I found... this...

[Drich]

Ahhh. No. What we have here is you saying one christian did "x" but have yet to provide any evidence for it.
I have been asking from you is to provide some sort of proof to back you claim.

You didn't read the link, did you? LOL, fucking moron.

"Vigilantes of Christendom", a "priest in a war against anti-god people" - and of course the litany of christian terror groups that follows, all with their own rap sheets and verifiable histories.
.........The prosecution rests.

These are words of a bigotted and hard heart. Despite what the evidence shows you have you mind made up about a people and proceed to lump everyone together nothing will change it.

The evidence shows me that unhinged motherfuckers see what they want to see in the bible. You, him, others. hrugs:

There is nothing more to say if indeed you are biggoted and hard hearted.

promises, promises.........

How are you not a Poe or troll? Or rather how did a Poe/troll become a mod?

I did read the artical up till this point:

"While the impetus for McQuilliams’ onslaught remains unclear, local authorities recently announced that he may have been motivated by religion "

Which is where Any Intellectually honest person would stop. Why? Idk, maybe because according to the cops investigating, their was no impetus/motive, only speculation, which this troll/Poe artical spun into a witch hunt for douche bags like you and the op. That is why I've asked you repeatedly what christian command motivated these actions... Seeings how you just now quoted the article, it is far more likly you just read it... And rather poorly I might add.

---

If on takes the bible literally then one can not cherry pick passages that support the wickedness in ones heart. One must reconcile the whole book, not just focus on a favorable passage, or that person can not have taken the whole book literally.

To label a cherry picker as someone who has accepted the whole bible is foolishness.

Someone who interprets certain passages in the Bible literally while ignoring others is just as bad as a person who reads the entire thing linterally. And I didn't label him as someone who accepted the whole bible as literal fact. I presented that example to demonstrate a situation where a person with political influence, supposedly working for his constituents, used an ancient, vile verse in its literal sense to imply homosexuals should be put to death.

In that time under that law they were be put to death, but again a true literalist knows we are not in that time under that law.

---

It's always interesting when new members find Drich.

They find Dirch then avoid finding jesus.

What do you mean "they" you still don't know how to respond to my work and still get to retain your 'pride.'

---

If on takes the bible literally then one can not cherry pick passages that support the wickedness in ones heart. One must reconcile the whole book, not just focus on a favorable passage, or that person can not have taken the whole book literally.

To label a cherry picker as someone who has accepted the whole bible is foolishness.

---

If you've read the whole book, may I ask why how is it you do not seem to know what it contains?

It's like you're channeling dead crazy people, who are responding to a different conversation.

I am fully aware of your hate filled middle eastern fantasy novel's contents. And quite frankly Roger Zelazny does it better.
Is there a specific one I'm missing? I own NIV, KJV and NCV.

That's fine Spanky, just pick one and provide me with some book chapter and verse that allows or rather commands Christians to commit acts of terrorism.

Otherwise know your posturing is meaningless.