Radical Christianity — Pastor Who Hosted GOP: Paris Victims 'Devil-Worshippers'

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

The authorities are in between a rock and a hard place here.

They KNOW some people MAY cause problems and they would like to act preemptively, but acting preemptively is a dangerous thing to do since many people are going to wonder what else will be acted upon preemptively, like someone loses their job and will possibly not be able to pay their mortgage doesn't want to immediately have their home put into foreclosure because the bank "figgers" he's gonna default.

If you want to be preemptive with one person in an official capacity, you are potentially giving yourself license to be preemptive with everyone regarding everything.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: knoxie

It's the 21st century way. In order to not take any responsibility for anything, point out something others do and add that to the martyr syndrome. What was the topic again?

Well, part of the topic was the lack of perspective, dare I say ignorance of this statement direct from the OP:
"Ideologically, the distance between radical Christianity and radical Islam is actually a lot smaller than people are comfortable admitting."

The OP made a failed attempt at comparing a loud mouthed bigot to a bunch of assholes intent on murdering us all... thus: topical replies were made.

If it was just this thread I might agree but it's rampant here. No responsibility is ever taken. I'm actually off to get some cheese to go with the whine.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

"The OP made a failed attempt at comparing a loud mouthed bigot to a bunch of assholes intent on murdering us all... thus: topical replies were made."

again, tell that to the lgbt folk.

my brother, who is gay, I'm pretty sure is more concerned with ted cruz becoming president than he is with Islamic terrorists. wouldn't you be if you were gay? serious question.

a reply to: intrepid

I prefer to judge each thread on it's own merits. Simple fact, the whole premise of this thread is based on "You criticize radical Islam but don't criticize radical Christianity, so you're a hypocrite." That being the OP's argument, pointing out the MOUNTAIN of differences between this supposed "radical Christianity" and radical Islam, particularly the fact that radical Christianity does little more than flap it's gums and run off at the mouth while radical Islam chops people's heads off, stones women, blows up buildings, executes concert goers, etc is about as much responsibility as the OP deserves to receive... maybe even more than the thread deserves.

Perspective, my man. Perspective. We have a thread whining about a man saying the people attending the Eagles of Death Metal concert were devil worshippers. OOOH BURN!!! That cuts so freaking deep! On the other side of the coin, a group of extremist SNIPheads actually picked up arms and explosives against those concert goers and KILLED 150+ of them, KILLED, as in dead, as in no longer among the living.

Words...

Actions...

Opinions vocalized....

Opinions acted on....

Some refuse to see the difference between words and actions, because reasons. I don't understand it, but it sure as hell is running rampant these days. It is why it is apparently worse to utter a slur against someone than it is to be punched in the back of the head by a stranger on the street for fun. It is why we have a president who is all talk, no walk. It is why people who recoil in horror at Ben Carson's personal beliefs in God seem to not give a damn about Hillary Clinton's laundry list of actual crimes committed. I blame an absence of perspective. These guys like Kevin Swanson are idiots, but at the end of the day they're harmless idiots who just enjoy the sound of their own voice. They're not amassing an arsenal with the intent of storming San Fransisco or Seattle to start taking the gay people out in the name of Allah. To portray them as otherwise is fear mongering and ridiculous.

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: burdman30ott6

"The OP made a failed attempt at comparing a loud mouthed bigot to a bunch of assholes intent on murdering us all... thus: topical replies were made."

again, tell that to the lgbt folk.

my brother, who is gay, I'm pretty sure is more concerned with ted cruz becoming president than he is with Islamic terrorists. wouldn't you be if you were gay? serious question.

Serious answer: No. This is why America has a system of government which prevents one individual from holding all the cards. Homosexuals in America have progressed in leaps and bounds over the past decade. Not real sure what they're complaining about now. *Some* of the law changes I've heard men like Cruz advocate, I support 100%, and religion has zero role in that support. For example, a private business should ALWAYS have the right to refuse service to ANYONE and for ANY reason. The business owner is the one with his ass on the line, it is his/her investment and they are the one who stands to lose something, therefore all decisions should be left with them. I also have to say, the line between equal treatment and special treatment, in my opinion, has been crossed some time ago and I honestly support pulling that line back to the equal marker.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

The OP didn't need any further added to it. It's already there:

How often do conservatives blast moderate Muslims for the popular perception that they're "not doing enough to denounce radical Islam?" How ironic (and concerning, not to mention hypocritical) is it then that the same people refuse to acknowledge let alone denounce Christian extremists in their own backyard — in their own political party?

Ideologically, the distance between radical Christianity and radical Islam is actually a lot smaller than people are comfortable admitting. I wonder if the biggest difference between the two isn't simply that radical Muslims fundamentalist like those in ISIS rely on terrorists to incite the holy war they both want and radical Christian fundamentalist are counting on lobbyists in our government to accomplish the same.

To do any further is exactly what I pointed out, obfuscation so as to not even discuss the topic. And the OP is correct. Many that slam radical Islam are the first to stand up FOR radical Christianity, or at least defend it.

Behind the "actions" of radical Islam and the "gum flapping" of extremest Christians I see the same motivations, emotions, and justifications of thought.

It's the thoughts, emotions, and mindsets that are similar.

If group A rounds people up and executes them, but group B makes their lifestyle illegal and puts them all in prison -- is there much of a difference in the end result?

I'd argue being executed is more humane than spending the rest of your life withering away in a cell or work camp.

One used summary judgement and violence, the other group used its own legal system. One approach is more direct and violent, the other not so -- but the end result is still one group of people being oppressed for being themselves.

The modes and methods may be different, but the way in which their religious zealotry is being used to justify their attitudes, beliefs, and emotions is the core common denominator.

Funny how when asked to bring up examples of Christian extremism, they act like I am condemning the entire religion for those acts? Not true but kind of sucks right? Kind of reminds me of something....oh wait...you demonizing of an entire religion based on the acts of the radicals.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: lucifershiningone

Just to show you...Christians have also made a stain on history..just mere decades for the native people and black people don't ignore.

Wasn't radical 'christians' that attacked on 9-11.

Wasn't radical 'christians' that attacked the USS Cole, and Kobar Towers, and the embassies in Narobi, and it sure as snip wasn't chrisitans responsible for Benghazi.

But hey.

Keep pushing that false equivolency.

Might want to go see a doctor, and see if they can do anything about that Christianphobia.

Now there is a stain.

But it was radical Christians who are slaughtering people in Africa to this day.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Behind the "actions" of radical Islam and the "gum flapping" of extremest Christians I see the same motivations, emotions, and justifications of thought.

It's the thoughts, emotions, and mindsets that are similar.

If group A rounds people up and executes them, but group B makes their lifestyle illegal and puts them all in prison -- is there much of a difference in the end result?

I'd argue being executed is more humane than spending the rest of your life withering away in a cell or work camp.

One used summary judgement and violence, the other group used its own legal system. One approach is more direct and violent, the other not so -- but the end result is still one group of people being oppressed for being themselves.


The modes and methods may be different, but the way in which their religious zealotry is being used to justify their attitudes, beliefs, and emotions is the core common denominator.

THIS.

thank you for being so eloquent. i am not

i guess if beheadings aren't in the picture extremism isn't dangerous. god forbid we learn some lessons. instead we just turn a blind eye, i suppose.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: lucifershiningone
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I was replying to NEo who stated that radical attacks by Islam having going on for decades and I showed him that Christians have also done horrible things mere decades ago.

As for Christians and radicals...look at Africa and tell them the Christians there are not radicals.

factreal.wordpress.com... cks-against-america/

None of those were committed by 'Christians'.

But hey who cares right.

You are actually trying to tell me a Native American what religion tried to kill the Indian in us..

The Indian Residential Schools System

Though Aboriginal Canadians had attended Christian residential schools since the 17th century, the Indian Residential Schools system was formalized by the government only in the mid-19th century.

From 1892 to 1969, the federal government and the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of England (Anglican Church), the Methodist Church (United Church), and the Presbyterian Church entered into formal agreements for the education of Aboriginal Canadians. As mentioned earlier, several Indian Residential Schools continued to operate with government support into the 1990s. (15) In 1920, attendance at residential schools became compulsory under the Indian Act. Children aged 6 to 15 could be forcibly removed from their families if they were not sent willingly. Most students would have little or no contact with their families for the full 10 months of the school year, and some would rarely see their families at all due to the distance from the schools to their homes. Many parent-child relationships were completely severed. Many students then returned to their communities as victims of abuse and perpetuated a cycle of violence. They were also expected to raise their own children when they had little experience learning parenting skills from their own families. Thus, the impact of the Indian Residential Schools has been felt by subsequent generations.

Know your history before making a fool of yourself.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: lucifershiningone
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I was replying to NEo who stated that radical attacks by Islam having going on for decades and I showed him that Christians have also done horrible things mere decades ago.

As for Christians and radicals...look at Africa and tell them the Christians there are not radicals.

And the Chinese and Soviet governments were state mandated atheists. Are we going to start talking about radical atheism because of the Holodomor and Tiananmen Square (among other atrocities)? OH how dangerous that sonuvabitch Richard Dawkins is, lined up with the mentality which led to millions of deaths at the hands of those atheists in the Red Menace...

HUMANITY has done horrible things and continues to do so to this day. Deal with it.

Exactly but too say that it is Muslims are the only extremist to this day is BS. Africa for and their Christian extremists would beg to differ.

Or does it not matter because it is not a western country?

I would much rather be called names by a christain zealot than shot or beheaded by a muslim zealot.

That you extremists would even try to make a moral equivalency is both laughable and frightening.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: lucifershiningone
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I was replying to NEo who stated that radical attacks by Islam having going on for decades and I showed him that Christians have also done horrible things mere decades ago.

As for Christians and radicals...look at Africa and tell them the Christians there are not radicals.

Agreed what is going on in Africa is a tragedy and should be met with just as much force as any other radical religion carrying out killings.....

But as far as apples to apples

Hate speech preached here in the US at some churches, seems to me is more in the same line as the Hate speech professed by groups like BLM

If the left are willing to Demonize a whole group because of these bigoted preachers or churches, why arent they doing the same with groups like the BLM?

Seems hypocritical to me....

We arent suppose to white wash BLM and the Black Panthers and other groups who are openly racist and indeed at times violent/destructive

Yet the left has no issue pigeonholing all of Christianity because of ignorant pastors...

I just find it disingenuous , intentionally divisive, and agenda driven

I am not demonizing the the whole group because I know better. I was only showing that Christians have their own extremists and it is happening to this day.

NEO is making the assumptions that it is only Muslims who are performing extreme acts when that is not true. It is happening all over the world by other religions.

Same turds, different porcelain throne.

a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

If you want to be preemptive with one person in an official capacity, you are potentially giving yourself license to be preemptive with everyone regarding everything.

My position on whether or not to act preemptively is more nuanced than that on any other issue, with regards to religious zealotry, action needs to be taken before hand to stop the bloodshed and violence. To tell people to just ignore the religious principles that these insane people spew and only act as the violence and discrimination occurs is ignoring the root cause of the problem.

If that gives other people the license to act preemptively on other issues so be it.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
I would much rather be called names by a christain zealot than shot or beheaded by a muslim zealot.

That you extremists would even try to make a moral equivalency is both laughable and frightening.

Yeah cuz Christians don't do that?

Christian militias take bloody revenge on Muslims in Central African Republic

Tens of thousands of Muslims flee Christian militias in Central African Republic

Over there if your not Christian you would be would lucky to only not be beheaded.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
I would much rather be called names by a christain zealot than shot or beheaded by a muslim zealot.

Assuming you live in the West.....what are the odds of both of those happening? I'd say the former happens quite a lot. The latter... never?

That you extremists would even try to make a moral equivalency is both laughable and frightening.

And people are extremists for pointing out extremists. Still not talking about the OP. When are we going to get back to that?

originally posted by: intrepid
The latter... never?

And you would be wrong..the acts in Africa being done by Christian extremists sounds like it would a pretty horrific death by the radicals over there.

Why are you people completely ignoring the atrocities being done in the name Christianity in Africa?

Just because you hold you hands over your eyes and ears does not mean it is not happening.