NationStates

Im fairly religious (Christian) myself however imo theocracy directly contradicts Christianity (or at least the version of it I believe in) because Jesus preached cooperation and kindness/forgiveness, and most theocracies directly conflict with these ideas. Although some may MEAN well, absolute power or faith is bad.

I treat faith like patriotism, faith is always good, and needed, however too much can warp it's original ideas and make it an agent of evil. The latter is what cults use to control their followers like sheep- and why you must healthily balance the brain you've been given as well as the Book you believe in to dictate your life's decisions.

Saranidia wrote:

Internationalist Bastard wrote:Yes they are
Because when I make it argument it’s about real things we can see, not an invisible sky daddy who made me queer than said I’d burn in Hell for it

I don’t think gays will burn in hell and personally consider it prejudice to say so. I also believe in God.

You think i want them to burn? a divine creator made laws that we cannot break, that is one of them, in islam and christianity

Saranidia wrote:

Internationalist Bastard wrote:Yes they are
Because when I make it argument it’s about real things we can see, not an invisible sky daddy who made me queer than said I’d burn in Hell for it

I don’t think gays will burn in hell and personally consider it prejudice to say so. I also believe in God.

I’m going off what the preist told me when I was in high school. My research into the Bible said he wasn’t wrong

Holy Tedalonia wrote:

Olerand wrote:Right... So... Republicans don't believe in this? They don't support fighting back on this "war"? Is (supposedly) electoral politicking now a separate act from being radical?

And as for the rest?

Well... You said it. Though, again, I would correct you and say voting for the Republicans makes you radical right-wing.

As much as I want to continue this discussion, it gos off the thread way to much to argue about. It’s a shame you don’t know that just because you vote for a radical, doesn’t make you a radical.

"Just because you vote for a radical, doesn't make you a radical"... There are too many historical examples I can give. But I'm sure you can imagine them without me spelling them out.

The entirety of the Republican Party is radical, akin to the Muslim Brotherhood. Anyone willing to vote for them by conviction is a radical, and those voting without are abetting radicalism, which is literally, substantially, no different than being a radical.

Saranidia wrote:

Aellex wrote:You'll be hard-pressed to find truly secular states in Europe, tho. Most have become Christian-hating, true, but from Britain to Germany passing by Sweden, one can see that they afford to Islam way more leeway than they would allow to any other religion.

For example?

There are actually more laws banning practices for being associated with Islam than for being associated with other religions as far as I can tell(burkini van, banning Adhan but not church bells) and both ban things that are “sexist” based on contemporary crusader or more often Marxist inspired millitancy in enforcing a ban on something associated with sexism in one culture without regards of how this would oppress men or women or whether it logically does treat women as inferior and the Quran says men and women are equal Quran 9:71

Your post isn't particularly clear, but there is no shortage of "reasonable accommodations" in the UK and Sweden with Muslims, to a degree that would cause public outcry had it been granted to Christians, or God-forbid, the Zionists (wink wink, I'm using this in-group's terminology, this is not my own wording).

The UK has shariah courts. Not binding. Except when they are in your social surrounding. Which have been proven to be deleterious to women's rights, but... who cares? At least they're not Christians!

And well... Two high-ranking political figures in Sweden, one a minister, had to resign for refusing to shake hands with women. How did they get so far in the (ostensibly) left-wing Green Party, one wonders? Would a Christian with such radical world views have done as well? Would left-wing politicians have attempted to defend him, as the leader of the Party did?
Other more minor "accommodations" are present in everyday situations. Look no further than the previous municipal administration of Malmo, for example.

The Huskar Social Union wrote:

Gospel Power wrote:All have been said, goodbye liberals

You said fuck all that was coherent and not a load of gibberish you refused to explain or clarify any of your points with anything other than more gibberish and refused to answer questions clearly then called people mad and liberals and then left.


Waste of time.

I will admit that i don't have an answer, yes i am admit when i don't have them

Gospel Power wrote:

Saranidia wrote:
I don’t think gays will burn in hell and personally consider it prejudice to say so. I also believe in God.

You think i want them to burn? a divine creator made laws that we cannot break, that is one of them, in islam and christianity

I’m not pointing Shit at you
That’s just what the Bible says

Gospel Power wrote:

The Huskar Social Union wrote:You said fuck all that was coherent and not a load of gibberish you refused to explain or clarify any of your points with anything other than more gibberish and refused to answer questions clearly then called people mad and liberals and then left.


Waste of time.

I will admit that i don't have an answer, yes i am admit when i don't have them

So let me get this straight.

You say a load of nonsense, and then admit you cant explain it or answer peoples questions about it? So you are incapable of backing up your own points with anything really?


Well definitely keeping up with the Theocratic record thats for sure.

Happsborough wrote:Im fairly religious (Christian) myself however imo theocracy directly contradicts Christianity (or at least the version of it I believe in) because Jesus preached cooperation and kindness/forgiveness, and most theocracies directly conflict with these ideas. Although some may MEAN well, absolute power or faith is bad.

I treat faith like patriotism, faith is always good, and needed, however too much can warp it's original ideas and make it an agent of evil. The latter is what cults use to control their followers like sheep- and why you must healthily balance the brain you've been given as well as the Book you believe in to dictate your life's decisions.

Jesus also said to give onto Caesar what is Caesar's. Which many religious individuals, and particularly in the developed world in America, seem to be completely ignorant of. Somehow.

Gospel Power wrote:

The Huskar Social Union wrote:You said fuck all that was coherent and not a load of gibberish you refused to explain or clarify any of your points with anything other than more gibberish and refused to answer questions clearly then called people mad and liberals and then left.


Waste of time.

I will admit that i don't have an answer, yes i am admit when i don't have them

So you say that a woman should abort herself and not the fetus, and then can't explain it? Then why say such nonsense in the first place?

The New California Republic wrote:

Gospel Power wrote:I will admit that i don't have an answer, yes i am admit when i don't have them

So you say that a woman should abort herself and not the fetus, and then can't explain it? Then why say such nonsense in the first place?

it was not literal

Saranidia wrote:

Internationalist Bastard wrote:Yes they are
Because when I make it argument it’s about real things we can see, not an invisible sky daddy who made me queer than said I’d burn in Hell for it

I don’t think gays will burn in hell and personally consider it prejudice to say so. I also believe in God.

See but in a theocracy (Islamic specifically), that isn't the position that the government would take. The majority of Muslims do not believe what you believe.

Gospel Power wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:So you say that a woman should abort herself and not the fetus, and then can't explain it? Then why say such nonsense in the first place?

it was not literal

Even as a metaphor it makes no sense...

Gospel Power wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:So you say that a woman should abort herself and not the fetus, and then can't explain it? Then why say such nonsense in the first place?

it was not literal

What did it mean metaphorically?

Gospel Power wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:So you say that a woman should abort herself and not the fetus, and then can't explain it? Then why say such nonsense in the first place?

it was not literal

You roasted those fools.

And now time to praise Gaddafi(its interesting when I do that).
He supported Nelson Mandela from day one and they were both political allies and personal friends. His political supports is a similarity with Jeremy Corbyn or Barak Obama unlike Theresa May whose party had members calling for him to be hanged.

Saranidia wrote:

Gospel Power wrote:it was not literal

You roasted those fools.

And now time to praise Gaddafi(its interesting when I do that).
He supported Nelson Mandela from day one and they were both political allies and personal friends. His political supports is a similarity with Jeremy Corbyn or Barak Obama unlike Theresa May whose party had members calling for him to be hanged.

Roasted lol

Internationalist Bastard wrote:

Gospel Power wrote:it was not literal

What did it mean metaphorically?

Well If he didn’t mean it metaphorically or sarcastically I imagine so Alex.

Saranidia wrote:

Gospel Power wrote:it was not literal

You roasted those fools.

And now time to praise Gaddafi(its interesting when I do that).
He supported Nelson Mandela from day one and they were both political allies and personal friends. His political supports is a similarity with Jeremy Corbyn or Barak Obama unlike Theresa May whose party had members calling for him to be hanged.

And his penchant for little kids? His burning of political opponents' remains in acid? Not very Mandela-like, nor Obama-esque. Perhaps Corbyn has a chance to show his similarities when his time comes?

Saranidia wrote:

Gospel Power wrote:it was not literal

You roasted those fools.

And now time to praise Gaddafi(its interesting when I do that).
He supported Nelson Mandela from day one and they were both political allies and personal friends. His political supports is a similarity with Jeremy Corbyn or Barak Obama unlike Theresa May whose party had members calling for him to be hanged.

Obama literally invaded Gaddafi's Libya.

Olerand wrote:

Saranidia wrote:You roasted those fools.

And now time to praise Gaddafi(its interesting when I do that).
He supported Nelson Mandela from day one and they were both political allies and personal friends. His political supports is a similarity with Jeremy Corbyn or Barak Obama unlike Theresa May whose party had members calling for him to be hanged.

And his penchant for little kids? His burning of political opponents' remains in acid? Not very Mandela-like, nor Obama-esque. Perhaps Corbyn has a chance to show his similarities when his time comes?

Don't forget his raping of female bodyguards.

Olerand wrote:

Saranidia wrote:You roasted those fools.

And now time to praise Gaddafi(its interesting when I do that).
He supported Nelson Mandela from day one and they were both political allies and personal friends. His political supports is a similarity with Jeremy Corbyn or Barak Obama unlike Theresa May whose party had members calling for him to be hanged.

And his penchant for little kids? His burning of political opponents' remains in acid? Not very Mandela-like, nor Obama-esque. Perhaps Corbyn has a chance to show his similarities when his time comes?

What do you mean by that?

Saranidia wrote:

Olerand wrote:Which secular State? America? No, certainly not, as evidence shows.

Truly secular States like those in Europe? Perhaps.

America is only a secular state in name.

I don’t know of a time when America had secular rulers(the president and the house of representatives governing in a secular way for example)

Um the US is quite secular. Not to the point of France but it is definitely secular. Also a good number of the presidents, John Adams in particular, swore on a book of laws instead of a bible

Gospel Power wrote:

Olerand wrote:And his penchant for little kids? His burning of political opponents' remains in acid? Not very Mandela-like, nor Obama-esque. Perhaps Corbyn has a chance to show his similarities when his time comes?

What do you mean by that?

...you expect others to answer questions after you refused to?

Sahansahiye Iran wrote:

Olerand wrote:And his penchant for little kids? His burning of political opponents' remains in acid? Not very Mandela-like, nor Obama-esque. Perhaps Corbyn has a chance to show his similarities when his time comes?

Don't forget his raping of female bodyguards.

You mean the all-Eastern European dream team weren't just his legally willing bodyguards and nurses? What??

And to think he set up tent with his harem in the Marigny's gardens. The humiliations we had to suffer under Sarkozy... Though who knows, Macron's time is not yet up, and the future only looks like shit.

Olerand wrote:

Aellex wrote:You'll be hard-pressed to find truly secular states in Europe, tho. Most have become Christian-hating, true, but from Britain to Germany passing by Sweden, one can see that they afford to Islam way more leeway than they would allow to any other religion.

Well, not officially, not in the law. Well... at least not in Germany. I can't really say the same for Britain, at all; and Sweden has shown... an uncharacteristic political reaction, let's say, to displays of sexism from certain... marginalized groups, in ways that, you're right, it would never afford to Christians, or God forbid, the Judar.

Germany has prison sentences for blasphemy. The US doesn’t. Yet you claim Germany is secular and the US isn’t. Maybe you just hate the US and that has clouded your vision

Gospel Power wrote:

Olerand wrote:And his penchant for little kids? His burning of political opponents' remains in acid? Not very Mandela-like, nor Obama-esque. Perhaps Corbyn has a chance to show his similarities when his time comes?

What do you mean by that?

What do I mean by what?

Thermodolia wrote:

Saranidia wrote:
America is only a secular state in name.

I don’t know of a time when America had secular rulers(the president and the house of representatives governing in a secular way for example)

Um the US is quite secular. Not to the point of France but it is definitely secular. Also a good number of the presidents, John Adams in particular, swore on a book of laws instead of a bible

Quite secular. America. These words are oxymorons. Please, revise your copy.