Search This Blog

Monday, August 24, 2009

A Jewish woman helps an Islamic girl remain a Christian and alive!




Pamela Geller, Newsmax: Media Bears False Witness Against Rifqa Bary


You have to read it to believe it, really. Or this one. Some very big organizations are working in concert to try to get this girl killed and paint the scenario as anti-Islam bias rather than what is actually happening.

Jewish Oddysseus has more to say about it. One young girl against CAIR and a conspiracy but so far America is still free enough to keep her from harm.


Photo and political cartoon courtesy Muslims Against Sharia

Have we forgotten what Islamic Fascism intends to do to us? Just check out what recently took place in Pakistan!

"Gojra, Pakistan. Hundreds of Muslims burned and looted Christian homes, killing seven Christians. Five, including three women and two children, were burnt alive. Gojra, a village about 100 miles west of Lahore, was the scene of an angry Muslim mob determined to avenge what they believed was the desecration of a Koran, the Muslim holy book, one week earlier.

That's right, hundreds of religious zealots, burning women and children alive because they thought someone had mistreated a book. When it was over, dozens of houses were torched and Faith Bible Pentecostal Church lay in ruins. Two villagers were shot dead, residents said. Five others, including two children, burned alive.

Christians make up about 2 percent of the Punjab population and are becoming frequent targets. In June, a mob attacked Christian homes in the Kasur district of Punjab for allegedly dishonoring the prophet Mohammed. In Pakistan, which has strict laws against blasphemy, people can be imprisoned for life or put to death for insulting Islam.

The riots prompted angry protests by Christians and human rights activists in Lahore, the Punjab's provincial capital. Rights groups accused the police of failing to respond quickly enough to prevent the violence from escalating."

Islamic Nations Slaughter and Enslave Christians
By Tom Barrett

THERE IS NOT ONE CHRISTIAN NATION ON EARTH WHERE MUSLIMS ARE PERSECUTED. Yet in 83% of nations where the majority of the population are Muslims, there is systematic government persecution of Christians. (See "Religious Freedom in the Majority Islamic Countries" in the Resources section below.) This persecution includes imposing the death penalty for sharing the Christian faith with a Muslim; national laws prohibiting conversion from Islam to Christianity; destruction of churches; and murder or expulsion of Christian missionaries. Even in the few predominantly Muslim countries where the government does not openly participate in the persecution, it ignores and even encourages illegal persecution by Muslims against Christians.

Remember this one?

February 19, 2006

Nigerian Muslims Slaughter Christians, Torch 11 Churches


From the BBC - sixteen people have been killed in northern Nigeria during protests by Muslims over cartoons!. A Catholic Priest and 3 children are among the dead!

The AP is reporting that 15 churches were burned in the mainly Muslim region. One group threw a tyre around one man, poured gas on him and set him ablaze," and the rioting Muslims stormed through the streets for three hours before police restored order.

Most of the dead were Christians beaten to death on the streets by the rioters

Islam, the religion of peace, and Terrorism


"Truthfully your condeming of our faith would probably have you warned, and if you persisted, would have consequences, of which i am not sure. But there have been cases where people have been put to death for MALICIOUSLY harming the image of our noble master Muhammad, the best creation of God. But you fail to see that islam means peace, just as when we meet each other and say 'assalamu alaikum' 'peace be upon you' to our brothers. We are a tolerant religion, and our communities have and still have many faiths still practicing their own religions in islamic land. From the time of the prophet up until today."

The preceding quote was received via e-mail from a Muslim. Notice that he says Islam is a religion of peace, yet that there would be "consequences" for me in my condemnation of Islam. He then mentions how people have been killed for harming the image of Mohammed. Quite frankly, Mohammed damages his own image when he marries multiple women, advocates lying, 1 and spreads his religion by the sword.

Nevertheless, is Islam a religion of peace? Many of its advocates say that it is. Let's see what the Qur'an actually says.

  1. The Qur'an tells muslims to kill and go to war to fight for Islam: Quran, chapters (Surahs) 9:5; 2:191; 2:193; 3:118; 4:75,76; 5:33, 8:12; 8:65; 9:73,123; 33:60-62.
  2. Fight for Allah: "And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers, (Quran 2:191).
  3. Muslims are to battle for Allah: "Those who believe do battle for the cause of Allah; and those who disbelieve do battle for the cause of idols. So fight the minions of the devil. Lo! the devil's strategy is ever weak," (Quran 4:76).
  4. Kill those against Islam: "The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter," (Quran 5:33).
  5. Beheading: "When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger. 13That is because they opposed Allah and His messenger. Whoso opposeth Allah and His messenger, (for him) lo! Allah is severe in punishment," (Quran 8:12).
  6. Allah urges war: "O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand," (Quran 8:65).
  7. Slay non-muslims: "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful," (Quran 9:5).
  8. Allah urges war: "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination," (Quran 9:73).
  9. Allah urges war: "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil)," (Quran 9:123).
  10. Allah urges killing: "...the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is a disease and the agitators in the city do not desist... 61Cursed: wherever they are found they shall be seized and murdered, a (horrible) murdering. 62(Such has been) the course of Allah with respect to those who have gone before; and you shall not find any change in the course of Allah, (Quran 33:60-62).
  11. Beheading: "Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens..." (Quran 47:4).
  12. Allah loves those who fight for him: "Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure," (Quran 61:4).

As you can see, the Qur'an definitely teaches that it's people are to fight for the cause of Islam. This list of verses is important because they are within the holy book of Islam. What are we to conclude if a Muslim is to take the Quran seriously? Is he not obligated to slay non-Muslims, to go to war, to kill those against Islam, etc.? Isn't this what the verses are teaching? Yes, they are and this is the source of Islamic Terrorism.

Salvation

In Islam, there is no guarantee of salvation except in one instance, dying in Jihad. Jihad is the struggle, the battle against those who would oppose Islam and what Islam stands for. This is very important because in the Muslim religion, there is no guarantee of salvation. Please consider the following verses:

Then, he whose balance (of good deeds) will be (found) heavy, 7Will be in a life of good pleasure and satisfaction. 8 But he whose balance (of good deeds) will be (found) light,- 9Will have his home in a (bottomless) Pit. (Surah 101:6-9)

In Islam, there is no assurance that the Muslim will be forgiven of his sins. As you can see, the Quran teaches a system of works righteousness. Therefore, no Muslim can ever know whether or not he has done enough good in order to please Allah. This is a burden that many Muslims do not like to bear.

Jihad

If we can see that the Islamic system of salvation based upon works cannot guarantee salvation, but fighting in jihad can, and we could see why Muslims terrorists would be eager to die (and take others with them) for the cause of their religion. It is the only way they can be guaranteed paradise. It is this fundamental principle in Islam that encourages terrorism.

  • "Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah,- whether he is slain or gets victory - Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value)." (4:74, Yusifali).
  • "Allah's Apostle said, "Allah guarantees (to the person who carries out Jihad in His Cause and nothing compelled him to go out but Jihad in His Cause and the belief in His Word) that He will either admit him into Paradise (Martyrdom) or return him with reward or booty he has earned to his residence from where he went out," (Hadith Vol. 9, Book 93, # 555).

Do Muslims practice the Qur'an principle of killing non Muslims? Yes they do. Following is a list of some articles that you can read a demonstrate some of the actions taken by Moslems in different parts of the world.

Since Islam teaches that the entire world is to be subjected to its laws, we need to prepare ourselves to withstand the future attacks motivated from the Quran that teaches killing in subjection of the unbelievers. We Christians need to be in prayer for the Muslims so that they would come to know the truth of who Jesus is and follow his peaceful ways, instead of promoting Islam by the sword.

  1. 1. Muhammad advocates lying: "Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him [Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf]?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). "The Prophet said, "You may say it," (Hadith Vol. 5, Book 59, #369). Go here to check this for yourself: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/059.sbt.html


~~~~~~~

President Obama lied to us and Dick Cheney is willing to tell the truth.



What is happening to us? The Democrats in association with ACORN have destroyed the banking industry and the mortgage system and have begun bankrupting and taking control of the auto industry. They want to add several layers of bureaucracy to the medical system and give everyone "free" healthcare that would probably destroy the economy that even now is barely scuffling along.

Democrats seem intent upon destroying our nation and RINOs exist that have helped them in the process.

Look around you, what do you see? Neighbors losing their jobs. Stocks losing value, retirement funds drying up, houses abandoned, for sale signs in unmowed yards.

Cash for Clunkers???!!! A system to remove good vehicles that poorer families could afford from the marketplace while selling new cars to the small percentage of well-off folks who can buy them.

I checked. My 2000 Chrysler Town and Country van would have maxed out the "cash for clunkers" trade-in allowance. But I have kept it in top shape and probably will get another 100,000 miles out of it. I could probably sell it for four thousand dollars to someone right now at a minimum. It has real value to a family with the need for good transportation. But cash for clunkers would have destroyed the vehicle in a very stupid way (first you destroy the engine, so then you cannot even drive it into a car carrier to move it to a junk yard so then it must be individually towed!) and basically thrown the value of the vehicle away. And where did that money come from, that $4,500 cash for clunker allowance? You and me.

The old 1994 van I traded in when I bought the 2000 van would also have qualifed for cash for clunkers, despite the fact that it would not really be worth even one grand!

Read below for what may be the "dumbest government program ever!"

Cash for Clunkers, RIP: A waste of money and assets

Excerpted:
  • A few billion dollars worth of wealth was destroyed. About 750,000 cars, many of which could have provided consumer value for many years, were thrown in the trash. Suppose each clunker was worth $3,000 at a guess, that would mean that the government destroyed $2.25 billion of value.
  • Low-income families, who tend to buy used cars, were harmed because the clunkers program will push up used car prices.

But the real reason it’s the dumbest program ever:

  • The auto industry received a short-term “sugar high” at the expense of lower future sales when the program is over. The program apparently boosted sales by about 750,000 cars this year, but that probably means that sales over the next few years will be about 750,000 lower. The program probably further damaged the longer-term prospects of auto dealers and automakers by diverting their attention from market fundamentals in the scramble for federal cash.

How many people bought cars that would have bought them soon anyway as they tired of their gas guzzlers? The better question will be how many didn’t. Whether Obama realizes it or not, people have economic and style incentive to trade up on a regular basis. In this case, Obama may have distorted the curve to entice people to do so now, but that just means that those consumers will not be in the market for a vehicle in the near-to-midterm future. It didn’t create sales; it just speeded them up.


Cash for Clunkers illustrates how the Obama administration does things - big, expensive, causing no pain to rich people, hurting the poor.

When the bottom of the economy drops out, the poor suffer and the middle class begins to join their ranks. But the rich (like Obama) just keep on keeping on.

Meanwhile I am waiting for the administration to rename the White House The Politiburo. They proposed and voted in a racist to the Supreme Court. They have a "Diversity Czar" who wants to stifle free speech by bringing back the (un)fairness doctrine.

The Science Czar is a nutcase!

John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet

By: Cao, Filed under: Environmentalism @ 7:57 pm

Book he authored in 1977 advocates for extreme totalitarian measures to control the population - Zombietime

This shouldn’t come as much of a surprise since the lefty “science” people cling to whatever propganda is popular. Today it’s “global warming” which should put an end to human progress and will control what kind of cars we drive, etc. - until we can barely afford to eat.

Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A “Planetary Regime” with the power of life and death over American citizens.

The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States? Or both?

Both. It’s the Messiah’s ObamaEnviroNazi, John Holdren; the Science Czar, who could theoretically be one of the Science blog loons. Read the rest here.

~~~~~~~

Free speech and after that just plain freedom is at stake in America!

The Obama Administration ran on HOPE and CHANGE. Well, they have succeeding in CHANGING HOPE INTO DESPAIR!

Want to see a chick in a bikini?

Obama's Hope and Change are as hot and inviting as this one:




You know?

Of course, the Obamites are still threatening the poor and hungry with Cap and Trade but the Washington Post is not on the bandwagon:

One Cheer for WaPo’s Abandonment of Cap and Trade

By E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D.

Put simply, Waxman-Markey is a mess. The longer Americans examine the cap-and-trade bill before Congress, the worse it looks. It picks winners and losers. It’s filled with special favors doled out, on the one hand, to rent-seeking corporations who sought competitive edges not through better service to the public but through political favors, and, on the other hand, to politicians whose votes were, quite frankly, for sale.

Will cap and trade even work? The European experience suggests it won’t work. It fails to yield a stable and predictable price for carbon, which is essential if businesses are to make long-term investments relative to it. It hasn’t brought European emissions down.

The Washington Post’s call to switch from cap and trade to a straightforward carbon tax is therefore, so far as it goes, welcome. It makes much better economic sense than cap and trade.

But this isn’t the time for opponents of cap and trade to fold their hands in smug relief and say, “Okay, bring on the carbon tax instead.”

Why not? Because the best reason to oppose cap and trade was not that it was economically inefficient and riddled with pitfalls, but that its purported rationale (lost sight of in the Washington sausage making) was to fight global warming by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Scientific study after study after study after study after study after study has confirmed that carbon dioxide’s effect on global temperature is only about one-sixth that claimed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (let alone by extremists like Al Gore and James Hansen) and that solar cycles, cosmic cycles, and planetary oceanic and atmospheric cycles, not human emissions of carbon dioxide or any other greenhouse gases, control global climate.

That means we have nothing to fear from carbon dioxide emissions and much to gain from their enhancement of plant growth (and hence crop yields) all over the world. It also means reducing emissions will have no significant effect on future global temperature. Even the 0.09 degree C reduction (itself undetectable and with no biological/ecological effect) calculated from successful implementation of Waxman-Markey must be cut to one-sixth: 0.015 degree C.

Reducing emissions won’t work. It won’t help us. It will hurt us.

Environmental lobbies and others committed to growing government have repeatedly used the tactic of first trying for extreme legislation and then settling for something less extreme--but still a step in the preferred direction. Now is not the time--if it ever was--to cave in to such incrementalism. The problem with CO2 emission reduction legislation isn’t just that it’s extreme. It’s that it’s wrong. It doesn’t just go too far in a good direction. It goes in the wrong direction.


Other than that, everything is just fine...

PS -

ACLU lose! Free speech wins! Please share with your readers! thanks, Jay

Santa Rosa County School District clerical assistant Michelle Winkler has had her day and court and has come out victorious. Winkler was accused of violating a court order that banned school officials from participating in religious activities on campus before, during, and after school hours when she asked her husband who is not employed by the school district to offer prayer at an event.

Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver seems surprised why the matter even made it to court. “And in fact in this case, Michelle Winkler was at an event after school at a Naval facility, off site, that was privately sponsored,” he explains.

Staver, whose firm represented Winkler, says the American Civil Liberties Union told the media going into the hearing that they had a rock-solid case. But after seven-and-a-half hours, the judge found that Winkler was not in violation of the court order — and that the court order was vague and did not specify as to what constituted a school-sponsored religious activity.

As the Christian attorney puts it: “The wheels came off the ACLU’s steamroller.”

40 comments:

Anonymous said...

Come on Radar, not this stuff again. Cut, paste, cut, paste, spew vitriolic garbage... aaaand we're done. I was hoping that the passing of your dog had mellowed you a bit. Unfortunately for Muslims everywhere, that does not appear to be the case.

Just to be clear though, when it comes to "cash for clunkers" you are all about the poor, but as far as health care reform goes, they can go pound sand? How is it that you both care so much AND don't care at all about these same people? That said, you must be getting pretty good at handling the whole cognitive dissonance thing.

- Canucklehead

Anonymous said...

Congratulations, Radar. You just did an excellent job of proving Richard Dawkins right: "Without religion, good people do good things and evil people do evil things. But to have good people do evil things, that takes religion."

One question though: why are you seemingly only upset about muslim violence? Take for instance Nigeria: indeed, there is a lot of violence by muslims there, but that's only half the story. Why not tell the whole story:

Children are targets of Nigerian witch hunt:

Evangelical pastors are helping to create a terrible new campaign of violence against young Nigerians. Children and babies branded as evil are being abused, abandoned and even murdered while the preachers make money out of the fear of their parents and their communities.

'Child-witches' of Nigeria seek refuge:

Mary is a pretty five-year-old girl with big brown eyes and a father who kicked her out onto the streets in one of the most dangerous parts of the world. Her crime: the local priest had denounced her as a witch and blamed her "evil powers" for causing her mother's death.

That's right, Radar: those poor, oppressed Christians in Nigeria have no qualms about killing and torturing little children and babies! And if some humanists or atheists dare to protest, they'll just beat those up, too:

Face to faith:

On 29 July, Christian witch-hunters accused of torturing and killing local children attacked and beat campaigners for child protection at a public meeting in Calabar, Nigeria.

The scary thing is: you don't even have to go abroad to find signs of Christian hatred. Arizona preacher Steven Anderson preaches that God commands to kills gays without even blinking:

God Commands You To Kill Gays:

You want to know who the biggest hypocrite in the world is? The biggest hypocrite in the world is the person who believes in the death penalty for murderers and not for homosexuals. Hypocrite. The same God who instituted the death penalty for murderers is the same God who instituted the death penalty for rapists and for homosexuals - sodomites, queers! That's what it was instituted for, okay? That's God, he hasn't changed. Oh, God doesn't feel that way in the New Testament ... God never "felt" anything about it, he commanded it and said they should be taken out and killed.

Radar, do I smell bigotry here? And why is it that the only reply I expect will be in the form of a 'No True Scotsman'-fallacy?

Don't get me wrong, though: I completely agree with you when you say that America is still free enough to keep Rifqa from harm. But then again it makes me wonder: why was America not capable of keeping Neil Jeffrey Beagley and Madeline Kara Neumann from harm? That's something to think about...

Oh, and about the ACLU? It's a good thing the wheels don't always come off the ACLU's steamroller, innit?

Anonymous said...

Great Post Annony. I had forgotten about the fact that evangelicals were linked to that horrible witch stuff going on in Nigeria. Good reply to Radar's "my religion is better than your religion" post.

And sorry to be picky but while that quote can be found in Dawkins book The God Delusion, the actual originator of that line is American physicist Steven Weinberg and goes like this,

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

- Canucklehead

Anonymous said...

Canucklehead,

Of course you are right. I knew Dawkins had included it in his book, but since I don't have The God Delusion, I typed it from the top of my head. 'With or without...' is indeed the correct form and makes the point much more clear.

And yes, I was aware that this point originally was made by Steven Weinberg, and not by Dawkins. But I figured that if I told Radar that he had proven Steven Weinberg right, he'd probably have shrugged. However, if I would point out to him that he was actually proving a point with which even Richard Dawkins (who is, after all, like Beelzebub to fundamental Christians) agrees, he might start to realize how counter-productive his article really is to his cause.
That's why I referred the quote to Dawkins.;-)

Anyway, I guess there's no harm in pointing out who had the 'copyright' to the quote. Maybe, just maybe, Radar will look into it a bit further, and learn a thing or two. So thanks for pointing it out.

radar said...

Just to be clear though, when it comes to "cash for clunkers" you are all about the poor, but as far as health care reform goes, they can go pound sand?

Adding a huge layer of government workers and regulations to healthcare will help the poor? No. A poor person can still go into an emergency room and get care even without funds. But that healhcare monstrosity will simply do more to kill the economy and produce more poor, not to mention gravely reduce the quality of healthcare for average Americans.

As to religion, you guys fit the statement recently made by Douglas Wilson about atheists.

"Atheists believe their is no God...and they hate him."

But you are greatly mistaken. I am not religious nor do I suggest religion is a good thing. Read Matthew 23 sometime. Jesus tore the religious leaders up one side and down the other. He came to destroy religion and establish relationship with God. He called religious leaders "hypocrites" and "vipers" and "blind leading the blind." I agree with Jesus Christ.

Religion is used by people to hurt, imprison, control and kill others. I stand against religion, whether it be Islam or various forms of fundamentalist legalism or huge church organizations or Wicca or Hindu or any of it.

So you can quit congratulating yourselves and rethink your position as it pertains to mine, because you obviously do not understand mine.

Anonymous said...

"What is happening to us? The Democrats in association with ACORN have destroyed the banking industry and the mortgage system and have begun bankrupting and taking control of the auto industry."

Wow... and how exactly do you think the Democrats and ACORN achieved that? For starters... has the banking industry been destroyed? Seems like they're trucking along quite nicely, bonuses and everything, business as usual. Did the Democrats force banks to go into subprime mortgages? Seems more like it was simple greed, accompanied by insufficient/ineffective regulation.

And what on Earth does ACORN have to do with this?

"They want to add several layers of bureaucracy to the medical system and give everyone "free" healthcare that would probably destroy the economy that even now is barely scuffling along."

How do you think healthcare reform will destroy the economy exactly?

And BTW, healthcare reform does not mean "free" healthcare for everyone.

And think about what a public option would do to encourage more real competition among health insurance providers.

"Look around you, what do you see? Neighbors losing their jobs. Stocks losing value, retirement funds drying up, houses abandoned, for sale signs in unmowed yards."

Um, in case you hadn't noticed, the recession began back in 2007. All these things were happening under Bush - do you wish to claim that he was out to wreck the country? (Maybe you do, and you wouldn't be the first Republican to have expressed great disappointment with Bush, but then don't blame his failures on someone else.)

"Adding a huge layer of government workers and regulations to healthcare will help the poor? No."

No, access to affordable healthcare will help the poor. Something that a Christian might find a good thing.

What would Jesus do?

"Atheists believe their is no God...and they hate him."

I know quite a few atheists, and not a single one of them hates God. Actually, they'd find the thought pretty absurd, and so do I. It's because we don't believe God exists, see. There's nothing there to hate. Funny how that works.

"I am not religious nor do I suggest religion is a good thing. Read Matthew 23 sometime. Jesus tore the religious leaders up one side and down the other. He came to destroy religion and establish relationship with God. He called religious leaders "hypocrites" and "vipers" and "blind leading the blind." I agree with Jesus Christ.

Religion is used by people to hurt, imprison, control and kill others. I stand against religion, whether it be Islam or various forms of fundamentalist legalism or huge church organizations or Wicca or Hindu or any of it.

So you can quit congratulating yourselves and rethink your position as it pertains to mine, because you obviously do not understand mine."


Where's Radar and what have you done with him?!

Seriously, is someone else posting under your name, or have you undergone some kind of epiphany lately? In what way is your evangelizing on this blog being something other than religious? In what way is the Christianity you believe in not a religion?

Aren't you suggesting that "religion is a good thing" (not religion in general, but your specific religion) when you claim that the only way to salvation and everlasting life is acceptance of your particular faith?

Yes, Jesus spoke out against some of the religious leaders of his day - but that doesn't mean he wasn't religious and/or that he had no religion - and certainly not that no religion was founded in his name, or that adherents of that religion are not religious.

Could you explain what you mean by this so we can understand the nuance in your position. Because I was kinda under the impression that you thought religion was cool (not in general, but your specific brand of it) and that you were a religious person.

Or are we heading into one of those bizarre No True Scotsman arguments that we experienced in the prison population argument?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Radar, it's lines like this that have your commenters regularly raising the issue of this site potentially being a parody,

"I am not religious nor do I suggest religion is a good thing. Read Matthew 23 sometime." - Radar

Huh?!? Do you even comprehend what you just wrote? I think you must be confused again. You do remember that, aside from apparently being anti-religion, you also repeatedly claim to be a biblical literalist, right? I'd say that most people would call someone who strictly adheres to the text of a holy book of a specific religion as, um, I don't know, Religious? Aren't you also "involved" with your church in some way?... google, google, google... Here we go,
http://cbc.agsmedia.us/bulletins/bulletin_2008_10_19.pdf
I mean up until this last freaking October both you and Debbie are listed as "Youth Ministry Staff". How does the fact that you teach religion (christianity) to children, not mean that you are religious, or at least pro-religion? Do these guys know your controversial thoughts on this subject?
Oh and I know this goes back a few years (2006) but, you'll have to congratulate Debbie for me on memorizing all of Romans.
http://cbc.agsmedia.us/bulletins/bulletin_2006_12_17.pdf
I mean the whole chapter memorized!!! That's pretty impressive. Kind like they do at those evil Islamic Madrasas, hmmmm... Say, considering her talents, if she's not still working on memorizing an entire holy book, maybe she'll find the time to actually read Dawkins, as opposed to just the little book/pamphlet criticizing him.

@ Annony, yeah sorry to be a little annoying with that post, and to be honest, I didn't know who, exactly, that quote was from (thank google), I just knew that it wasn't Dawkins himself. I just sometimes feel that Radar thinks that Dawkins is the origin of ALL things new Atheism (Darwin being the creator of everything old Atheism, obviously), so sometimes like to point out that it's not just Dawkins saying this stuff. That and I enjoy lording my ability to "google stuff" over practically everyone I encounter.

@ Creeper, yeah, I'm thinking we're about to get another lesson in "Definitions by Radar". I seem to remember him holding a ridiculously strict definition of what it means to be a christian, going back to his whole "prison population" farce. But, to be honest, that definition might have just been him trying to squirm out of the trap you caught him in on that one.

- Canucklehead

P.S. - I almost forgot. Radar, your quote on Atheism is yet another "swing and a miss" (aren't your arms getting tired at this point?). As Creeper points out, it is just kinda silly to think that anyone actually "hates" something they simply don't believe exists. I mean, do you hate the Grim Reaper Radar, because according to legend he's supposed to be a pretty bad dude? What about the Boogie Man? I'm guessing you don't give these "guys" any thought at all, kinda like how Atheists think about god. I understand that you really wish we hated Him because that would probably mean we believed he existed on some level. But, as I said, sorry man, no dice.

Anonymous said...

... aaaaand Radar's off the radar yet again.

highboy said...

Wow the commenter's here get more and more ridiculous over time. Where to start?

"Just to be clear though, when it comes to "cash for clunkers" you are all about the poor, but as far as health care reform goes, they can go pound sand?"

Correct. If you had ever actually experienced the type of healthcare public options being proposed, you wouldn't even bring it up. If you think children dying in waiting rooms every flu season, waiting literal years to have necessary operations, and 20k per year doctors with porn star mustaches to cut you open with whatever dull spoon they have on hand is good health care reform just because poor can afford it, than please quit voting.

Second, its hilarious that one has to search for isolated incidents of Christians committing violent acts, while the entire history of the muslim religion is rooted in violence. Get the difference? There is not one record anywhere of Jesus harming anyone. Muhammed on the other hand, is recorded has having raped, killed, and pillaged men, women, and children in thousands of caravan raids all in the name of Allah. The difference between the two religions is seen in their key figures, and that is why the acts of their followers are judged differently. Its not rocket science. If Jesus is a peaceful man and His followers are not, they did a piss poor job emulating Him. If Muhammed orders violence, commits violence, and his followers do the same as they have done for thousands of years, they did a bang up job emulating him.

"And think about what a public option would do to encourage more real competition among health insurance providers."

Nothing. They couldn't compete at all with cheap government funded healthcare.

"And BTW, healthcare reform does not mean "free" healthcare for everyone."

Yes, it does, and Obama said as much himself. Over charging those making more than 250k per year while those who are already tax exempt not only still are provided with healthcare but with a subsidized tax break. But since they are already tax exempt its nothing more than free money from the government. In any case, the healthcare was brought up to point out some lame inconsistency in radar's positions between cash for clunkers and healthcare. As has been demonstrated, its not the idea of helping poor with healthcare radar opposed, he disagreed, as I do, with the method. Next.

"Um, in case you hadn't noticed, the recession began back in 2007."

This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how our government works. It didn't happen that fast. Its been coming for nearly 40 years, and the constant check writing by Obama has only sky rocketed the debt bigger and faster than any other time or place in world history.

"No, access to affordable healthcare will help the poor. Something that a Christian might find a good thing.

What would Jesus do?"

You mean the Son of God, who preached personal responsibility throughout the Bible? The same God who didn't once demonstrate in any way that stealing money from one class to give it to another was in any way Christian? Jesus preached personal responsibility, and that includes charity. Taking His teachings on giving to the poor to somehow justify the government stealing money from those that earned it to support those that haven't is just absurd. And "cheap affordable" healthcare is found in Canada, Cuba, Sweden, etc. And its some of the worst healthcare in the civilized world.

Anonymous said...

Highboy said: "There is not one record anywhere of Jesus harming anyone. "

Jesus and God are one and the same, right? God of the old testament is then Jesus, right? God of the old testament seemed to harm some people, or was I reading the wrong old testament?


lava

Anonymous said...

Earlier I said:

And why is it that the only reply I expect will be in the form of a 'No True Scotsman'-fallacy?

Highboy said:

If Jesus is a peaceful man and His followers are not, they did a piss poor job emulating Him.


Bingo!

highboy said...

"Jesus and God are one and the same, right? God of the old testament is then Jesus, right? God of the old testament seemed to harm some people, or was I reading the wrong old testament?"

You'll have to do better than that lava. If you truly have to stretch it that far to imply Jesus harmed innocent people its a pathetic answer.

"Bingo"

way to ignore the rest of the post which pretty much slams the door on the ridiculous nonsense being thrown at radar. Once again: Muhammed killed, Jesus didn't. So if the both groups of followers kill which one are they emulating?

Anonymous said...

highboy said:

way to ignore the rest of the post which pretty much slams the door on the ridiculous nonsense being thrown at radar.

The truly ridiculous fact is that Radar attacks Islam because of the atrocities committed by muslims in Nigeria, while at the same time completely ignoring the Christian violence in the very same country.
And he kept ignoring it in his follow-up reply. So he's just being selective. Just like you apparently, since the killing and torturing of children and babies are just 'isolated incidents'.
Like it or not, you proved that the standard reply by Christians to christian violence is the No True Scotsman-fallacy: if Christians go wrong, it's their fault, yet if followers from another religion go wrong, it their religion's fault.

nce again: Muhammed killed, Jesus didn't. So if the both groups of followers kill which one are they emulating?

First off: you're comparing apples with oranges: Muhammad is a prophet, while Jesus is the Son of God, actually God himself. So I can understand why you are trying to brush off Lava's comment: he was right on the money there.

Second: let's change the two names in your sentence to point out how flawed your reasoning is:

God killed, Hitler didn't. So if the both groups of followers kill which one are they emulating?

highboy said...

Wrong again anonymous. Its not apples and oranges at all. Jesus is God and Jesus is Himself. Muhammed has millions of followers since the inception of the Islamic religion responsible for countless deaths. Pointing to the few examples in human history of Christians committing violent acts is no where close and completely childish. Comparing the threat of a few radical Christians on the world today to the entire countries breeding terrorists from the womb to the tomb in the name of Allah is apples and oranges, not the other way around.

Anonymous said...

Highboy said: "You'll have to do better than that lava. If you truly have to stretch it that far to imply Jesus harmed innocent people its a pathetic answer."

At least radar tries to reason his answer. I don't see why my answer is pathetic. Why are you discounting what God did pre Jesus?



lava

highboy said...

"At least radar tries to reason his answer. I don't see why my answer is pathetic. Why are you discounting what God did pre Jesus?"

Because nothing God did implies that my job as a follower of Jesus is to kill those who don't follow Jesus. This is the exact opposite of the Koran and the prophet Muhammad.

Anonymous said...

Because nothing God did implies that my job as a follower of Jesus is to kill those who don't follow Jesus. This is the exact opposite of the Koran and the prophet Muhammad.

So what is the explanation for the OT god? I know it wasn't saying kill non christians, but-

And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: Genesis 7:21-23?

Babies? Bunnies? Kittens? Maybe animals so much cuter and fluffier than we could possibly imagine who ended up dying out soon after the flood because there were only two of them and they were soon eaten?

Or what about when God killed everyone in soddom and gomorrha except the just righteous ones(Lot's family)?


lava

highboy said...

"So what is the explanation for the OT god?"

The explanation is simple: God is God, its His creation and He can do what He wants with it. What does that have to do with being a Christian? Nothing. Allah is to have killed as well. Again, key difference: Christians are not instructed to kill, but rather to accept God's divine judgment. Muslims are instructed to kill non-Muslims. End of story.

Anonymous said...

highboy,

1. Nobody claimed that Jesus himself was more violent than Mohammed. You're indulging in a strawman argument.

2. Remind me: wasn't it you who used to have Jesus with various weapons (e.g. machine gun) as your avatar? And when you were called on this, you argued that Jesus was actually more militant than was commonly supposed?

Where are these arguments now?

3. "Pointing to the few examples in human history of Christians committing violent acts [...]"

Ummm... Crusades? Spanish Inquisition? No doubt we'll be treated to another bit of No True Scotsman fun next, but seriously... Could it be that even Radar is too embarrassed to trot out arguments like this?

4. "Um, in case you hadn't noticed, the recession began back in 2007."

This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how our government works. It didn't happen that fast. Its been coming for nearly 40 years, and the constant check writing by Obama has only sky rocketed the debt bigger and faster than any other time or place in world history.


Whoa.

a. "It didn't happen that fast."

What didn't happen that fast?

b. "It's been coming for nearly 40 years."

So all presidents since Nixon have been powerless to stop it? Including Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 1 and 2?

c. "the constant check writing by Obama has only sky rocketed the debt bigger and faster than any other time or place in world history"

We can argue over the bank bailouts (no partisan divide there, btw - both Bush and Obama passed them), but would you have preferred no stimulus money? And what do you think the consequences would have been?

5. "Taking His teachings on giving to the poor to somehow justify the government stealing money from those that earned it to support those that haven't is just absurd"

Define "earned it".

Perhaps you're familiar with the issue of usury. I may be mistaken, but if you define income as that which one has earned (and hence one's worth), then you would put an usurer (e.g. a CEO of a credit card company that charges exorbitant interest rates) miles ahead of, say, a carpenter who is paid by the work he produces.

Now, you may have your opinions on this, but it seems that the bible values the work of the carpenter above that of the usurer.

And that's not what we're seeing in society today.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.

And Radar's, too, for that matter, but he appears to be hiding again.

-- creeper

highboy said...

"1. Nobody claimed that Jesus himself was more violent than Mohammed. You're indulging in a strawman argument."

I'm pointing out the difference between religions. Its not a strawman, its background.

"2. Remind me: wasn't it you who used to have Jesus with various weapons (e.g. machine gun) as your avatar? And when you were called on this, you argued that Jesus was actually more militant than was commonly supposed?"

No, it wasn't, but I guess you can write dishonest stuff like that since the old site's gone and I can't defend myself by posting what I actually said. I never once said Jesus was "militant", but rather argued that Jesus with a gun is not as blasphemous as those against the very thought of it were arguing.

"Ummm... Crusades? Spanish Inquisition? No doubt we'll be treated to another bit of No True Scotsman fun next, but seriously... Could it be that even Radar is too embarrassed to trot out arguments like this?"

Its funny how you mock the argument, even though there is not one single teaching of Christ that we are to commit violence, yet the Koran is replete with specific commands to kill those who would not convert. So mock it all you want, but when Jesus is silent on Christians killing non-Christians, and then those who claim to be Christian do so anyway, anyone with common sense chalks that up to misinterpretation, or "no true Scotsman". Whereas when Muhaammad himself says to kill those who won't convert to Islam and Muslims, including Muhammad, go out and do it, they are not misinterpreting anything at all. Mocking this very logical argument is merely evidence that there really is no argument against it.

"What didn't happen that fast?"

The recession. Or rather, it wasn't caused just here in 2007.

"So all presidents since Nixon have been powerless to stop it? Including Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 1 and 2?"

Of course they have. You left out Clinton by the way. But what are you asking here?

"We can argue over the bank bailouts (no partisan divide there, btw - both Bush and Obama passed them), but would you have preferred no stimulus money? And what do you think the consequences would have been?"

No stimulus money. It is not the role of the government to bailout people who screw up. Its that simple. The consequences would have been dire, but not forever. In the long run decreased dependence on a government not fit to run bath water let alone social security, heathcare, and education, would only benefit everyone in the long run. Its the most painful solution but the only one there is. Continuing to write checks we can't cash and dig a hole we can't climb out of is hardly a solution.

"Define "earned it".

Its pretty self explanatory creeper. If I work for Wal-Mart, and I agree to a certain wage, do my job, and get paid that wage, that money is the money I earned. If its taken from me against my will and given to someone who has not worked for it, than they received money they have not earned.

"Now, you may have your opinions on this, but it seems that the bible values the work of the carpenter above that of the usurer."

Wrong. The Bible puts no value to a greater or lesser extent to any occupation. What the Bible teaches, is that we are to work. Period. Whatever you do, do unto the Lord. If you are a slave, do it well. If you are a tax collector, do it well. It teaches charitable giving, and personal responsibility. Its what you do with whatever wealth you have, being a good steward, that the Bible is most explicit on. Its part of Jesus' coolness that He thought more of the poor widow's gift than the many riches of the wealthy, because she gave all she had. Jesus rocks that way. But rich people who give like that have often received even more money in abundance. Look at JC Penny. The man gave 90% and kept 10% for himself, instead of the other way around. Now look at his franchise.

(of course with this economy maybe that isn't the best example)

Anonymous said...

1. It is a strawman, since you're deflecting the argument to be the difference between Jesus and Mohammed instead of the religions in question. The Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades are obvious examples of violence committed in the name of Christianity.

And if you want to sign on to the old argument that if Jesus came back and saw what was being done in his name, he'd never stop throwing up - I'd be inclined to agree with you.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

2. "No, it wasn't, but I guess you can write dishonest stuff like that since the old site's gone and I can't defend myself by posting what I actually said. I never once said Jesus was "militant", but rather argued that Jesus with a gun is not as blasphemous as those against the very thought of it were arguing."

By the same token, I can't really defend myself against your accusation that this was "dishonest stuff" since it appears you've deleted the website in question. By all means, if you can trot out the old website and whatever was said at the time, I'm all ears.

In the meantime, do you dispute that you used to have at least two (that I recall) images of Jesus with a weapon in his hand as your avatar?

And I seem to recall that you said that Jesus would kill someone who rejected him...

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

3. "Its funny how you mock the argument, even though there is not one single teaching of Christ that we are to commit violence, yet the Koran is replete with specific commands to kill those who would not convert. So mock it all you want, but when Jesus is silent on Christians killing non-Christians, and then those who claim to be Christian do so anyway, anyone with common sense chalks that up to misinterpretation, or "no true Scotsman". Whereas when Muhaammad himself says to kill those who won't convert to Islam and Muslims, including Muhammad, go out and do it, they are not misinterpreting anything at all. Mocking this very logical argument is merely evidence that there really is no argument against it."

Christians aren't always prone to using Jesus's teachings ("turn the other cheek" etc.)...

Sometimes they dig the Old Testament, FWIW.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

4. "What didn't happen that fast?"

The recession. Or rather, it wasn't caused just here in 2007.


Ah, that's where I thought you were equivocating.

So... were you under the impression that I claimed the recession was caused in 2007?

Because I didn't.

That's why I asked.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

5. No stimulus money. It is not the role of the government to bailout people who screw up. Its that simple. The consequences would have been dire, but not forever. In the long run decreased dependence on a government not fit to run bath water let alone social security, heathcare, and education, would only benefit everyone in the long run. Its the most painful solution but the only one there is. Continuing to write checks we can't cash and dig a hole we can't climb out of is hardly a solution.

You seem to have completely confused "bailout" and "stimulus". They are two completely different things.

Your arguments are entirely against "bailout" and have some merit. They are, however, unrelated to "stimulus".

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

6. "Define "earned it".

Its pretty self explanatory creeper. If I work for Wal-Mart, and I agree to a certain wage, do my job, and get paid that wage, that money is the money I earned. If its taken from me against my will and given to someone who has not worked for it, than they received money they have not earned.


You seem to have missed the argument I was making entirely. I was talking about "earned" vs. "worth". If you work for Walmart for an agreed wage, you are providing value in the system. No quibble from the bible there.

However, if you use money itself as a means to disproportionately create additional wealth (and this is what, say, credit card companies and hedge funds do), you do have a quibble with the bible. This is usury.

Are you on board with usury?

Or do you think it's wrong?

Follow-up question: Do you think the bible says it's wrong?

2nd follow-up question: why is paying income tax against your will? Or if not that, why is helping the less fortunate against your will? Because not all unemployed are unemployed out of laziness.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

7. Wrong. The Bible puts no value to a greater or lesser extent to any occupation. What the Bible teaches, is that we are to work. Period.

Which is why the bible does put a lesser value on usury.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

8. "So all presidents since Nixon have been powerless to stop it? Including Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 1 and 2?"

Of course they have. You left out Clinton by the way. But what are you asking here?


I also left out Carter. The point obviously was to list all the Republican presidents, since that is where I assumed your sympathies lie.

What am I asking? Your claim was that this had been coming for nearly 40 years, so my question was if it was unpreventable by what was, after all, mostly Republican presidents in office during those 40 years.

It's not unreasonable to suppose that a Republican president working with a Republican Congress has some kind of influence on the economy over time.

-- creeper

highboy said...

Holy posts creeper.

"1. It is a strawman, since you're deflecting the argument to be the difference between Jesus and Mohammed instead of the religions in question. The Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades are obvious examples of violence committed in the name of Christianity."

Which is why it isn't a strawman. Pointing out the differences in the figures that the religions are centered around gives clear indication as to which faithful are misinterpreting their own guidelines and which ones aren't.

"In the meantime, do you dispute that you used to have at least two (that I recall) images of Jesus with a weapon in his hand as your avatar?

And I seem to recall that you said that Jesus would kill someone who rejected him..."

The website is gone, and yes I had images with Jesus and a gun. I didn't say that was wrong. I'm saying your accusation of how I defended it was dead wrong. What I said, is what the Bible says: when Jesus comes back, those who reject Him He will punish. That's it. Hardly the same as instructing followers to kill everyone who won't convert.

"You seem to have completely confused "bailout" and "stimulus". They are two completely different things."

Good point. Let me clarify: no bailout, no stimulus. The reasons are the same that I already posted. You don't stimulate an economy already trillions in debt by adding more trillions to that debt, and writing more checks you can't cash. Its that simple.

As for usury, its not wrong to lend money. Its wrong to lend someone else's money, and if you can show some Biblical text that supports otherwise I'd be interested in hearing it. Or your point may have gone over my head again, in which case I'm lost.

"why is paying income tax against your will?"

Its not.

"Or if not that, why is helping the less fortunate against your will? Because not all unemployed are unemployed out of laziness."

Why is helping the less fortunate against my will? If I do it on my own accord its not. If someone is taking my money and deciding for themselves that someone else should have it than we have a problem.

highboy said...

Yes, you conveniently left out Carter, who played one of the biggest roles in this economic recession out of all of them, what with forcing banks to shell out loans like all get out to people they knew couldn't pay it back. (a completely democratic controlled government as well as 92-96, where economic hardships were again taking their toll) None of the Republicans helped. Reagan made some attempts.

My state of PA is a great example of who this recession thing works. Obama stated that under his care anyone making less than 250,000k per year would get a tax break. 60% of the working people in this state are already tax exempt however, so whatever money they receive back isn't theirs, as they didn't pay it. That would be the other 40%, whose taxes just went up so that the other 60 (not to mention the non-working) could get their welfare check, which is all that "tax break" would be to them. Why? Again: they pay no tax.

Come budget time, (we still haven't passed one) the only way to continue to pay for all these social programs, not to mention the ridiculous increases they are begging for, taxes would have to be raised in the area of about 35%. Get that? So on top of the federal increase in taxes that Obama would hand down to the 40% of this state, our own state would have to increase them another 35%, and only on that same 40%. Not only is that totally unfair and reprehensible, its not even sustainable, unless your ultimate goal is to eliminate the class system and usher in a new age of communism.

And while democrats here protest the budget cuts of the Republicans with more tear-jerking "they'll all starve" clap trap, its the Republicans here trying to actually stabilize the economy. Come to our capital once, its hilarious. Day care workers having children hold up their signs saying "Don't Leave Me Home Alone". Seniors and disabled literally showing up with their wheel chairs and oxygen tanks and literally throwing themselves on the steps of the capitol to beg for more state healthcare. Parents showing up and holding their bankruptcy papers because their insurance wouldn't cover their child's autism. And more, and more, and more. They all want their money, plus increases, some 15% some nearly 90%, and all the increases paid for by the same group of people who are about to wish they never heard of the American dream.

Anonymous said...

highboy said:

Again, key difference: Christians are not instructed to kill, but rather to accept God's divine judgment.

Well, pastor Steven Anderson, who I linked to in my very first reply, obviously thinks differently. You might think he misinterprets Gods Word, but obviously he thinks exactly the same about you if you don't agree with him: he even calls you a hypocrite! And the Rev. Paul Jennings Hill expected a great reward in Heaven for having killed an abortion doctor, so surely he was sure he interpreted God's Word correctly.
You may argue that some Christians do a piss poor job of understanding what's expected from them as a Christian. But, considering all these examples, one may reasonably argue that if the Bible is God's Word, God did a piss poor job of making it unambiguous and clear. But I guess you're not willing to consider that option.
Now, I'm pretty sure that most muslims who would read your reply would find it laughable that a Christian can tell them how to interpret their religion. Just do a Google search and you'll quickly find plenty of links to articles written by imams who do exactly the same as you do when confronted with Christian violence: those who kill because of Islam did a piss poor job of interpreting the Qu'ran. Exactly the same 'No True Scotsman'-fallacy.

But that isn't even important. The fact of the matter is that both you and Radar don't seem to realize that with every reply here you both prove the point I was making by quoting Steven Weinberg: Religion can make good people do evil things. So you can argue all you want about Christians interpreting the Bible wrong when they kill and that Muslims interpret the Qu'ran when they do the same, it still proves the atheist's point: they did it because of religion.

But while the fact that you keep on proving me right is mildly amusing, there is something about this whole discussion that's quite disturbing.
Radar posts an article to point out how horrific and inhuman the Muslim violence against Christians is, and quite rightly so: it is horrible. But when confronted with the fact that - in that very same country, Nigeria - Christians kill and torture children and babies, what does he do? Nothing! You'd expect Radar, when confronted with this, would say: "Gee, thanks for the heads up. I missed this. That's totally horrible, these guys are a disgrace to Christianity. Obviously we Christians have a lot of work to do ourselves before we can demonise other religions". But no, not a single word about it.
Same goes for you, highboy. No outcry, no word of disgust.

The silence is deafening.

highboy said...

"You might think he misinterprets Gods Word, but obviously he thinks exactly the same about you if you don't agree with him: he even calls you a hypocrite!"

He didn't once refer me to any instruction from Jesus that my job was to kill those who didn't worship Him. nuff said.

"Now, I'm pretty sure that most muslims who would read your reply would find it laughable that a Christian can tell them how to interpret their religion. Just do a Google search and you'll quickly find plenty of links to articles written by imams who do exactly the same as you do when confronted with Christian violence: those who kill because of Islam did a piss poor job of interpreting the Qu'ran. Exactly the same 'No True Scotsman'-fallacy."

They can anything laughable they want, but at the end of the day, they are unable to point to anything Christ said that lets me know my job as a Christian is to kill non-Christians. They are also unable to explain why the man they follow did and commands the exact opposite.

"So you can argue all you want about Christians interpreting the Bible wrong when they kill and that Muslims interpret the Qu'ran when they do the same, it still proves the atheist's point: they did it because of religion."

And they're still counting the deaths that Stalin is responsible, all in the name of non-religion. (they are up to around 18,000,000) People will be killed whether religion exists or not. The atheists point is weak.

"But no, not a single word about it.
Same goes for you, highboy. No outcry, no word of disgust.

The silence is deafening."

Save your dramatics for someone else troll.

Anonymous said...

He didn't once refer me to any instruction from Jesus that my job was to kill those who didn't worship Him. nuff said.

I guess that must have felt as quite a relief. Nevermind the homosexuals who deserve to be killed according to this preacher, huh? But if you wanna know how he thinks non-believers should be treated; get in touch with him and let us know. To be honest; I'd be surprised if he'd say anything like 'leave them in peace'.

They can anything laughable they want, but at the end of the day, they are unable to point to anything Christ said that lets me know my job as a Christian is to kill non-Christians.

Why would they want to do that? History has already proven that plenty of christians themselves thought it WAS their job, and acted accordingly.

They are also unable to explain why the man they follow did and commands the exact opposite.

Well, did you check Google? They'll have plenty of explanations, and it all boils down to the fact that YOU don't interpret things correctly, that YOU read them out of context, blah blah. That's the problem with books like the Bible and the Qu'ran: some interpret the text in a moderate way, others in an extremist way. But both are convinced they are right and none can prove the other wrong. You choose to interpret the Qu'ran in an extremist way while interpreting the Bible in a moderate way (I think), and you're sure that's the only correct way. Others will do the opposite, and they think exactly the same.
But, as I said before, that doesn't matter to the point I've been making all the time and which you still keep proving: religion makes good people do evil things.

People will be killed whether religion exists or not.

Exactly. That's what the first part of the quote says: "With or without religion, evil people will do evil things and good people will do good things." Funny how again a christian agrees with an atheist's point.

The atheists point is weak.

Then why do you keep on proving it right, like you just did?

Save your dramatics for someone else troll.

Oh yeah: calling someone a troll after you've replied to about every post he made. The ultimate self-defeating statement. Priceless.

It is noted though, that you seem to have no problem with Radar's dramatics. So, to rehash:

"Muslims kill Christians! An outrage!"
- Yes, absolutely right! Those muslims are eviiiiilll!

"Christians accuse little children of witchcraft and torture and kill them! An outrage!"
- Don't be so dramatic!

No further comment needed.

Anonymous said...

If someone is taking my money and deciding for themselves that someone else should have it than we have a problem.

Do you have a problem with public schools, then?

highboy said...

"I guess that must have felt as quite a relief. Nevermind the homosexuals who deserve to be killed according to this preacher, huh? But if you wanna know how he thinks non-believers should be treated; get in touch with him and let us know. To be honest; I'd be surprised if he'd say anything like 'leave them in peace'."

I don't care what the preacher says. I'm pointing out to you what the very prophet Islam is centered around says. Get it yet? If you're trying to argue that Christians misinterpret Christianity in order to commit violent acts no one is disputing that. What is disputed and actually proven wrong is that Islamofascists are misinterpreting anything.

"hat's what the first part of the quote says: "With or without religion, evil people will do evil things and good people will do good things." Funny how again a christian agrees with an atheist's point."

Why is it funny? Is it funny then that an atheist like yourself thinks killing is wrong just like Jesus? Is that suppose to be some hard-hitting argument there to make me reflect? The rest of your remarks are just childish rants.

"Do you have a problem with public schools, then?"

Absolutely.

Anonymous said...

Highboy,

Read again the quote in my first reply:

"With or without religion you will have good people do good things and evil people do evil things. But to make good people do evil things, that takes religion."

The point I've been making all the time is that with his article, Radar proves this statement to be correct. And you have done the same thing: with every reply you keep on proving the point, even with your latest reply:

I'm pointing out to you what the very prophet Islam is centered around says. Get it yet?

As I've been continuously pointing out: this only proves what the quote says: religion makes people do horrible things for which they'd otherwise have no reason to. So why would I want to disagree with you? I mean, I'm an atheist. Did you really think I was defending Islam? Really?

If you're trying to argue that Christians misinterpret Christianity in order to commit violent acts no one is disputing that.

I'm not doing that at all. It was you who argued that the reason Christians are violent is their misinterpretation of Christianity, exactly as I predicted. The problem with your argument is that misinterpretation is in the eye of the beholder. Those who you believe to be misinterpreting think exactly the same about you; you may not care what the preacher says, but you can bet the preacher doesn't care what highboy says, because -from his point of view- highboy misinterprets Christianity.
Just think logically: do you think those Christians would do what they did because they thought they misinterpreted Christianity? No, they did it because they thought they interpreted Christianity correctly. Point in case (again): Madeline Kara Neumann. Her parents didn't let her die because they misinterpreted Christianity. No, they thought they did the right thing by relying on prayer to save their daughter's life, instead of rushing her to hospital like you (I hope) and I would do. As stated correctly by the quote: they were good people (they wanted to save their daughter), but because of religion they did something evil: they let their child die by letting their faith get in the way of their common sense.
So you can argue about correct and faulty interpretation until you're blue in the face but it still proves the point: without religion it wouldn't have happened.

What is disputed and actually proven wrong is that Islamofascists are misinterpreting anything.

See above. Just Google and you'll see that those 'Islamofascists' indeed mistinterpret something, according to other muslims. But again: it only proves my quote right.

Why is it funny? Is it funny then that an atheist like yourself thinks killing is wrong just like Jesus?

Since you've continuously been proving the quote to be correct, what you're actually doing is agreeing with an atheist when he says that you can be good without religion.
Actually I couldn't have said it better than you did with that last sentence: I think killing is wrong just like Jesus, not because of Jesus. It's funny because I haven't seen vocal Christians admit to that very often. I do have to make one distinction though: I don't think it's right to kill a tree simply because it doesn't bear fruit out of season.

Is that suppose to be some hard-hitting argument there to make me reflect?

Probably that would have been too much to hope for, so you're giving me too much credit there.

Highboy, it truly is baffling. As I've been explaining for a while now: you're constantly proving my point. And yet somehow you expect me to argue with you. Why would I want to do that. You're like a player that constantly scores against his own team and somehow expects the opposing team to stop him.

The rest of your remarks are just childish rants.

If that makes you happy...

It does beg the question though: why do you reply to someone you consider to be a troll? That's ultimately self-defeating.

highboy said...

"So you can argue about correct and faulty interpretation until you're blue in the face but it still proves the point: without religion it wouldn't have happened."

Nice theory, but it doesn't prove your point at all. People would still die, regardless of whether or not something was there to misinterpret. Simply pointing out that everyone thinks they are interpreting their religion correctly doesn't mean they're all right.

"Since you've continuously been proving the quote to be correct, what you're actually doing is agreeing with an atheist when he says that you can be good without religion."

You keep harping on this as if it means something. No one is disputing you can be good without religion. No one. If that's the point you've been trying to make all along good for you, you're right about something, but people don't become Christians so they can be "good". But what you keep ignoring is that people are just as capable of evil WITHOUT religion. So your point that without religion it wouldn't happen is just dead wrong.

"It does beg the question though: why do you reply to someone you consider to be a troll? That's ultimately self-defeating."

How is it self-defeating? What are you, some first year grad-student with his first philosophy book? In what way is taking 5 whole minutes to call out a troll defeating my argument or my position in any way? This ought to be good.

"Highboy, it truly is baffling. As I've been explaining for a while now: you're constantly proving my point. And yet somehow you expect me to argue with you. Why would I want to do that. You're like a player that constantly scores against his own team and somehow expects the opposing team to stop him."

Which is how you earned the nickname "troll". I didn't score against my own team, because my team isn't arguing against what you're saying in regards to doing good without religion. Get it yet? So your team is playing a game all by itself. You keep saying that your point is prove your point is proven yet YOU keep responding over and over again a point that you've already made. No one has been disputing your useless point that people can be good without religion or Christianity in particular. Not one person has argued otherwise on this site. Of course we truly haven't been talking about basic "good", merely who kills and who doesn't with/without religion. In Christian terms, you can do good things without Christ but you'll never be good enough without Him.

Anonymous said...

"As for usury, its not wrong to lend money. Its wrong to lend someone else's money, and if you can show some Biblical text that supports otherwise I'd be interested in hearing it. Or your point may have gone over my head again, in which case I'm lost."

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on what exactly banks do, if not lend someone else's money.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

How is it self-defeating? What are you, some first year grad-student with his first philosophy book? In what way is taking 5 whole minutes to call out a troll defeating my argument or my position in any way? This ought to be good.

If you truly believe someone to be a troll, you DO NOT answer any of his comments. Not even one word.
Of course you are free to do so, but that would only mean that you're doing exactly what the troll wants.
Particularly because you are replying in exactly the same way a troll would want you to: clear signs of irritation, name-calling, etc...A real troll would have a field day with you: he'd have you dancing like a puppet on a string in no time.
That's why your statement that I'm a troll is self-defeating: you either have no idea what an internet-troll is and just threw in an ad-hominem because you felt cornered, or you are not consistent in your behaviour.

Either way it makes you look -sorry to say it- quite silly. But that's your problem, not mine.

Have a nice day!

Anonymous said...

why ruin th human race when it iz actually you