That's an absurd statement. You should judge anything on Earth from it's fundamental followers, not those who act completely contrary to it.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: OneManArmy

So what? Exactly the same thing the christians used to do. Did you ever hear of the Inquisition or the Salem witch trials or the witch trails throughout Europe?

I won't argue with the sins ordered by the Roman Catholic church!! No argument from me. Tens of millions of Christians were murdered by the Catholics with orders from Rome just for standing up for Biblical truth.

Yes because religion is political. Has nothing to do with truth and everything to do with mind control. It is the single most effective form of mind control that mankind has ever invented. Well until the TV anyway.

You highlight a great point the protestant/catholic fight that has been going on since Martin Luther started the reformation. Both sides as bat# crazy as each other. All in the name of God.

What interpretation of the bible do you represent? I mean there are plenty of them.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: OneManArmy



That's an absurd statement. You should judge anything on Earth from it's fundamental followers, not those who act completely contrary to it.

Sorry, yes you are right.
I had a moment of stupidity. I mistook the word apostate for apostle. Totally mixing up the meaning.
I apologise. And realise the absurdity.

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: OneManArmy



That's an absurd statement. You should judge anything on Earth from it's fundamental followers, not those who act completely contrary to it.

Sorry, yes you are right.
I had a moment of stupidity. I mistook the word apostate for apostle. Totally mixing up the meaning.
I apologise. And realise the absurdity.

Hey no worries, totally understandable mistake.

a reply to: OneManArmy

What interpretation of the bible do you represent? I mean there are plenty of them.

It's not so much English translation, I only consider the Textus Receptus Greek manuscript to be inspired. And as far as I know the only modern translation that doesn't use the Westcott and Hort Greek or the Alexandrian Codecies is the King James.

I would like to see a new modern version come out that doesn't use W&H and that uses just the TR Greek and the Septuagint OT. I struggle with the older English sometimes and use Concordances and Lexicons often. I do also like that the KJV is a word for word translation most of the time and not an idea for idea translation. The words that are added for clarity by the word for word translation are in italics.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: OneManArmy

What interpretation of the bible do you represent? I mean there are plenty of them.

It's not so much English translation, I only consider the Textus Receptus Greek manuscript to be inspired. And as far as I know the only modern translation that doesn't use the Westcott and Hort Greek or the Alexandrian Codecies is the King James.

I would like to see a new modern version come out that doesn't use W&H and that uses just the TR Greek and the Septuagint OT. I struggle with the older English sometimes and use Concordances and Lexicons often. I do also like that the KJV is a word for word translation most of the time and not an idea for idea translation. The words that are added for clarity by the word for word translation are in italics.

The dead sea scrolls showed that the KJV was the least modified version and was actually very accurate, but still. What makes you think the new testament was "inspired". Isnt it just a collection of tales written, at least a hundred years after Jesus supposedly ascended to heaven, by men.

Then you have the apocrypha, the stories that didnt quite make the final cut. But have just as much authenticity as the books that did make the final cut.

From its very inception the NT has been about politics, not god. Which is why its almost impossible to find any credible evidence that Jesus wasnt anything more than a man just like you and me. If he even existed at all, the same can be said for moses and solomon.

a reply to: OneManArmy

From its very inception the NT has been about politics, not god.

I suppose if you look at it from the sense of Christ returning and setting up His monarchy on Earth. Other than that it doesn't really speak of civics.

Aren't we kinda getting WAY off-topic here? I mean I answered simply what translation I prefer, but I see no reason to get into it more than that, this isn't at all the topic.