Last edited:
Paris attacks
- Thread starter serpentdove
- Start date
Going forward it is tough to say who would do what is needed. Going back that is an easy call. Former Vice President Cheney would fix the problems in the least amount of time.
She is a bimbo and a RINO.
Kill them in their own lands, behead them in their own homes
AKRON, Ohio — The FBI on Thursday arrested an Akron man on a terrorism-related charge.
Terrence J. McNeil, 25, is charged with one count of solicitation of a crime of violence….
McNeil, according to U.S. Attorney’s Office, supported the Islamic State, a terrorist organization also known as ISIL.
He is accused of uploading a file on Sept. 24 to a Tumblr account that showed photos, addresses and military branch of purported members of the military. One of the slides in the file reads:
Terrence J. McNeil, 25, is charged with one count of solicitation of a crime of violence….
McNeil, according to U.S. Attorney’s Office, supported the Islamic State, a terrorist organization also known as ISIL.
He is accused of uploading a file on Sept. 24 to a Tumblr account that showed photos, addresses and military branch of purported members of the military. One of the slides in the file reads:
Last edited:
Nazaroo
New member
Its wise to be cautious in military decisions and claims.
The authority here is indeed Matthew - a church compilation and final issue gospel book
designed for Liturgical use.
Matthew is the only "gospel" that puts the word "church" (ekklesia) in Jesus' mouth,
during His earthly ministry. Some see that as ahistorical.
The famous "Sermon on the Mount" cannot be a historical speech,
because it presumes a post Jewish Christian audience of believers.
Yet in Matthew's chronology its the first public speech He gave,
before He could have had any followers except a few disciples who viewed him
as a Rabbi and teacher.
Its based on a rewriting of Luke's "Sermon on the Plain".
Many other sayings which originally had a historical context in other gospels like Luke and Mark,
have been incorporated into Matthew's "sermon" and stripped of their original context.
Additionally, the author of the Matthew-sermon 'ad-libs' quite a bit, based on
material from James' Letter to the Twelve Tribes, teachings from Paul and other apostles,
and even the Book of Enoch.
The Sermon is not false, but does reflect advanced and post-resurrection thinking
within the Early Church, which was largely Jewish but cut off from the mainstream temple cult at the time.
I am going to suggest that if we understand "Matthew's" purpose,
which is to create a handy teaching 'catechism' of many of Jesus' most important teachings,
mostly focussing on behaviour and rules and guidelines for the Early Church,
we can appreciate what you've quoted here as meant to be applied within the
Christian community, not as a hard rule for dealing with those outside the Church.
In some sense, Matthew uses hyperbole and exaggeration for dramatic purpose
and emphasis, but might not be safe to apply literally:
For instance, no modern Christian thinks one should actually cut off his hand or foot
to control sinful temptation.
Likewise, turning the other cheek is a great guideline for living in the Christian community,
but hardly useful as a national "war-rule" or defence strategy for armies.
I suggest that you also note carefully what Matthew has REMOVED from
the Sermon on the Plain of Luke, namely virtually all of the 'social gospel',
i.e., the good news to the POOR, and Matthew also deletes large amounts
of Luke's material on the status of women.
In other words, Matthew caters to wealthy Jews whom he wants to attract into the new
Church,
but sacrifices the really 'hard sayings' of Jesus on rich people and women
in order to make his version of the 'church gospel' more palatable to middle class
and upper class Romans and Jews.
______________________________
as a footnote, I'm going to add that even the short section you quoted has two non-historical anomalies in it:
It mentions "tax-collectors" long before Jesus ever dealt with one, and the idea that they could even
be forgiven was resolved,
and it mentions "pagans" long before the early church had to deal with that question....
This is a double-indication of ahistorical composition.
Last edited:
Brother Vinny
Active member
I am sat here literally dumbfounded that any Christian could advocate dropping a nuke anywhere which would kill millions of people. Those it didn't kill straight away it would cause horrendous suffering to. Where is the love in that? Where is the justice?
lain:
Come now. You're on TOL. Christianity here rarely has anything to do with compassion
Nazaroo
New member
Sometimes compassion has to be selective:
You have compassion on innocent victims like the Jewish woman and child who were stabbed walking past the Temple Mount,
and you have to shoot the 17 year old Palestinian teen idiot who has been brainwashed
into believing that if he stabs a policeman he will have 72 virgins to service him.
Dona Bate
New member
Apart from being born on opposite sides of the religious spectrum I can see no difference between extremists Muslims or Nazaroo, Angel4Truth, Nick M and any other excuse for a human being calling for extermination of half the earths population. Hatred and murder on a massive scale is a common theme amongst them. Nothing short of genecide on either side will satisfy their hunger for killing. I believe that if either of these extremists sides were ever able to achieve their uncommon goal they will see no reason to stop at that. It's clearly the whole human race that they want to eliminate not just each other.
How can they be stopped?
It will not be easy but for the sake of the human race we must....
As they are identified within their own communities, each side will agree to round them up. Next put them on a designated Island together and let them get on with their business of killing well away from normal peace loving people. Perhaps Naz might even talk them all to death with his rapier tongue? *
:yawn:
Peace on earth!
How can they be stopped?
It will not be easy but for the sake of the human race we must....
As they are identified within their own communities, each side will agree to round them up. Next put them on a designated Island together and let them get on with their business of killing well away from normal peace loving people. Perhaps Naz might even talk them all to death with his rapier tongue? *
:yawn:
Peace on earth!
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Yep. Only the sick, deluded extremist mindset would even consider nuking as a "valid" answer to anything.
jzeidler
New member
They should have banned hand guns.
Seriously? I haven't heard anything stupider in my whole life.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Here's what must be done - and will not be done.
Here's what must be done - and will not be done.
All leaders of the western world must make public declarations and preparations to carry out the following:
We declare war on Muslim extremism.
All borders are closed to Muslims for a minimum of 5 years, then to be re-evaluated.
All citizenships for Muslims now in this country are hereby revoked. In order to have citizenship reinstated, all Muslims must adhere to Western culture for a period of 5 years during which time they must show proof that they have been actively involved in some way in the war against terrorism.
After an attack of extremist terrorism, teams of professional forensic experts will completely recover all terrorist remains down to the last fingernail, drop of blood or microscopic DNA from the scene. This will then be collected and sewn into pigs' stomachs and xxxxxxx xx xxxxxxx xxx xx xxxx (this has been censored out for now - very disgusting) xxx xxxxxxxx xxxx x xxxxx xx xxxx and which has been spit upon and xxxx xxxxx xxx by the family members of the murdered victims' families. These will then be sealed in containers embossed with the Christian Cross and buried in cement at undisclosed locations. Good luck to you in the afterlife.
This, and only this, will incense extremists and their sympathizers into sudden and unplanned action and flush them into the open where they can be arrested or killed. This will stop terrorism.
Will any politician do it?
Never!!
Here's what must be done - and will not be done.
All leaders of the western world must make public declarations and preparations to carry out the following:
We declare war on Muslim extremism.
All borders are closed to Muslims for a minimum of 5 years, then to be re-evaluated.
All citizenships for Muslims now in this country are hereby revoked. In order to have citizenship reinstated, all Muslims must adhere to Western culture for a period of 5 years during which time they must show proof that they have been actively involved in some way in the war against terrorism.
After an attack of extremist terrorism, teams of professional forensic experts will completely recover all terrorist remains down to the last fingernail, drop of blood or microscopic DNA from the scene. This will then be collected and sewn into pigs' stomachs and xxxxxxx xx xxxxxxx xxx xx xxxx (this has been censored out for now - very disgusting) xxx xxxxxxxx xxxx x xxxxx xx xxxx and which has been spit upon and xxxx xxxxx xxx by the family members of the murdered victims' families. These will then be sealed in containers embossed with the Christian Cross and buried in cement at undisclosed locations. Good luck to you in the afterlife.
This, and only this, will incense extremists and their sympathizers into sudden and unplanned action and flush them into the open where they can be arrested or killed. This will stop terrorism.
Will any politician do it?
Never!!
kiwimacahau
Well-known member
You would instantly turn 1.3 billion Muslims against you; further you would show the world the depths of your foolishness. You cannot bomb a religion out of existence, it lives in human hearts and minds and souls. As well as all that you will have made the same error that the Taliban made with the giant Buddhas. You will have equated a place / thing with a religious belief, they are not the same.
Selaphiel
Well-known member
How predictable, the same braindead gut reactions as always. "If only we committ some more violence, then the violence will end". Not exactly a tactic that has a very good track record. The very existence of IS was made possible power vacuums created by the so called war on terror.
The fact that there are people that call themselves followers of Jesus Christ that are calling for nuclear strikes, that would decimate countless innocent lives, is absolutely sickening and depressing. You have diluted Christianity with imperialism so much that the former has just become a mythological warrant for the latter, a cultural identifier that is hollowed out of any real content.
Yes, these attack are horrible and have no justification whatsoever. But perpetuating the cycle of violence will do exactly nothing except give them more ammunition for recruiting. Try to understand that the reason these young men join these extreme groups are not particularly religious. They are disillusioned young men that feel that they have no future, they simply grab on to anything that will give them that. There are countless documentaries about this. Their religiousity is quite similar to those who call for nukes now, a tool to warrant their own violence and imperialistic proclivities. You can say a lot about conservative Islam, but they don't follow that. Attacks like these are absolutely forbidden by Islam.
The fact that there are people that call themselves followers of Jesus Christ that are calling for nuclear strikes, that would decimate countless innocent lives, is absolutely sickening and depressing. You have diluted Christianity with imperialism so much that the former has just become a mythological warrant for the latter, a cultural identifier that is hollowed out of any real content.
Yes, these attack are horrible and have no justification whatsoever. But perpetuating the cycle of violence will do exactly nothing except give them more ammunition for recruiting. Try to understand that the reason these young men join these extreme groups are not particularly religious. They are disillusioned young men that feel that they have no future, they simply grab on to anything that will give them that. There are countless documentaries about this. Their religiousity is quite similar to those who call for nukes now, a tool to warrant their own violence and imperialistic proclivities. You can say a lot about conservative Islam, but they don't follow that. Attacks like these are absolutely forbidden by Islam.
I agree with this. However, I would understand if you wanted to fire conventional weapons there. It would send a message that we are not putting up with it. And I agree with what several have said about Saudi Arabia. I resent that my country is very friendly with them. They are just plain barbaric. Like most Muslim countries anyway. Europe needs to understand that saying nice things about Muslims won't make them be nice to you and letting loads of Muslims find shelter in your country won't make them love you. It will only give them more hope that one day they will install Sharia law in all the world.
Whilst I don't agree that a nuclear bomb will solve anything, something more pointed than nice friendly and politically correct words is needed here.
You can believe that if you like. You are after all free to believe what you want; you are free to be ignorant. But it doesn't change the reality: War is mainstream Islam and your supportive words will only make matters far worse than they already are. You need to man up here and recognise what is before your very eyes. Your only personal experience of Islam is with gentle folk in your own society who have been there for generations. These are not mainstream Muslims. Wake up.
Selaphiel
Well-known member
Conservative Christians on this forum saying things like "But it doesn't change reality" is adorable.
How do you know what my experience of Islam is? What is your experience with Islam that makes you so extremely qualified?
I can agree that warfare has been a central part of Islamic history, but this is not warfare. These are meaningless attacks on civilian targets with the sole purpose of killing as many as possible. That is condemned by Islam.
You just contradicted yourself right there. The attackers said before they died that the attack was because of France's involvement in Syria. Whilst that may be unacceptable to you as a reason, you can't ignore it by saying that the attacks had no purpose. Describing them as meaningless is just emotional rhetoric. The facts are against you.
If politicians heeded the bible, first the Arab/Islam people would never be allowed to settle in Europe.
Second they would understand that the only containment for Arabs is for them to be governed by terror in their own lands....that is by rulers like Saddam, Gadaffi, and Basha Assad.
Politicians [if they were governed by the bible] would SEE how impossible a two state solution is for Israel.
The bible says quite clearly of Ishmael. "he shall be a wild *** of a man, his sword against every man and every man's sword against him"
A very apt description of the Arab
Second they would understand that the only containment for Arabs is for them to be governed by terror in their own lands....that is by rulers like Saddam, Gadaffi, and Basha Assad.
Politicians [if they were governed by the bible] would SEE how impossible a two state solution is for Israel.
The bible says quite clearly of Ishmael. "he shall be a wild *** of a man, his sword against every man and every man's sword against him"
A very apt description of the Arab