More news from or about the Left (they're getting crazier and even more corrupted)
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
(Barbarian points out that more American Muslims oppose terrorism than other Americans do)
Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
(Lon tries a "rebuttal" using information about what Muslims in other nations think)
Everyone realizes that you're trying to conflate what American Muslims think, with what Muslims in other countries think.
While it's certainly good, as you demonstrated, that even in other countries the vast majority of Muslims oppose terrorism, it's dishonest of you to pretend that survey shows what Americans Muslims think. You've shut both eyes tightly, and refuse to see it.
As you learned, American Muslims see terrorism and it's dangers the same way other Americans do. It is true that while right-wing terrorism by native-born Americans poses a larger danger than Muslim terrorism in America, there will always be a few radicals in any group.
This does not mean we should toss all conservatives and all Muslims into concentration camps, or even treat conservatives and Muslism as potential terrorists. The notion of due process and equal protection under the law forbids that.
For whatever reason, you are unable to rationally think about your fellow Americans, if they happen to be Muslim. That's a shame. And it's affected your judgement.
And as you see, we'd be a lot safer if all right-wing people were deported or closely monitored, rather than deport or closely monitor all Muslims. Of course, neither would be a rational response, given the tiny minority of conservatives and Muslims who actually commit acts of terror.
The Numbers Don’t Lie: White Far-Right Terrorists Pose a Clear Danger to Us All
Back in February, the Republican congressman from Wisconsin told CNN’s Alysyn Camerota that white terrorists of the far-right variety did not pose the same level of danger to Americans as so-called “Islamist” or “jihadist” terrorists. Why? “I don’t know, but I would just tell you there’s a difference,” proclaimed Duffy, who went on to dismiss as a “one-off” the attack on a mosque in Quebec by a Trump-supporting white nationalist, in which six Muslim worshippers were killed.
One-off? Seriously? Has Duffy been reading the news in recent days? On May 20, Richard Collins III, a black, 23-year-old U.S. Army second lieutenant, was murdered while visiting the University of Maryland by a member of a Facebook group called “Alt-Reich: Nation.” According to University of Maryland police chief David Mitchell, the group promotes “despicable” prejudice against minorities “and especially African-Americans.”
Today, the terror threat from far-right white supremacists is the terror threat that dare not speak its name. Leading conservatives, and even some liberals, are keen to downplay the danger that they pose and to divert and deflect attention away from homegrown white extremists and toward what President Trump likes to call “radical Islamic terrorism.”
Yet the numbers don’t lie — even if the Islamophobes do. “Since September 12, 2001,” noted a recent report prepared for Congress by the Government Accountability Office, “the number of fatalities caused by domestic violent extremists has ranged from 1 to 49 in a given year. … Fatalities resulting from attacks by far-right wing violent extremists have exceeded those caused by radical Islamist violent extremists in 10 of the 15 years, and were the same in 3 of the years since September 12, 2001.” Imagine that.
The report continues: “Of the 85 violent extremist incidents that resulted in death since September 12, 2001, far-right wing violent extremist groups were responsible for 62 (73 percent) while radical Islamist violent extremists were responsible for 23 (27 percent).” That’s a margin of almost three to one.
https://theintercept.com/2017/05/31...ght-terrorists-pose-a-clear-danger-to-us-all/
You find it appalling that an average of about 8 percent of the Muslims in the rest of the world support ISIS, while you seem completely unconcerned that about three in 10 republicans think people shouldn't be allowed to voice unpopular opinions.
Most GOPers recognize, at least in theory, that disfavored speech should still be protected: Around seven in 10 agree with the statement that "people should be allowed to express unpopular opinions in public, even those that are deeply offensive to other people," compared to less than five in 10 Democrats. Nonetheless, 36 percent of Republicans would support prohibiting offensive public statements aimed at the police, and the same number would ban such comments aimed at the military. By comparison, just 24 percent would outlaw offensive speech aimed at gays, lesbians, and transgender people.
http://reason.com/blog/2017/10/10/republicans-are-far-from-consistent-cham
Those republicans are a danger to American values and our Constitution. And they're not in some semi-civilized part of the world. They're living next door. And they hate most of their fellow Americans. And some of them, act on it. More than any other hate group in America.
That's to worry about.
Don't let your hatred blind you to the facts.
Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
(Lon tries a "rebuttal" using information about what Muslims in other nations think)
Everyone realizes that you're trying to conflate what American Muslims think, with what Muslims in other countries think.
While it's certainly good, as you demonstrated, that even in other countries the vast majority of Muslims oppose terrorism, it's dishonest of you to pretend that survey shows what Americans Muslims think. You've shut both eyes tightly, and refuse to see it.
As you learned, American Muslims see terrorism and it's dangers the same way other Americans do. It is true that while right-wing terrorism by native-born Americans poses a larger danger than Muslim terrorism in America, there will always be a few radicals in any group.
This does not mean we should toss all conservatives and all Muslims into concentration camps, or even treat conservatives and Muslism as potential terrorists. The notion of due process and equal protection under the law forbids that.
For whatever reason, you are unable to rationally think about your fellow Americans, if they happen to be Muslim. That's a shame. And it's affected your judgement.
And as you see, we'd be a lot safer if all right-wing people were deported or closely monitored, rather than deport or closely monitor all Muslims. Of course, neither would be a rational response, given the tiny minority of conservatives and Muslims who actually commit acts of terror.
The Numbers Don’t Lie: White Far-Right Terrorists Pose a Clear Danger to Us All
Back in February, the Republican congressman from Wisconsin told CNN’s Alysyn Camerota that white terrorists of the far-right variety did not pose the same level of danger to Americans as so-called “Islamist” or “jihadist” terrorists. Why? “I don’t know, but I would just tell you there’s a difference,” proclaimed Duffy, who went on to dismiss as a “one-off” the attack on a mosque in Quebec by a Trump-supporting white nationalist, in which six Muslim worshippers were killed.
One-off? Seriously? Has Duffy been reading the news in recent days? On May 20, Richard Collins III, a black, 23-year-old U.S. Army second lieutenant, was murdered while visiting the University of Maryland by a member of a Facebook group called “Alt-Reich: Nation.” According to University of Maryland police chief David Mitchell, the group promotes “despicable” prejudice against minorities “and especially African-Americans.”
Today, the terror threat from far-right white supremacists is the terror threat that dare not speak its name. Leading conservatives, and even some liberals, are keen to downplay the danger that they pose and to divert and deflect attention away from homegrown white extremists and toward what President Trump likes to call “radical Islamic terrorism.”
Yet the numbers don’t lie — even if the Islamophobes do. “Since September 12, 2001,” noted a recent report prepared for Congress by the Government Accountability Office, “the number of fatalities caused by domestic violent extremists has ranged from 1 to 49 in a given year. … Fatalities resulting from attacks by far-right wing violent extremists have exceeded those caused by radical Islamist violent extremists in 10 of the 15 years, and were the same in 3 of the years since September 12, 2001.” Imagine that.
The report continues: “Of the 85 violent extremist incidents that resulted in death since September 12, 2001, far-right wing violent extremist groups were responsible for 62 (73 percent) while radical Islamist violent extremists were responsible for 23 (27 percent).” That’s a margin of almost three to one.
https://theintercept.com/2017/05/31...ght-terrorists-pose-a-clear-danger-to-us-all/
You find it appalling that an average of about 8 percent of the Muslims in the rest of the world support ISIS, while you seem completely unconcerned that about three in 10 republicans think people shouldn't be allowed to voice unpopular opinions.
Most GOPers recognize, at least in theory, that disfavored speech should still be protected: Around seven in 10 agree with the statement that "people should be allowed to express unpopular opinions in public, even those that are deeply offensive to other people," compared to less than five in 10 Democrats. Nonetheless, 36 percent of Republicans would support prohibiting offensive public statements aimed at the police, and the same number would ban such comments aimed at the military. By comparison, just 24 percent would outlaw offensive speech aimed at gays, lesbians, and transgender people.
http://reason.com/blog/2017/10/10/republicans-are-far-from-consistent-cham
Those republicans are a danger to American values and our Constitution. And they're not in some semi-civilized part of the world. They're living next door. And they hate most of their fellow Americans. And some of them, act on it. More than any other hate group in America.
That's to worry about.
Don't let your hatred blind you to the facts.
Lon
Well-known member
Despite the creepy unecessary narration tack,
Quick question: Is "Muslim" a people group or a religion? Are these "Muslim" Christians being put to death? In what sense are they "Muslim?"
When you answer this, you'll know that some people indeed DO hate. Yes I do. I hate the religion. The people? :nono: Politically, the liberal tends to not think like this, which is also why they aren't very good Christians either. Whether you are or not isn't my intention. I believe you have a mind that can work, though is often wrong.
Of course I am! There are about 81 Million Muslims in the world. Awkwardly for you, it is a 'religion' as much as a people group. While you can say it is wrong to categorize an entire people group (there ARE Christian Muslims, NOT by religion, but by ethnicity), You CANNOT be wrong for condemning a religion that is wrong. When you get THAT through your head, you'll be doing better on that graduate work. Watch any videos? Any hysteria yet over Christians being killed BECAUSE of religion conflict? ANY at all? :think: LET'S see Barbarian be compassionate and RIGHTLY hysterical about the Lord Jesus Christ and what matters to Him. Let's see that.
NOPE. In point of fact, I haven't. ONE is a religion. It just so happens that THAT religion kills people and is opposed, to the death, any other religion. Point of Fact. TRY to debate that. You CAN'T. Give some clue as to where your graduate work went. "IF" you didn't deal with this, you didn't do graduate LEVEL work. More like a freshman paper. "IF" you did, then stop acting as if you didn't deal with this material. You'd know it AS WELL as I do, "IF" you did graduate level work. Am I calling it on the carpet? Yes. You MUST have dealt with these or you did it in a hole and isolated from anything that really matters.
No. In point of fact: They DON'T! Unless they aren't 'religious' Muslims (about 20% aren't from Pew Research findings).
Problem: "Radical" doesn't mean anything. They are 'just' Muslims or rather 'practicing' Muslims. If you treat the 'religion' the same as the 'people' group, you aren't doing this comparison thing right.
Example: It is certainly true that disturbed and broken-home kids do the majority of killing in America. We DO discriminate when looking at statistics. Maybe we should be careful about 'troubled' labels 'if' it isn't effective in addressing the problem. Likewise, 'if' we are dealing with a faith that encourages the killing of others, we 'can' rightly address the faith. It isn't the 'people' that does terrorism, it is the embrace of a religion that does. I have, by that example, little to no problem vetting a nonMuslim, Muslim. That guy/girl already doesn't embrace those Jihad values. "Jihad" btw, IS a religious term. It IS NOT an 'extremist' word. It BELONGS to the Muslim faith. On that ground I and you CAN be against a religion in America and can rightly address the problem that is decidedly un-American at that point. We don't BELIEVE it is right to kill your fellow American if they don't espouse your faith. Our values are exactly opposite and we are right to insist that all immigrants espouse our laws and Constitution. If they 'can' do so, great. If ten percent of them wind up being terrorists, 'we' did something wrong.
"Conservatives?" Where did that come in? Did you overplay your liberal hand? What do conservatives have to do with Muslims? :think:
By the same token, I accuse you of the same. If you CANNOT deal with facts and figures I've given in a rational manner, then you are that guy. Perhaps worse than you'd accuse me of. AT THE VERY LEAST, I TRY to keep my eyes open and CAN see beyond my own opinionated nose, regardless of what I think of my academic prowess compared to another. The point? You can't brow beat me or even try to one-up my academic prowess. I KNOW what my academic prowess is, strengths and weaknesses. Statistics don't scare me. I can look. I've challenged you to have at it. Do so. ▲ An assertion▲ isn't nearly enough. I know what data I've written in thread and what it means. It remains to be seen whether you are capable of acquiescing it or not. The "Conservative in concentration camps" suggestion has you looking less than stable and more than extreme yourself. I don't think liberals need to be in concentration camps, by the same token. I think they need to be challenged on their thinking skills and PERHAPS that reason will win the day. :think:
It is always interesting to me that this accusation comes out. These certainly are NOT conservative Christian kids. Columbine? Liberal professional parents. Columbine and Umpqua were anti-Christian in their targets and attacks. That's NOT conservative. That's a rejection of Christian values and people. To be honest, for an academic guy, this looks like prejudice and a VERY non-academic emote.
I've seen this too. While a few white guys have severe problems, 'being Christian' isn't one of them. They all appear to be godless and many specifically targeted 'conservatives.' Las Vegas? Conservatives were targeted. Columbine? Same. Some of them, like the Seattle shooting was from an angry kid and not related to Christianity at all. Numbers don't lie, but we have to be careful to ensure the numbers actually represent the particular people we say they do.
Again, an example of a 'white' kid with problems. NOT an example of a 'Conservative' kid with problems. Learn to label correctly. Do you think, for instance, the KKK are/were conservatives? :nono:
I was just reading up what most 'killers' have in common. Being white male was/is forced. The 'danger' is a godless society. A lot of blame is equally tossed on the liberal doorstep. Women working away from the home was and is and will remain a 'bad' idea. I don't remember a 'democrat baseball game' being shot up, however. :think: You? :think:
They don't but 'we' can misrepresent them...
I've seen those. "Christians?" :nono: Whatever makes them 'appear' far right, ALSO makes them appear far left as well. Nobody wants them. It is certainly true that churches are targeted. It is certainly true Republicans have been targeted. It is certainly true that children have been targeted. Who does that? A conservative? :nono:
That isn't a good statistic either. It is a BAD one. You JUST told me that Islamic radicals making up less than a percent of our country is RESPONSIBLE FOR almost 30% of American deaths!!!! :doh: The 'likelihood' that you get shot up by a Muslim extremist shot through the roof! Worse? This is 'group-think.' It means, while we may have common themes (or not) for all other attacks, at least 30% of them have a commonality that we can readily see and understand: "Allah told me to do it!" It is that clear. As I've said, TRY to understand that I am attacking a religion, not the people group. There are Christian Muslims. If we could vet them, I'm FOR (pro) Muslim immigration. I'm against vetting those who embrace Islam, however. One in EVERY THREE killings in America, by YOUR statistics, will be from them. You are correct, numbers don't and cannot lie. We CAN be smart about the way we vet immigrants. Even the one of five who are NOT religious is a better vet-bet.
Correct, for a number of reasons: 1) They can't do anything about our Constitution. 2) Opinion can be changed, so I'm hopeful on THAT front. It is apples/oranges. One is the number of deaths in the wake. The other? People who need to be informed. HUGE difference.
So 7 of 10 Republicans understand and support the First Amendment? :think: That's good! Right?
Ouch, so Democrats are less supportive of the First Amendment!? Only 40% of them support it? That's bad, right?
Yeah, but that'd be the 'other' 3 in ten. 70% that support the First Amendment is the same. What do those 6 in 10 democrats want to ban? You are helping Musterion with his thread premise. You realize that don't you?
So, roughly one of those 3 remaining Republicans are less concerned about speech against whatever is 'wrong' compared to whatever is considered right... :think: Looks about right.
Republicans? What about Democrats!??
We've already got 70% of Republicans supporting the First Amendment but only 4 of 10 Democrats! :noway: We're in trouble!
It DOES make sense though, that liberal colleges keep getting in trouble over hate-speech rules that break Constitutional laws though :think:
We still have to ensure that we correctly identify those groups. Nobody wants to pick the last guy for dodgeball so I don't blame liberals TOO much for trying to shove these off, BUT liberals aren't concerned over who is or isn't rejecting the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. God was ousted from the classroom by liberals for exactly that reason. That dingbat Madeleine O'Hara's 3 children were all Christians by the time she was done with them, yet our liberal system allowed the 'dingbat' to form public policy and it continues to do the 'dumb' thing.
Especially, when by the numbers, only 4 of 10 Democrats uphold or want to uphold the First Amendment compared to 7 of 10 Republicans! :noway: We ARE reading the same mail? Yes?
I hate a religion. It is a religion that guarantees one in three mass killings in the U.S. (guarantees it, Barbarian!), is going to be for Islam. It isn't a guess as to why this troubled prom king got mad or whether he loved Jesus. It isn't a question of whether he came from a broken home. No, one in three times, it is going to be, WITHOUT question, that he/she (yes, we've seen it crosses gender), is going to be BECAUSE they are Muslim by religious conviction. The reason: MUSLIM. Fact. You can say 'hate' but you CAN'T say 'blinded.' CAN'T. YOU'D HAVE to be blind if you miss what I just said. Fact. Was that in your graduate work? I hope it was. You CANNOT escape it. Facts are like that.
It's a religion. What does that have to do with you trying to conflate American Muslims with Muslims in other countries?
Hatred is born of weakness and fear. Never hate your enemies; it makes you easier to beat.
Those crazy liberals; always inclined to love their enemies.
"But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you"
The original bleeding heart liberal, um? He's talking to you, Lon.
I'm just trying to do as He told me. I often fail at being a proper imitation of Christ, but I try.
I believe Him. You should, too.
Did Jesus condemn the Good Samaritan? Did he condemn the Samaritan woman? When you understand why He did not, you'll understand more about yourself.
And yet, American Muslims aren't at all like that. I understand why you desperately want to paint all Muslims as being the same. But the fact is, they aren't. And as you learned, American Muslims are pretty much like other Americans when it comes to terrorism, tolerance, and faith.
And that's all there is to say about it.
Lon
Well-known member
1) I ALREADY gave you a link that 'acquiesced' whether I EVER link to the article or not, that, in point of fact, the statistic exists. You plugging your ears over it? Yeah, not getting points from me OR anybody else. It is dishonest and frankly, makes you look like an uncaring drone. STOP trying to marginalize with a debate tactic. It SHOWS you don't care about facts, just winning at any cost, which I WILL detest and question your love for Christ over. If you are this wicked of a person, I'll trounce you all over TOL for it. If not, stop being inane. The link I gave gives the fact as a given. You doing your graduate work on this? I CAN'T accept you are unaware. I've seen these stats over and over again. So have you. I'm CONVINCED of it so denial gets you nothing. Knock it off. I've MORE than covered my responsibility for the data. More so since I've shown it wouldn't have mattered. You are employing a distraction that just doesn't matter. 1 in 3 attacks in America WILL BE because of Islam. Let me repeat that: One in 3 terrorist attacks IN AMERICA BY AMERICAN Muslims BECAUSE of ISLAM. No magic wand or what REALLY looks like a an uncouth debate 'win on a technicality' looks VERY unconcerned nor loving. Me? I'm hysterical, remember? This is really about which of us loves Jesus and people AND a genuine hope that you weren't so callous as to care for neither. In a nutshell, you DON'T look 'smart' for it. You don't look 'loving' for it. You don't look 'patriotic' for it. You don't look like a Christian for it. So stop it. You CAN'T win looking for an inane technicality that frankly, doesn't matter anyway. YOU gave a link that PROVED 1 in EVERY 3 attacks in America WILL be done by less than 1% of the population FOR Islam. You did. YOU proved it. YOU did! I simply pointed out what YOU proved. NOTHING you can do will remove that because YOU proved it! YOU DID!
I don't. I am, however, smart and make wise decisions. I COULD give $10 to the bum on the street. Better? Giving to a rescue mission. It is the smarter thing to do. Same here: Vetting a persecuted Christian IS the smarter thing to do. It is also MORE loving because nobody will be harmed. Your way? GUARANTEED 1 in 3 attacks will be increase by percentages BECAUSE you weren't 'smart' with your decisions. I'll take smart love over dumb and ineffective love for a month and more of Sundays.
"Crazy" wasn't the first word that came to mind over it. Dumb. "LESS" loving. Not knowing you can accomplish the same things some OTHER way? Yeah, that's not 'crazy.' I realize Musterion said crazy but it isn't the 'first' word that crossed my mind. I'm trying RATHER to get a liberal to think and DO the RIGHT thing. YOU proved that 1 in 3 attacks will come from less than 1% of the population. What do you want to do? Bring more in! :noway: Okay, "crazy" does come to mind, just not first for me.
That doesn't mean you have to vet Hitler to come into our country. You 'can' pray for him/them. You can 'do good' without being accommodating or unintelligent about it.
It also always bothered me that Lot gave his own daughters. I'm not sure 'smart' is always what we see in the O.T. Being smart AND loving is the aim. We should think of ways to do good things, even for our enemies. I'm VERY happy, with this, you ADMIT that Muslims will be responsible for 1/3 of all atrocities AND that you count them 'enemies' for it. Good on you for at least going this far. Your eyes are being both opened with such admission. :up: We can do whatever after. We don't have to be brilliant but I'd kind of like to try that. He is talking to us both, in point of fact.
:up: Let's not just love, but TRY to love the MOST effective way. Galatians 6:9 "If" we are going to follow the Lord Jesus Christ, "then" first to the body of Christ. Why NOT vet Muslims who are persecuted wrongly and innocent, first? Why wouldn't we do that first?
Then like me, use scriptures. You KNOW that 1/3 of the deaths from attack WILL be from Muslims. YOU gave me that statistic. You did. Are we really loving if we ignore any one group AND put them in purposeful further danger? When our ideals cost lives, we have to think of the most effective ways of loving because NOT doing so isn't as loving. I cried with my mom over Christians being put to death this last Thanksgiving. It broke my heart.
Yes, in point of fact: John 4:22. He told her it was time to stop it and do the RIGHT thing. I have NO PROBLEM with you sharing Christ and what is right with a Muslim. None. Jesus ALSO said this: Matthew 15:26 Let's embrace ALL of Jesus' words for a change, not just some of them or the 'convenient' ones. "TRUTH" sets free.
Yes OR liberated her, depending on what she did with the information. The time 'had come' for TRUE worshippers to worship in spirit AND truth. IOW He told her she DIDN'T worship in truth. That was a condemnation of 'false' worship. We cannot make scripture in our image. We CAN have our image changed by HIM.
YOU will understand more about yourself, rather. I've no problem doing whatever He says. Make sure it is what He says. Loving? Always good. Loving better? Er, better.
No. You didn't deal with you own data. YOU showed, if not proved, that one in 3 attacks on America will be done by Muslims. Not 'muslim by nationality, Muslim by religion. You showed the RISK is exponentially great, the more we vet. It is GUARANTEED. What do you want to do? Vet more of THOSE ones. Sorry, it doesn't look loving to me. It looks like you are simply siding with the bad guys. It doesn't look like anything else. How could it? It can't.
:doh: Are you unintelligent? DO you understand that it is 'against the law' to be a Christian in Muslim controlled countries? Did you READ? Did you not watch the video? Why didn't you? Don't you love that little girl? Don't you care about the family she lost? Don't you care they were persecuted to death BECAUSE they were Christians by Normal Muslims? Who is desperate to sweep something uncomfortable under the rug? YOU proved that 1 in 3 attacks in the U.S. WILL be from regular run of the mill AMERICAN Muslims. You did. Too late. That is out of the bag. You can't take that back.
Where in the world do you get that? YOU showed one in EVERY 3 attacks in the U.S. have been done and WILL CONTINUE TO BE DONE by Muslims. YOU did that. What is wrong with your head. YOU showed this is true. You JUST tried to say vetting them was loving, even KNOWING this is true. These ARE the facts, Barbarian. YOU gave them.
No. You are being inept. What you had was an article that talked about 'sentiments' RATHER than actions. IOW you believe sight unseen and AGAINST what is actual that YOU already gave as a statistic: One that anyone can look up as true. NOBODY can do but that. It doesn't matter what a Muslim 'says.' It matters what that religion teaches and a portion of AMERICAN Muslims are going to kill you BECAUSE their religion says they are supposed to. You can love Muslim people by embracing the ones who reject that AND by embracing the ones who have become Christians and are being killed by these.
Not the best closer. It doesn't even mean anything. It certainly isn't true. I'm sorry to nitpick, but as I said, this is life/death stuff. "That's all there is to say about that" doesn't look like you've watched the video or read about Christians who are dead, persecuted and scheduled for nothing less than murder. For them alone, we haven't said enough. Nowhere near enough.
Hoping for good? Commendable. Hoping AGAINST data contrawise? No longer commendable and if persistent, can often be seen as wicked for dubious purpose, like Putin denying children were killed by lethal chemicals. He cannot get a pass pleading ignorance that looks purposeful.
More news from or about the Left (they're getting crazier and even more corrupted)
Trump has hyped the threat of radical Islamic terrorism way out of proportion - Americans have far more to fear from Russia inference in the 2018 Interims, gun violence, the Opioid epidemic and/or inability to find affordable healthcare for themselves and their families!
This President either steadfastly refuses to admit such threats even exist or they are relegated along with a host of other important issues to the political sidelines - all victims of the constant chaos/ineptitude/mixed messages emanating from this White House!
musterion
Well-known member
More news from or about the Left (they're getting crazier and even more corrupted)
Trump has hyped the threat of radical Islamic terrorism way out of proportion - Americans have far more to fear from Russia inference in the 2018 Interims, gun violence, the Opioid epidemic and/or inability to find affordable healthcare for themselves and their families!
This President either steadfastly refuses to admit such threats even exist or they are relegated along with a host of other important issues to the political sidelines - all victims of the constant chaos/ineptitude/mixed messages emanating from this White House!
It's okay, sweetie. Obama and Clinton will return someday to save you and punish all the bad people who disagree with you.
I'm just showing you the facts. Your excessive and emotional reaction is not helping you.
And 2 in 3 of them come from conservatives. We'd be much safer if we deported all conservatives than if we deported all Muslims. And yes, since only a very tiny number of conservatives are actually terrorists, it would be stupid and unjust (not to mention unconstitutional) to deport them. Now replace "conservative" with "Muslim" in that last sentence, and you're on your way to rationality.
How many Syrian refugees have come in? How many of them have committed acts of terror? (Barbarian checks)
"Of the 3,252,493 refugees admitted from 1975 to the end of 2015, 20 were terrorists, which amounted to 0.00062 percent of the total. In other words, one terrorist entered as a refugee for every 162,625 refugees who were not terrorists. Refugees were not very successful at killing Americans in terrorist attacks. Of the 20, only three were successful in their attacks, killing a total of three people."
To arrive at the "1 in 3.64 billion per year" statistic, Alex Nowrasteh, the Cato study’s author, told us he added up the nation’s population for each year between 1975 and 2015, and then divided the total by the three deaths. Lieu omitted the "per year," portion in his claim, though we did not view this as an egregious oversight.
In his study, Nowrasteh notes that a trio of Cuban refugees carried out the three fatal attacks in the 1970s.
Not a single refugee, Syrian or otherwise, has been implicated in a terrorist attack since the Refugee Act of 1980 set up systematic procedures for accepting refugees into the United States, the report adds.
http://www.politifact.com/californi...oull-be-killed-terror-attack-america-refugee/
That would apply to people like conservatives who actually committed acts of terror. (some of them were, not surprisingly, fans of Hitler). It seems completely insane to liken refugees who have so far not committed any terroristic acts at all.
I did, and you went ballistic over Jesus' admonition to love our enemies.
And not one from Syrian refugees. But you have a 100% higher chance of being killed by a conservative terrorist than a Muslim one. So far no Syrian refugees have done any terroristic acts at all.
It's like you want to repeal drinking and driving laws, and would rather ban stop signs.
ISIS has put to death many times more Muslims than Christians. Did you shed tears for them? The point of Jesus' ministry here was that everyone is your neighbor. He showed you the way out of the death cycle of attack and revenge. If you accept it, you're free of that cycle. When you can cry over deaths, even if they aren't in your club, then you're free. Just think about it, please.
And 2 of the 3 will be by conservatives. If there were no conservatives in America, it would be much more safe from terrorism. But, you might say, it's a matter of numbers. What is the rate of terrorism from conservatives. It's very low. So it doesn't bother you. On the other hand, the rate of terrorism from Syrian refugees is 0.0. And you're afraid of them. That's very telling.
The Cato Institute, a right-wing libertarian group has shown the likelihood of being killed by a Muslim terrorist in America is something less than 1 in 3 billion per year. If you're frightened by that, you should first build a meteorite shield for your house.
Are you very sure this is fear and not mere hatred that motivates you?
It must be really difficult for you to be on the WRONG side of most everything on TOL? You have my sincerest emapthy and disregard.
Lon
Well-known member
:nono: This isn't working either. My insurance went DOWN because of Obama. By 'down' I mean we owed $1K for teeth cleaning this year! :noway: Before insurance companies were 'allowed' to abuse us, that middle man couldn't have done it until: Tada! Obamacare!
That family you are talking about that 'couldn't' pay for healthcare? They got along the same as they pretty much do now. You cannot drain blood from a turnip. You CAN bleed the middle class dry AND make them pay for the lower class. I've friends who cannot afford healthcare. Their bill was forgiven at the hospital. My brother, a fireman, has seen an increase in 'bogus' emergency calls. Reason? "Obama said I could." You and I are paying for that. Or maybe just I am. You wouldn't be part of the lower class would you, by chance? :think: I have a heart. I just realize before most kids that 'this is gonna cost me' before I vote. Most of the time I say 'no' because I think "I" personally can do a much better job with $ than voters (and I do do a better job if I can say that in true humility, kids are alive because of where my $ goes).
Just a counterpoint from the other side :e4e: -Lon
I have a close friend and she was paying about $500.00 a month and a $5000,00 deductible per year under Obamacare. She was NEVER able to use that insurance. That was probably the idea behind this 'insurance' to begin with.
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how many terrorist attacks have been done by Syrian refugees to the United States.
Looks like the usual fear-mongers are trying to change the subject.
Looks like the usual fear-mongers are trying to change the subject.
Lon
Well-known member
No? But someone with a true heart for God, it WILL help. I'm sorry about your admission. It isn't a good reflection upon you. You SHOULD have joined me in saying you genuinely care about people that die. You REALLY should have. Why DIDN'T you? Matthew 10:29
Why shove the same statistic? Columbine? NOT conservative Christian kids. They purposefully killed conservative Christian kids. Umpqua? Purposefully attacked Conservative Christians. :think: I THINK you may want to review your facts. You said this was you "GRADUATE" work? :think: Las Vegas? Target: Conservatives. I asked already, when WAS the last Democrat softball game shot up by the 'supposed "conservative?" When did THAT happen? As I said, nobody wants to pick the ugly guy and so I don't blame a liberal for trying to sweep this under the conservative rug, but even you know none of them are 'conservative' in values. "Conservative" wants to 'preserve.' No conservative kid is marching in the street and turning over police cars and looting local 'conservative' businesses. No 'conservative' kids upturned their college campus violently. It isn't the actual mark of being conservative. I'll be MUCH fairer to your crowd instead of accusing: "Is this the mark of a progressive liberal, however?" To me? It isn't 'progress.' Of course neither was the woman's lib movement either :think:
Again, it is a weird and creepy literary ploy. You realize Squeeky does this, right? :granite:
Again, in EVERY country where the Muslim is in control, CHRISTIANS (you don't love us, do you?) are in prison and being put to death. EVERY one of them, Barbarian. WHY would you TRY to make that fact go away with a VERY callous and meaningless wave of your hand? 20% of Muslims are not Islamic. That's good. Of those, a good portion are Christians. I DO know that YOU told me, guaranteed, that one in every 3 attacks on American soil WILL continue to be done by AMERICAN Muslims. YOU provided that statistic. ▲This?▲ Doesn't make that go away, Barbarian. No tap dancing or slight of hand CAN make that go away. YOU gave that statistic. YOU DID. I told you already it is out of the bag and you CANNOT make it go away. ▲This▲doesn't make it go away, Barbarian. It is a futile effort. There is no REASON to entertain it. Again, love 'smarter,' not dumber.
:doh: Are you trying to somehow undo what damage you already gave? YOU gave the statistic that one in 3 American attacks have been and will be done by Muslims. YOU DID. YOU gave that statistic. Don't like it? Say you misspoke, or that you didn't MEAN to let that cat out of the bag or something. ▲This?▲ Does nothing for me. It looks like an wasted effort at damage control. Too late. You already sailed that and the damage is done. You can't take it back.
You ALSO know, point of fact, than in a country where they are in control, YOU would be in prison for being a Christian. There is no wiggle room.
Maybe you are one of those guys that believes Christianity shouldn't be allowed in public? :think: I've given you the benefit of the doubt and enough rope for you to affirm the Lord Jesus Christ or hang yourself. It is important. It is part of this discussion.
Yowch! This doesn't look like a 'sane' accusation, Barbarian. A white-supremacist isn't a conservative. I'd grant they aren't liberal either. They are just weirdos, Barbarian.
Er, no. If 'ballistic' is the term, it was over the misuse of scripture. I said 'use.'
lain::nono: The kids of a couple of these shot up night clubs and went on a killing spree at their local employment. You can't sweep these under a rug. Worse? YOU already gave the one in three statistic. YOU DID. YOU GAVE it. You CAN'T take it back. ▲This▲ isn't taking it back, Barbarian. :nono:
Yes, but ESPECIALLY the Christians.
:doh: I already told you the point of that story. The 'Samaritan' is incidental to the story. It is NOT a story about Samaritans. It was the story about a "JEW" who was beat up. It was a story TO another JEW to do the right thing because "Even if a despised Samaritan knows to do the right thing, you a Jew, should know it better." THAT was the lesson. You have an odd fascination with 'wrong' religions. The Samaritans, frankly, were wrong. So are Muslims. They are NOT your friend. They want YOUR faith eradicated. You are looking for that Kumbayah moment. It is ONLY found in Jesus and you are being a 'liberal' for it. It means you emote first, think later, and have few ideas where your well-intentioned BAD ideas end.
I didn't like John Lennon. "Imagine" is a horrible song. It is a BAD idea. A LIBERAL idea. It doesn't work. When you WILLINGLY hurt the majority FOR the minority, you are always going to be causing trouble. Burning bras accomplished horrible things. Liberal judges 'allowed' the dismantling of our values. Granted ungodly women who were not happy at home marched, but caving in to their demands paved the way for 1) lower wages. The liberals, however good intention, were inept. They GUARANTEED that wages would be lowered. Why? Because they inadvertently doubled the workforce. That in turn dominoes into half-pay because companies couldn't pay out more. The ones that could became greedy and exploited, Kids were suddenly raised without an attending parent, public schools were suddenly the dispenser of 'wisdom' as well as education, etc. etc. School shootings? The Liberal's fault, Barbarian. My mom wanted to stay at home. She couldn't. I grew up NOT being a statistic despite that. I 'could' have been a gone-wrong statistic. Politics are often a difficult discussion but 'blame' is easily shared around. MOST of the time, I see liberal as 'well-meaning' but more than not, inept.
Again, politic buck-passing is always a long conversation. I've just told you 'why' those kids will be killers and it had a LOT to do with your mother marching and burning her bra and caving to Madalyn Murray O'Hair. That was NOT conservative. :nono: You can 'try' to demonize and cast blame, certainly it comes from both sides, but being 'more' intelligent than the other guy would certainly help undo a lot of INEPT damage.
Ah. I see. "Not 'my' kids so I don't have to care."
lain: It looks ALL KINDS of callous and unfortunately 'liberal' to me. It is why I don't use 'bleeding heart' that much. I mostly think of liberals as 'unable to forecast, just emote for change.' IOW, they are happy more with 'change' than consequences. YAY! We but a colored man in the White House! I'd MUCH rather have had Dr. Ben Carson. He was/is incredibly more able to represent America AND weigh consequences. In the end, he didn't win my nomination, but he is who I wanted in office. I know what 'consequences' are and can see the writing on the wall. I 'think' I've a better handle on school shootings than 'take away guns.' I can look down the road and see the writing on the wall, often incredibly better than a liberal. A liberal want's 'change' regardless of consequences. You just proved that with 'not my kids.' No, you think Russian Roulette is a 'safe' game so "Let's vet some more Muslims, the ones guaranteeing that one in three mass killing in America will continue to take place." Why? Because "Not likely my kids, so I don't care." "Do you still beat your wife?" :doh: Come on! You only gave me 'hate' OR 'fear?' :noway:
Thanks, Barbarian. Generous of you
We 'were' talking about love at one point, remember? :doh:No? But someone with a true heart for God, it WILL help. I'm sorry about your admission. It isn't a good reflection upon you. You SHOULD have joined me in saying you genuinely care about people that die. You REALLY should have. Why DIDN'T you? Matthew 10:29
Why shove the same statistic? Columbine? NOT conservative Christian kids. They purposefully killed conservative Christian kids. Umpqua? Purposefully attacked Conservative Christians. :think: I THINK you may want to review your facts. You said this was you "GRADUATE" work? :think: Las Vegas? Target: Conservatives. I asked already, when WAS the last Democrat softball game shot up by the 'supposed "conservative?" When did THAT happen? As I said, nobody wants to pick the ugly guy and so I don't blame a liberal for trying to sweep this under the conservative rug, but even you know none of them are 'conservative' in values. "Conservative" wants to 'preserve.' No conservative kid is marching in the street and turning over police cars and looting local 'conservative' businesses. No 'conservative' kids upturned their college campus violently. It isn't the actual mark of being conservative. I'll be MUCH fairer to your crowd instead of accusing: "Is this the mark of a progressive liberal, however?" To me? It isn't 'progress.' Of course neither was the woman's lib movement either :think:
Again, it is a weird and creepy literary ploy. You realize Squeeky does this, right? :granite:
Again, in EVERY country where the Muslim is in control, CHRISTIANS (you don't love us, do you?) are in prison and being put to death. EVERY one of them, Barbarian. WHY would you TRY to make that fact go away with a VERY callous and meaningless wave of your hand? 20% of Muslims are not Islamic. That's good. Of those, a good portion are Christians. I DO know that YOU told me, guaranteed, that one in every 3 attacks on American soil WILL continue to be done by AMERICAN Muslims. YOU provided that statistic. ▲This?▲ Doesn't make that go away, Barbarian. No tap dancing or slight of hand CAN make that go away. YOU gave that statistic. YOU DID. I told you already it is out of the bag and you CANNOT make it go away. ▲This▲doesn't make it go away, Barbarian. It is a futile effort. There is no REASON to entertain it. Again, love 'smarter,' not dumber.
:doh: Are you trying to somehow undo what damage you already gave? YOU gave the statistic that one in 3 American attacks have been and will be done by Muslims. YOU DID. YOU gave that statistic. Don't like it? Say you misspoke, or that you didn't MEAN to let that cat out of the bag or something. ▲This?▲ Does nothing for me. It looks like an wasted effort at damage control. Too late. You already sailed that and the damage is done. You can't take it back.
You ALSO know, point of fact, than in a country where they are in control, YOU would be in prison for being a Christian. There is no wiggle room.
Maybe you are one of those guys that believes Christianity shouldn't be allowed in public? :think: I've given you the benefit of the doubt and enough rope for you to affirm the Lord Jesus Christ or hang yourself. It is important. It is part of this discussion.
Yowch! This doesn't look like a 'sane' accusation, Barbarian. A white-supremacist isn't a conservative. I'd grant they aren't liberal either. They are just weirdos, Barbarian.
Er, no. If 'ballistic' is the term, it was over the misuse of scripture. I said 'use.'
:nono: The kids of a couple of these shot up night clubs and went on a killing spree at their local employment. You can't sweep these under a rug. Worse? YOU already gave the one in three statistic. YOU DID. YOU GAVE it. You CAN'T take it back. ▲This▲ isn't taking it back, Barbarian. :nono:
Yes, but ESPECIALLY the Christians.
:doh: I already told you the point of that story. The 'Samaritan' is incidental to the story. It is NOT a story about Samaritans. It was the story about a "JEW" who was beat up. It was a story TO another JEW to do the right thing because "Even if a despised Samaritan knows to do the right thing, you a Jew, should know it better." THAT was the lesson. You have an odd fascination with 'wrong' religions. The Samaritans, frankly, were wrong. So are Muslims. They are NOT your friend. They want YOUR faith eradicated. You are looking for that Kumbayah moment. It is ONLY found in Jesus and you are being a 'liberal' for it. It means you emote first, think later, and have few ideas where your well-intentioned BAD ideas end.
I didn't like John Lennon. "Imagine" is a horrible song. It is a BAD idea. A LIBERAL idea. It doesn't work. When you WILLINGLY hurt the majority FOR the minority, you are always going to be causing trouble. Burning bras accomplished horrible things. Liberal judges 'allowed' the dismantling of our values. Granted ungodly women who were not happy at home marched, but caving in to their demands paved the way for 1) lower wages. The liberals, however good intention, were inept. They GUARANTEED that wages would be lowered. Why? Because they inadvertently doubled the workforce. That in turn dominoes into half-pay because companies couldn't pay out more. The ones that could became greedy and exploited, Kids were suddenly raised without an attending parent, public schools were suddenly the dispenser of 'wisdom' as well as education, etc. etc. School shootings? The Liberal's fault, Barbarian. My mom wanted to stay at home. She couldn't. I grew up NOT being a statistic despite that. I 'could' have been a gone-wrong statistic. Politics are often a difficult discussion but 'blame' is easily shared around. MOST of the time, I see liberal as 'well-meaning' but more than not, inept.
Again, politic buck-passing is always a long conversation. I've just told you 'why' those kids will be killers and it had a LOT to do with your mother marching and burning her bra and caving to Madalyn Murray O'Hair. That was NOT conservative. :nono: You can 'try' to demonize and cast blame, certainly it comes from both sides, but being 'more' intelligent than the other guy would certainly help undo a lot of INEPT damage.
Ah. I see. "Not 'my' kids so I don't have to care."
"Do you still beat your wife?" :doh: Come on! You only gave me 'hate' OR 'fear?' :noway:
Thanks, Barbarian. Generous of you
Barbs heart is as black as coal. He's also brainwashed and under a GREAT Delusion. Another problem is he's a Catholic and not a member of "The Body of Christ."
(Barbarian notes that Jesus said to love our enemies, and admits that is his objective)
Jesus thinks it is. And that is what matters to me.
You SHOULD have admitted that we are told to love our enemies. As you know, I pointed out that the key concern is how many people die and the likelihood of future deaths should guide our actions. It's a shame that you didn't agree. You really should have. I'm guessing that because it didn't fit your narrative, you didn't want to talk about it.
(Barbarian takes Lon to task for again trying to conflate American Muslims with Muslims in other countries)
Aren't you claiming to be a Christian? Jesus said that the world would hate us, and many of you do. Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" is one of us, but rather those who do the will of the Father.
You missed His point, then. It wasn't "it's good to help out those in need." It was "go do as the Samaritan did, not as the two Jews did." It was in the context of "who is my neighbor?" Jesus said that the Samaritan got it, but the Jews did not. And then he told them to emulate the Samaritan. It was a deliberately provocative choice of characters just for that purpose.
You have an obsession with 'wrong' religions, an obsession that Jesus actively discouraged. "Why are you talking to me? Jews don't speak to Samaritans."
He treated that woman no differently than He would have treated a Jewish person. Learn from Him.
So are Jews. So are you. You're just a little less wrong.
I've yet to have a Muslim or Jew act as aggressively offensive about my Christian faith as you have. And you're supposed to be a Christian.
Instead of seeking doctrinal perfection, first seek the Kingdom of God. And then you will have it. As Jesus pointed out, the Samaritan may not have said "Lord, Lord", but he did the will of the Father. You should think of that, and reflect on what it means for you.
(Stuff about John Lennon, burning bras, judges upholding the Bill of Rights, and other things Lon finds objectionable)
You're starting to wander. Focus. And let Him be God. Listen and try to emulate Jesus. You can't go wrong, if you do that.
Jesus thinks it is. And that is what matters to me.
You SHOULD have admitted that we are told to love our enemies. As you know, I pointed out that the key concern is how many people die and the likelihood of future deaths should guide our actions. It's a shame that you didn't agree. You really should have. I'm guessing that because it didn't fit your narrative, you didn't want to talk about it.
(Barbarian takes Lon to task for again trying to conflate American Muslims with Muslims in other countries)
Aren't you claiming to be a Christian? Jesus said that the world would hate us, and many of you do. Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" is one of us, but rather those who do the will of the Father.
You missed His point, then. It wasn't "it's good to help out those in need." It was "go do as the Samaritan did, not as the two Jews did." It was in the context of "who is my neighbor?" Jesus said that the Samaritan got it, but the Jews did not. And then he told them to emulate the Samaritan. It was a deliberately provocative choice of characters just for that purpose.
You have an obsession with 'wrong' religions, an obsession that Jesus actively discouraged. "Why are you talking to me? Jews don't speak to Samaritans."
He treated that woman no differently than He would have treated a Jewish person. Learn from Him.
So are Jews. So are you. You're just a little less wrong.
I've yet to have a Muslim or Jew act as aggressively offensive about my Christian faith as you have. And you're supposed to be a Christian.
Instead of seeking doctrinal perfection, first seek the Kingdom of God. And then you will have it. As Jesus pointed out, the Samaritan may not have said "Lord, Lord", but he did the will of the Father. You should think of that, and reflect on what it means for you.
(Stuff about John Lennon, burning bras, judges upholding the Bill of Rights, and other things Lon finds objectionable)
You're starting to wander. Focus. And let Him be God. Listen and try to emulate Jesus. You can't go wrong, if you do that.
musterion
Well-known member
Your Jesus doesn't exist. It's a corpse hanging on a crucifix that lets you eat him in biscuit form but can't fully save you until after you're dead. Maybe.
He's alive and with us now. Sorry about your god. Maybe you'd be better off learning about the real One.
Lon
Well-known member
No He doesn't. I showed you, clearly, you were wrong. Scripture does say love your enemy and do good to them. That DOESN'T mean vetting a Nazi. Are YOU into that? You will have to use a LOT more scriptures to convince me. Go ahead. I'm listening.
lain:NOT if it means you sacrifice children to Molech. That is NOT love, Barbarian. Loving the enemy doesn't mean I have to have them in my country. What principle on God's green earth could POSSIBLY make you think that is the ONLY viable love option???? :noway: Again, I'll take 'smart' and intelligent love over stupidity or evil in 'feigned' disguise. Love is NOT defined by John Lennon. It is defined by and specifically, by the nature, character, and demands of God. Alone. YOU, Barbarian, have a VERY hard time knowing the difference between Nazis and Germans by the same token. You really don't seem to be gifted with enlightenment or understanding in this case.
:nono: No. You didn't. You might as well try making your own theme song.
Now, in your wild imagination you think you are going to take me to task for a 'conflation?' :noway: Sad. You can't even take yourself to task over it. It'd look neurotic.
Not sure if you know how this question this is supposed to work. I realize others have called you on the carpet for not being a Christian. I otoh have given you every opportunity to declare Him. "Many of you nonChristians do hate us" isn't helpful. The pope declared me a brother in error already so that ship, too has sailed. Why 'try' to marginalize me? What is the point of that kind of posturing? :idunno:
Let me say this again. The will of the Father is NOT to take sides with evil men BUT OPPOSE them. If you make your bed IMAGINING with John Lennon, that is exactly what that is. You might as well say: "I love Al Capone, but I hate you." The Lord Jesus Christ said you CANNOT serve two masters. He THEN said YOU WILL LOVE ONE AND HATE THE OTHER!!!!. The Lord Jesus Christ did. The Lord Jesus Christ said that. Read it again, Barbarian. "IF" your love is undiscerning THEN (necessarily), your LOVE is two-faced and the Lord Jesus Christ is saying, VERY clearly, right here: That's a lie! "You, Barbarian, CANNOT serve two masters. You WILL love one AND WILL hate the other. No wiggle room. NO room for error. Wake up. Here is your scripture. Here is your sign. You 'can' love your enemy WITHOUT deferring to their wicked whims. I SUGGEST strongly, that you do so ELSE it is not loving. LEARN the difference between a person born in the Middle East AND someone evil. There IS a difference. A HUGE difference. Matthew 10:16 the Lord Jesus Christ's words. MEMORIZE them. Don't let John Lennon be your guru. LET JESUS be your guru. John Lennon told you to imagine God didn't exist. Don't listen to him. That is NOT love.
:nono: It could just as easily been a 'gentile' which they also despised. The point again was 'love AMONG Jews.' The one who was 'loving' was the one 'doing' the loving. It was a call on what is really in our hearts. I'm VERY convinced a lover of God will also be a lover of people. There is no question. What IS a question is whether it is better to 'enable' a criminal to do a crime or not. Think: Is it MORE loving to put a murderer in prison OR to let him go and hope for the best? Imho, the former. Putting him in prison does no harm. In fact, he will come in contact with pastors and other godly people in prison.
You are suggesting we vet those who adhere to a faith that WILL result in one of every 3 attacks. No question. You are saying, somehow, THAT is the loving thing to do. You even suggested 'it isn't likely they will be 'your' children. Sorry. Love is not screaming to me from the page. It even looks irresponsible and passing the buck to me. That isn't loving. AT LEAST, pass of something that LOOKS LIKE LOVE, as love.
You are going to have to be a lot clearer. John 14:6 came to mind but this isn't said well. Where do I show an 'obsession' with wrong religions? Are you suggesting I'm wrong? Stuck on wrong? You just aren't careful and very unclear by accusation. Be a LOT clearer. He talked to her, sure. I didn't say you couldn't 'talk' to a Muslim. I said you SHOULDN'T vet one unless they leave Islam behind. THAT is what I said. You are trying to say that vetting a Muslim can be the ONLY Godly thing. :dizzy: Nope. You CAN'T show that! It isn't true. Simple as that.
Er, no. I have a whole body behind 'my' theology. It isn't just me and no, I'm not a little wrong by that token. There isn't just one way to show love and 'vetting' certainly isn't the one if there were. You weren't listening to Jesus. He told the Samaritan, point blank: You worship what you do NOT know. WE JEWS worship what we DO know. See? YOU are wrong. I'm right. That's how that works, right there. But I'm hopeful you can be taught.
Ahem. BECAUSE THEY DON'T care! I do.
AND because of that, you bet. I WILL speak with you aggressively. YOU have a weird idea about what love is. You think it is being cavalier and 'unconcerned????' :dizzy: Think again, mate. You have a few things to learn about 'Christian' love. It requires you be intelligent, not just 'what feels good' or 'right.' Love is work. Do it right. Take it right too.
:doh: I hate to have to perpetually correct you, but seeking doctrinal perfection and seeking the kingdom of God is the same goal.
:nono: YOU missed the lesson. By the same token, "John Lennon wasn't right and I'm wrong." :nono: That is NOT intelligent thinking, Barbarian. He 'corrected' the Samaritan. They were half Jew, half pagans. Because, very specifically, they disobeyed God, they were left to their own devices and without God because they rejected Judah. Granted Judah was horrible at the time, but they were told already, by Samuel, that they would have to pay the piper. When it came to pay, they disobediently said 'no.' Because of that, they became 'despised' by Jews. The POINT of the story was simply this: It doesn't matter who 'does' they right thing, the one who 'does' the right thing is the one 'doing the right thing' not just talking about it. You've allowed yourself to become confused that this is a story about 'loving Samaritans.' :nono: AND you have been a poor student for it. You DIDN'T get the right message. The man who 'needed' love was the focus. The one who then 'loves' was His focus. It 'happened' to be a Samaritan, but this was NO embrace of 'Samaritanism" (not really a religion). If that is what you thought, you blew it and need to go back to Sunday School. "Samaritan" has little to do with the story. The Lord Jesus Christ was just saying 'pagans who love, love better than 'chosen people who do not.' THAT, my friend, is the point of the story.
Nice how you try and sneek 'Bill of Rights' in there. Did I 'hit' a nerve with bras and John Lennon? You'll have to try and be genuine and authentic instead of forgettable and snarky. Debate 'tactics' employed for no 'good' reason are seen for being plastic and fake. Don't do them. They just make one look insincere, plastic, and fake.
:nono: You can't fake sincerity or meaningful. Here is a thought: Just forgo feeling a need. Your post was 'better' without 'that's all there is to say' or 'you are starting to wander.'
Nope. I'm not. Fact. Just leave your last words your last words. There should be no pressure to post odd little wrap ups that make no contribution. Neither 'That's all there is to say' nor "You are wandering" do anything good for you or me. Just don't say them. They don't need to be said. -Lon
Barbarian observes:
No He (Jesus) doesn't. I showed you, clearly, you were wrong. Scripture does say love your enemy and do good to them.
(Godwin's law strikes again)
You want to vet Nazis? Where did that come from? Another straw man, um?
And another one. You brought a lot of straw with you today.
(random stuff from Lon about John Lennon and Germans being Nazis)
You're losing focus, again.
It seems to be a favorite ploy on the far right. No one cares what you think now. If you're a Christian, you're not doing a very good job of following Him. Sometimes, I don't either. But I try my best. And that is what He asks me to do.
1 Corinthians 10:13 Let no temptation take hold on you, but such as is human. And God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able: but will make also with temptation issue, that you may be able to bear it.
I notice you've avoided declaring him. So let's get that out of the way. This is what Christians believe:
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen
So just tell me that you believe this, and we'll know that you are indeed with Him. Will you do it?
You can settle that by verifying that you believe what Christians believe. Will you?
Let's take a look...
The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honoured by the name of Christian, but who do not however profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.[14] For there are many who hold sacred scripture in honour as a rule of faith and of life, who have a sincere religious zeal, who lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and the Saviour,[15] who are sealed by baptism which unites them to Christ, and who indeed recognize and receive other sacraments in their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them possess the episcopate, celebrate the holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion of the Virgin Mother of God.[16] There is furthermore a sharing in prayer and spiritual benefits; these Christians are indeed in some real way joined to us in the Holy Spirit for, by his gifts and graces, his sanctifying power is also active in them and he has strengthened some of them even to the shedding of their blood.
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH - LUMEN GENTIUM
Promulgated By His Holiness, Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964
Now, you seem to realize that it was a bad idea to even bring that up, um? Just affirm the faith and then everyone will know.
I can oppose people without hating them or even thinking that they are evil. They are, after all, my neighbors.
(random stuff about John Lennon and Al Capone)
If you serve Jesus, then you need to accept that even your enemies are your neighbors, and you need to love them. If you can't do that, you are serving a different master.
This obviously troubles you a great deal. And a lot of what you've written is confused and wanders off into other things. Let Jesus be Lord, and it will cease to trouble you.
No He (Jesus) doesn't. I showed you, clearly, you were wrong. Scripture does say love your enemy and do good to them.
(Godwin's law strikes again)
You want to vet Nazis? Where did that come from? Another straw man, um?
And another one. You brought a lot of straw with you today.
(random stuff from Lon about John Lennon and Germans being Nazis)
You're losing focus, again.
It seems to be a favorite ploy on the far right. No one cares what you think now. If you're a Christian, you're not doing a very good job of following Him. Sometimes, I don't either. But I try my best. And that is what He asks me to do.
1 Corinthians 10:13 Let no temptation take hold on you, but such as is human. And God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able: but will make also with temptation issue, that you may be able to bear it.
I notice you've avoided declaring him. So let's get that out of the way. This is what Christians believe:
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen
So just tell me that you believe this, and we'll know that you are indeed with Him. Will you do it?
You can settle that by verifying that you believe what Christians believe. Will you?
Let's take a look...
The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honoured by the name of Christian, but who do not however profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.[14] For there are many who hold sacred scripture in honour as a rule of faith and of life, who have a sincere religious zeal, who lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and the Saviour,[15] who are sealed by baptism which unites them to Christ, and who indeed recognize and receive other sacraments in their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them possess the episcopate, celebrate the holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion of the Virgin Mother of God.[16] There is furthermore a sharing in prayer and spiritual benefits; these Christians are indeed in some real way joined to us in the Holy Spirit for, by his gifts and graces, his sanctifying power is also active in them and he has strengthened some of them even to the shedding of their blood.
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH - LUMEN GENTIUM
Promulgated By His Holiness, Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964
Now, you seem to realize that it was a bad idea to even bring that up, um? Just affirm the faith and then everyone will know.
I can oppose people without hating them or even thinking that they are evil. They are, after all, my neighbors.
(random stuff about John Lennon and Al Capone)
If you serve Jesus, then you need to accept that even your enemies are your neighbors, and you need to love them. If you can't do that, you are serving a different master.
This obviously troubles you a great deal. And a lot of what you've written is confused and wanders off into other things. Let Jesus be Lord, and it will cease to trouble you.