Let's Give The Muslims A Day Off

[Minimalist]

Here's a list of xtian terrorist groups.  The article makes it clear that they get no where near as much press as the muslim murderers.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/04/army-...ear-about/

Army of God? Here are 6 modern-day Christian terrorist groups you never hear about

[Norman Humann]

Adam Everett Livix, a Christianist from Texas, was arrested by Israeli police on suspicion of plotting to blow up Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem).

Sounds vaguely familiar...

[dyresand]

Adam Everett Livix, a Christianist from Texas, was arrested by Israeli police on suspicion of plotting to blow up Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem).

Sounds vaguely familiar...

crazy shits are turning into crazy serious shits. Xtian wars 

[Nope]

The K.K.K should be on that list as should the Hutaree

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/us/30militia.html

[Mudhammam]

Can a person follow the teachings of Christ and seek to violently harm another person at the same time, in the same place, in the same respect? I thought logicians realized that was a contradiction centuries ago. Unless you're saying that Christ advocated violence, which is not a passage I have read. Can a person follow Muhammad and harm another person? Well, you do see what Mohammad allegedly wrote and how he lived. So, it kind of seems like a false equivalency to me.

[Faith No More]

Can a person follow the teachings of Christ and seek to violently harm another person at the same time, in the same place, in the same respect? I thought logicians realized that was a contradiction centuries ago. Unless you're saying that Christ advocated violence, which is not a passage I have read. Can a person follow Muhammad and harm another person? Well, you do see what Mohammad allegedly wrote and how he lived. So, it kind of seems like a false equivalency to me.

That's the problem with ambiguity and contradictory ideas.  Jesus may advocate non-violence with his words, but Revelations shows he's just as blood-thirsty as Yahweh when it comes to dispensing justice.  People will inevitably pick and choose which books of the NT are more important, and if one chooses to focus on Revelations, which seems reasonable given that is supposed to be when Jesus brings righteousness back to earth, it's not hard come to the violent conclusions these people have come to.  Actions speak louder than words, and Jesus may talk a big game, but in the end, he's knee-deep in the blood of his victims,

[Nope]

Can a person follow the teachings of Christ and seek to violently harm another person at the same time, in the same place, in the same respect? I thought logicians realized that was a contradiction centuries ago. Unless you're saying that Christ advocated violence, which is not a passage I have read. Can a person follow Muhammad and harm another person? Well, you do see what Mohammad allegedly wrote and how he lived. So, it kind of seems like a false equivalency to me.

That's the problem with ambiguity and contradictory ideas.  Jesus may advocate non-violence with his words, but Revelations shows he's just as blood-thirsty as Yahweh when it comes to dispensing justice.  People will inevitably pick and choose which books of the NT are more important, and if one chooses to focus on Revelations, which seems reasonable given that is supposed to be when Jesus brings righteousness back to earth, it's not hard come to the violent conclusions these people have come to.  Actions speak louder than words, and Jesus may talk a big game, but in the end, he's knee-deep in the blood of his victims,

Because everyone has not read the bible, some people might not be aware how violent Revelation is. 


[The evil locusts] were told not to damage the grass of the earth or any green growth or any tree, but only those people who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads. They were allowed to torture them for five months, but not to kill them, and their torture was like the torture of a scorpion when it stings someone. And in those days people will seek death but will not find it; they will long to die, but death will flee from them. (NRSV 9:4-6)


The four angels were released, who had been held ready for the hour, the day, the month, and the year, to kill a third of humankind. (NRSV 9:15)



The angel swung his sickle over the earth and gathered the vintage of the earth, and he threw it into the great wine press of the wrath of God. And the wine press was trodden outside the city, and blood flowed from the wine press, as high as a horse's bridle, for a distance of about two hundred miles. (NRSV 14:18-20

[Mudhammam]

Can a person follow the teachings of Christ and seek to violently harm another person at the same time, in the same place, in the same respect? I thought logicians realized that was a contradiction centuries ago. Unless you're saying that Christ advocated violence, which is not a passage I have read. Can a person follow Muhammad and harm another person? Well, you do see what Mohammad allegedly wrote and how he lived. So, it kind of seems like a false equivalency to me.

That's the problem with ambiguity and contradictory ideas.  Jesus may advocate non-violence with his words, but Revelations shows he's just as blood-thirsty as Yahweh when it comes to dispensing justice.  People will inevitably pick and choose which books of the NT are more important, and if one chooses to focus on Revelations, which seems reasonable given that is supposed to be when Jesus brings righteousness back to earth, it's not hard come to the violent conclusions these people have come to.  Actions speak louder than words, and Jesus may talk a big game, but in the end, he's knee-deep in the blood of his victims,

I don't believe in holding a person responsible for anyone else who later comes along and twists their words so as to justify opposing action. Maybe Jesus really did advocate a violent judgment on earth led by himself on his return (or resurrection, assuming the bodily reattachment to his soul was an idea perpetuated to keep the future "kingdom on earth" hope alive). But even so, that was prophesied in the context of a future event led by Jesus when he appeared again in the flesh (this should probably further indicate that he most definitely did not wander around on foot post-crucifixion). It may still be repulsive and horrifying but that's entirely different than Mohammad advocating violent revolution for the sake of Islam in his and then in each subsequent individual's lifetime.

[dyresand]

The K.K.K should be on that list as should the Hutaree

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/us/30militia.html

KKK is already a recognized terrorist organization. If they do step out of line the troops get called in and local police as well. 

[Cinjin]

That's the problem with ambiguity and contradictory ideas.  Jesus may advocate non-violence with his words, but Revelations shows he's just as blood-thirsty as Yahweh when it comes to dispensing justice.  People will inevitably pick and choose which books of the NT are more important, and if one chooses to focus on Revelations, which seems reasonable given that is supposed to be when Jesus brings righteousness back to earth, it's not hard come to the violent conclusions these people have come to.  Actions speak louder than words, and Jesus may talk a big game, but in the end, he's knee-deep in the blood of his victims,

I don't believe in holding a person responsible for anyone else who later comes along and twists their words so as to justify opposing action.

I would be inclined to agree if you weren't talking about an allegedly perfect being who shares (at least in some confusing 1/3 part) the identity of an all-knowing creator who inspired the text of a book that absolves people of horrific acts done under the guise of righteousness and purity.
Did Jesus not know that his words in his father's manual would be used to slaughter people?  Is Yahweh and his son blameless even though they couldn't create a book that wasn't completely subject to violent interpretation for thousands of years?  Omniscient or not?

I'm afraid I'm going to have to hold the creator of the universe to a higher standard.  

It may still be repulsive and horrifying but that's entirely different than Mohammad advocating violent revolution for the sake of Islam in his and then in each subsequent individual's lifetime.

Me personally, I don't make excuses for when actions are allowed to be repulsive and horrifying.  In addition, Messiahs don't get a pass when their prophets interpret their words in a way that is repulsive and horrifying before said Messiah meant for them to be repulsive and horrifying.