The Manchester Attacks Megathread

[Aelex]

Not Jesus, but close enough

Hardly, it's the Mosaic Law that Christians don't have to follow. In the means time, we're talking about the very words of Mahomet there who called for ethnic cleansing of Arabia and described dying in a Djihad as the sweetest thing one could do in his life (and, once more, the only sure way to get into Paradise).
So yeah, rather weak. :^)

[Alvecia]

There's that cherry picking I mentioned earlier.

It's not cherry picking, you just don't understand Christian theology.

And this is coming from a filthy pagan.

Sure mate, whatever helps you sleep at night

[Neutraligon]

And yet I'm pretty sure little if any of the gay-bashing passages are from the New Testament, so clearly a lot of attention and value is placed - even if just "this lets me legitimise my views" style - upon the Old Testament.

There's a few NT verses (I can think of 2 or 3) dealing with homosexuality, if I'm not mistaken it is still said to be sinful or whatnot.

At least Jesus doesn't say to fucking murderify them though.

No instead Christians have that whole fire and brimstone ending.

[Frank Zipper]

That's from the OT, no? If so, it has little to no bearing on modern Christians unless they're from some weird ass denomination.

Perhaps they should stop quoting Leviticus then, and Genesis and Exodus...

[Imperializt Russia]

And yet is happened, and the crusaders were told their actions would be blessed and forgiven, and permitted ascension to heaven if they died fighting to retake the holy lands.

So clearly it counts.

Again, pope pulled it out of his ass, and was not the founder of the religion.
As another poster mentioned, Islam's founder did indeed engage in sectarian violence.

That's hardly relevant to what actually happened which is that crusaders were told their actions were blessed to cleanse the holy lands of Muslim unbelievers.

[Aelex]

Nope, because the Pope at the time pulled them out of his robe.

And yet is happened, and the crusaders were told their actions would be blessed and forgiven, and permitted ascension to heaven if they died fighting to retake the holy lands.

So clearly it counts.

Once more, unlike Djihads which not only were advocated by Mahomet himself but also called and waged by him, the Crusades were a rather late phenomenon (the first happened one whole millenary after Christ's death) but they also lacked any actual theological, scriptural and even traditional backing, being born as a mere reaction to the Islamic Djihads that were plaguing Anatolia at the time.

[Alvecia]

Not Jesus, but close enough

Hardly, it's the Mosaic Law that Christians don't have to follow. In the means time, we're talking about the very words of Mahomet there who called for ethnic cleansing of Arabia and described dying in a Djihad as the sweetest thing one could do in his life (and, once more, the only sure way to get into Paradise).
So yeah, rather weak. :^)

Ah the old "that doesn't count" defense, never has there ever been a more perfect example of cherry picking and rationalisation

[Washington Resistance Army]

It's not cherry picking, you just don't understand Christian theology.

And this is coming from a filthy pagan.

Sure mate, whatever helps you sleep at night

Pop on over to the CDT, they can explain better than I. The New Covenant is a thing and OT laws and rules don't really apply to modern Christians.

This is all pretty basic stuff in Christianity, you'd look less silly when you try to make these comparisons if you actually learned about the religions in question first.

[Neutraligon]

Sure mate, whatever helps you sleep at night

Pop on over to the CDT, they can explain better than I. The New Covenant is a thing and OT laws and rules don't really apply to modern Christians.

This is all pretty basic stuff in Christianity, you'd look less silly when you try to make these comparisons if you actually learned about the religions in question first.

Otherwise known as cherry picking.

[Aelex]

And yet is happened, and the crusaders were told their actions would be blessed and forgiven, and permitted ascension to heaven if they died fighting to retake the holy lands.

So clearly it counts.

Nope, it really doesn't. Why? I advise you to read the simple following explanation :

Once more, unlike Djihads which not only were advocated by Mahomet himself but also called and waged by him, the Crusades were a rather late phenomenon (the first happened one whole millenary after Christ's death) but they also lacked any actual theological, scriptural and even traditional backing, being born as a mere reaction to the Islamic Djihads that were plaguing Anatolia at the time.

:^)

[Alvecia]

Sure mate, whatever helps you sleep at night

Pop on over to the CDT, they can explain better than I. The New Covenant is a thing and OT laws and rules don't really apply to modern Christians.

This is all pretty basic stuff in Christianity, you'd look less silly when you try to make these comparisons if you actually learned about the religions in question first.

I'm sure Christians would look less silly if they followed their own rules regarding OT laws as well. But as the great philospher Mick Jagger once said "You can't always get what you want"

[Washington Resistance Army]

Pop on over to the CDT, they can explain better than I. The New Covenant is a thing and OT laws and rules don't really apply to modern Christians.

This is all pretty basic stuff in Christianity, you'd look less silly when you try to make these comparisons if you actually learned about the religions in question first.

Otherwise known as cherrypicking.

"anything I don't like is cherrypicking"

Pop on over to the CDT, they can explain better than I. The New Covenant is a thing and OT laws and rules don't really apply to modern Christians.

This is all pretty basic stuff in Christianity, you'd look less silly when you try to make these comparisons if you actually learned about the religions in question first.

I'm sure Christians would look less silly if they followed their own rules regarding OT laws as well. But as the great philospher Mick Jagger once said "You can't always get what you want"

Something tells me they know their rules better than you, lol

[Alvecia]

I'm sure Christians would look less silly if they followed their own rules regarding OT laws as well. But as the great philospher Mick Jagger once said "You can't always get what you want"

Something tells me they know their rules better than you, lol

Makes it easier to know which ones to ignore when it's convenient.

[Neutraligon]

Otherwise known as cherrypicking.

"anything I don't like is cherrypicking"

Nice strawman.

[Aelex]

Ah the old "that doesn't count" defense, never has there ever been a more perfect example of cherry picking and rationalisation

No need getting so A N G E R Y over us correcting you on a big and stupid mistake. It's alright if you know little to nothing about Christianity, just don't go around parading as if you do only to spout such obviously debunked nonsense. :^)

[Neutraligon]

Why the focus by the way on Christianity? Ignoring of course the violence at the end of the new Testament, why are people not discussing the fact that the Jewish religion is not judged based on the violence of their "old Testament" while supposedly Muslims can be judged based on the violence of theirs?

[Alvecia]

Ah the old "that doesn't count" defense, never has there ever been a more perfect example of cherry picking and rationalisation

No need getting so A N G E R Y over us correcting you on a big and stupid mistake. It's alright if you know little to nothing about Christianity, just don't go around parading as if you do only to spout such obviously debunked nonsense. :^)

Where can I get that plugin that translates text to emotion? That sounds pretty handy.

[Neutraligon]

No need getting so A N G E R Y over us correcting you on a big and stupid mistake. It's alright if you know little to nothing about Christianity, just don't go around parading as if you do only to spout such obviously debunked nonsense. :^)

Where can I get that plugin that translates text to emotion? That sounds pretty handy.

You mean you weren't A N G E R Y (I assume that was meant to be A N G R Y)? Shock, amaze.

[Alvecia]

Where can I get that plugin that translates text to emotion? That sounds pretty handy.

You mean you weren't A N G E R Y? Shock, amaze.

Found it!

Right now it's telling me you're feeling shocked and amazed. Close?

[Neutraligon]

You mean you weren't A N G E R Y? Shock, amaze.

Found it!

Right now it's telling me you're feeling shocked and amazed. Close?

Might want to have that thing tested. Happy.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Why the focus by the way on Christianity? Ignoring of course the violence at the end of the new Testament, why are people not discussing the fact that the Jewish religion is not judged based on the violence of their "old Testament" while supposedly Muslims can be judged based on the violence of theirs?

Probably because Jewish groups don't go around killing thousands of people around the globe each year on religious grounds.

I imagine if they did we would be having that discussion. Thankfully no other religion really has Islams problem.

[Aelex]

Why the focus by the way on Christianity? Ignoring of course the violence at the end of the new Testament, why are people not discussing the fact that the Jewish religion is not judged based on the violence of their "old Testament" while supposedly Muslims can be judged based on the violence of theirs?

Probably because Jewish groups don't go around killing thousands of people around the globe each year on religious grounds.

I imagine if they did we would be having that discussion. Thankfully no other religion really has Islams problem.

The fact that Judaism almost always has been on the receiving side of the violence while Islam was on the dishing one might also play.

[Neutraligon]

Why the focus by the way on Christianity? Ignoring of course the violence at the end of the new Testament, why are people not discussing the fact that the Jewish religion is not judged based on the violence of their "old Testament" while supposedly Muslims can be judged based on the violence of theirs?

Probably because Jewish groups don't go around killing thousands of people around the globe each year on religious grounds.

I imagine if they did we would be having that discussion. Thankfully no other religion really has Islams problem.

Except that there are terrorist attacks from Jews. Some where linked earlier in this thread. And yet...Jews are not judged based on their Holy Book. Why does it matter what Jews actually do since we are supposedly looking at the dictates of the religious texts. Clearly since the religious texts are violent, Jews must also be violent. Wait no, that isn't the case. So why when a Muslim does something peaceful is that not looked at the same way as when A Jew does something peaceful. Why when a Jew does a terrorist attack are they not looked at the same way as when a Muslim does a terrorist attack despite both their books being violent?

[Amuaplye]

Why the focus by the way on Christianity? Ignoring of course the violence at the end of the new Testament, why are people not discussing the fact that the Jewish religion is not judged based on the violence of their "old Testament" while supposedly Muslims can be judged based on the violence of theirs?

Probably because Jewish groups don't go around killing thousands of people around the globe each year on religious grounds.

I imagine if they did we would be having that discussion. Thankfully no other religion really has Islams problem.

See my previous post.

[Alvecia]

Today I will remind them.

(Image)

Maybe we should bring the IRA back to mix it up a little.