Christian snowflake or Christian under constant threat - it’s Merry Christmas people!

HowDidIGetPrem

Active member
Elite
Joined
Jan 18, 2018
Messages
5,820
Kin
5,803💸
Kumi
1,192💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
Yes. Everybody knows BBC is the one true and legitimately source that everyone should trust.

Most (if "not) all of the things in the article are things i've been saying for a long time, literally. It doesn't take a genius to realize the things said are truth. I mean for crying out loud, in this very site we have people bash Christianity almost on a daily basis.
I agree, any moron with the proper mindset could see the truth. The fact that you align to the notion so much alone takes credibility from it considering how you interpret text. I won't say Christianity isn't bashed, but I will say it's definitely not undeserved. Their cherry picking to target select groups and ideas is a very real thing. Teaching people lies about the earth's history should be questioned. And you better bet everyone is going to be concerned when your ideas and actions blatantly contradict the spirit of the Bible.

What this article is, is a refusal to accept that there's anything wrong with any of these facts and an attempt to spin that criticism as an onslaught to fearmonger. If you haven't noticed, even the actual injustices aren't masses rallying against Christianity.


The only part of this article worth considering is in this quote.
You must be registered for see images
Even then, all these consequences were because of failure to comply with established guidelines that affected everyone of all religions. Aside from the lone case of the manager that didn't like the tone of a Bible's verse. There will always be outliers.
 

Aim64C

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
3,681
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
I agree, any moron with the proper mindset could see the truth. The fact that you align to the notion so much alone takes credibility from it considering how you interpret text. I won't say Christianity isn't bashed, but I will say it's definitely not undeserved. Their cherry picking to target select groups and ideas is a very real thing. Teaching people lies about the earth's history should be questioned. And you better bet everyone is going to be concerned when your ideas and actions blatantly contradict the spirit of the Bible.
So, Christianity is fine... just only when it's Christianity that conforms to ... what ... YOUR decrees?

Not only do you appoint yourself as the lord and master over Biblical interpretation - you proclaim to know 'what the spirit of the Bible is' (pray tell, please enlighten us) - but you also proclaim to know what the true history of the world is.
The over-simplification of the various fields of study into 'doctrine truth' obfuscates the true extent of debate within those fields. History is debated continuously and new discoveries are being made regularly. From new evidence that humanity actually began within Yugoslavia (or, some of the oldest tools ever found have been found there) - to new discoveries of religious artifacts in Europe and elsewhere that show religions and denominations being far broader in reach than they were previously believed to be.

One should be very careful not to throw stones inside of glass houses.

What this article is, is a refusal to accept that there's anything wrong with any of these facts and an attempt to spin that criticism as an onslaught to fearmonger. If you haven't noticed, even the actual injustices aren't masses rallying against Christianity.
So, it's all good because there aren't any lynch mobs out there, yet.
Thanks for letting me in on the plan.

The only part of this article worth considering is in this quote.
You must be registered for see images
Even then, all these consequences were because of failure to comply with established guidelines that affected everyone of all religions. Aside from the lone case of the manager that didn't like the tone of a Bible's verse. There will always be outliers.
WHAT established guidelines? Specifically, what law, act, or executive order? What sub-section and point?

Are we a nation of laws, or a nation of men? If we are a nation of law, then you must cite the law when invoking government power or authority. If we are a nation of men... then we can do whatever the hell we want to each other, as there is no law. We find out if we are guilty in the court rooms as we never know what the actual statutes of lawful/unlawful conduct are.

Once you can do that, then we can have the discussion as to whether or not those statues are Constitutional - and, if so, whether or not they constitute a reasonable use of authority.
 

HowDidIGetPrem

Active member
Elite
Joined
Jan 18, 2018
Messages
5,820
Kin
5,803💸
Kumi
1,192💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
So, Christianity is fine... just only when it's Christianity that conforms to ... what ... YOUR decrees?
Since when is targeting nigh harmless peoples and ideas unable to be criticized? My "decrees" are no more than noting how twisted those actions are and that this should be recognized. The article spoke of the possibility of Christians being hounded, but what of those that it has hounded?

Not only do you appoint yourself as the lord and master over Biblical interpretation - you proclaim to know 'what the spirit of the Bible is' (pray tell, please enlighten us)
The spirit of the Bible in my eyes is "love thy neighbor," "forgiveness," "treat others as you would yourself," and great morals alongside the high pedestal that charity is placed. You could argue that the many different sects place stronger emphasis on different beliefs, and that's true. But these will ultimately be pointed at some way. When you rally behind someone known for greed, incessant lying, adultery, and a plethora of other dilemmas, that should be pointed out.



you also proclaim to know what the true history of the world is.
The over-simplification of the various fields of study into 'doctrine truth' obfuscates the true extent of debate within those fields. History is debated continuously and new discoveries are being made regularly. From new evidence that humanity actually began within Yugoslavia (or, some of the oldest tools ever found have been found there) - to new discoveries of religious artifacts in Europe and elsewhere that show religions and denominations being far broader in reach than they were previously believed to be.


One should be very careful not to throw stones inside of glass houses.
I'm not going to pretend I know squat about this; though, I can point out the big difference. A Catholic school will consistently pump specific ideas of "x"regardless of what archaeological evidence says simply because the Bible says otherwise. The same can't be said for how an ideal school would function. Evidence contrary to the current accepted theories doesn't magically validate a Catholic school for pushing, at the time, unaccepted concepts.


So, it's all good because there aren't any lynch mobs out there, yet.
Thanks for letting me in on the plan.
I'm saying that the writer is blowing things out of proportion. When even the big examples fail to spell a bad omen for Christians, it's time to dial things back.

WHAT established guidelines? Specifically, what law, act, or executive order? What sub-section and point?

Are we a nation of laws, or a nation of men? If we are a nation of law, then you must cite the law when invoking government power or authority. If we are a nation of men... then we can do whatever the hell we want to each other, as there is no law. We find out if we are guilty in the court rooms as we never know what the actual statutes of lawful/unlawful conduct are.

Once you can do that, then we can have the discussion as to whether or not those statues are Constitutional - and, if so, whether or not they constitute a reasonable use of authority.
None in specific. I didn't bother naming them since it'd lengthen the post considerably. Both the schools where these happened had guidelines against their actions. In the coach's case, it was a rule against "overt religious displays." In the teacher's case, a policy against distributing religious literature. In the Marine's case, it alienated members and was considered endorsing Christianity, which conflicted with a regulation of endorsing any one faith, among other things.

Don't mistake my writing for my thoughts on the image of Christianity as a whole though. I think this problem is more specific to the the right's intertwining with it despite the two being so contradictory.
 
Last edited:

Multiply

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Messages
12,839
Kin
3💸
Kumi
3💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
For the same reason the JFK files will be released in full once Bush Senior passes away. The same reason the Google servers in North Korea have been searched for evidence in the upcoming lawsuits filed against the President. They never thought she would lose. Wait... there were Google servers in North Korea?
"This is not a Google trip," he said. "But I'm sure [Schmidt] is interested in some of the economic issues there, the social media aspect." ~
 

Aim64C

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
3,681
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
Since when is targeting nigh harmless peoples and ideas unable to be criticized? My "decrees" are no more than noting how twisted those actions are and that this should be recognized. The article spoke of the possibility of Christians being hounded, but what of those that it has hounded?
You're engaging in deflection.

The spirit of the Bible in my eyes is "love thy neighbor," "forgiveness," "treat others as you would yourself," and great morals alongside the high pedestal that charity is placed. You could argue that the many different sects place stronger emphasis on different beliefs, and that's true. But these will ultimately be pointed at some way. When you rally behind someone known for greed, incessant lying, adultery, and a plethora of other dilemmas, that should be pointed out.
You're missing the forest for the trees.

You are trying to say what a religion is... based on what? Let's expand our context of this debate a little bit. You sit there and tell Christians what they are supposed to believe with no real scriptural basis. You 'feel' this is what the religion should be about, because you want all religions to be the same candy, but different flavors. So, we have Muslims as the toffee flavor of Christianity. Where, again, 'you' (being people in your general position) insist that Islam is this great and holy thing.

But a double-standard is applied. The Christian - particularly the White Male Christian, is never allowed to be right. His life must be endlessly excavated for some sin or another to then try and persecute him for crimes against what you have stated his religion is. This practice is completely absent from the very strong Christian Blacks - who are, instead, simply ignored as a factor in Black culture (where I would argue it is a very powerful and positive influence on the Black community).

On the other hand, Islam is endlessly excavated for how things like Burkas are actually signs of liberal feminism. Any evaluation of the scripture leads to some argument where 'context' that is asserted to exist makes the entirety of the Qu'ran benign while the Old testament is datamined for quotes of brutality and contradiction... and no argument of 'context' is permitted.

What it all boils down to is the targeted destruction of Western identity and culture. Atheists involved in this are perfectly fine elevating Islam - which is being pumped into Western nations by CIA and MI6 terrorist organizations - to a sanctity above the dominant Western religion of Christianity. If it can subvert or otherwise be used to assault the Western world, it has been elevated to a sanctified status where a double-standard is applied.

Note that Muslims are NOT allowed into Japan.

I'm not going to pretend I know squat about this; though, I can point out the big difference. A Catholic school will consistently pump specific ideas of "x"regardless of what archaeological evidence says simply because the Bible says otherwise. The same can't be said for how an ideal school would function. Evidence contrary to the current accepted theories doesn't magically validate a Catholic school for pushing, at the time, unaccepted concepts.
You have far too much faith in the education system. Pretty much every historical fact your world view is hinged on has been severely compromised where it is not an outright lie. Have the bodies buried outside concentration camps in Poland ever been located?

You'll find, in the coming years, that a number of villains throughout history were constructed to distract from more ominous historical clues. Who financed the Red Revolution in Russia?

Why did Churchill not sue for peace... as if he, or someone in the decision making camp, knew that Germany would senselessly attack Russia?

This may all seem like unrelated errata, but I can assure you that it all ties in with the truth behind the Catholic Church - of which most Catholics are completely unaware.

I'm saying that the writer is blowing things out of proportion. When even the big examples fail to spell a bad omen for Christians, it's time to dial things back.
Did they fail to make the case? You assert as such, but, as they say... move along, there is nothing to see here.

None in specific. I didn't bother naming them since it'd lengthen the post considerably. Both the schools where these happened had guidelines against their actions. In the coach's case, it was a rule against "overt religious displays." In the teacher's case, a policy against distributing religious literature. In the Marine's case, it alienated members and was considered endorsing Christianity, which conflicted with a regulation of endorsing any one faith, among other things.
Specific. Generalizations are unacceptable. We rule based on the wording of law. Else, again, we are simply nations of men who get to persecute each other based on feelings and emotions.

Though I can tell you, already, that these are going to all run into problems with point number 2. Amendment 1 of the Constitution says: "Congress shall make no law...." regarding the establishment of religion. We can debate semantics, substantially, but a conservative interpretation of the Constitution which limits the powers of government where not expressly permitted would rule that the Constitution prohibits these statutes from existing in the first place. Even government employees are allowed to display their religion so long as the display or wording is not such that it conflicts with the job. IE - if I were to have a quote from Ezekiel on Jerusalem being a *****.

Don't mistake my writing for my thoughts on the image of Christianity as a whole though. I think this problem is more specific to the the right's intertwining with it despite the two being so contradictory.
We've already established that you're not really consistent on what it is you think. As such, your assertions that you think x or y are not exactly comforting.

Here, again, you are saying that you know what Christianity represents - and that you know what an arbitrary political label also believes. What is "the right" and what is it that you insist they believe? What evidence do you have to suggest that?
 

Aim64C

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
3,681
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
[FONT=&]"This is not a Google trip," he said. "But I'm sure [Schmidt] is interested in some of the economic issues there, the social media aspect." ~ [/FONT]
If you believe that, then I have some ocean-front property in Osage Beach to sell you.
 

Multiply

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Messages
12,839
Kin
3💸
Kumi
3💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
If you believe that, then I have some ocean-front property in Osage Beach to sell you.
So you are saying you can prove that google has servers there? I doubt it. If you have that information it'd be great for you to provide me with it but I doubt you will. You'll probably reply with something super speculative that is connecting dots that don't exist. But if you do have that evidence I'd love it.
 

Fountain

Active member
Elite
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Messages
5,415
Kin
13💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
Since when is targeting nigh harmless peoples and ideas unable to be criticized? My "decrees" are no more than noting how twisted those actions are and that this should be recognized. The article spoke of the possibility of Christians being hounded, but what of those that it has hounded?


The spirit of the Bible in my eyes is "love thy neighbor," "forgiveness," "treat others as you would yourself," and great morals alongside the high pedestal that charity is placed. You could argue that the many different sects place stronger emphasis on different beliefs, and that's true. But these will ultimately be pointed at some way. When you rally behind someone known for greed, incessant lying, adultery, and a plethora of other dilemmas, that should be pointed out.




I'm not going to pretend I know squat about this; though, I can point out the big difference. A Catholic school will consistently pump specific ideas of "x"regardless of what archaeological evidence says simply because the Bible says otherwise. The same can't be said for how an ideal school would function. Evidence contrary to the current accepted theories doesn't magically validate a Catholic school for pushing, at the time, unaccepted concepts.




None in specific. I didn't bother naming them since it'd lengthen the post considerably. Both the schools where these happened had guidelines against their actions. In the coach's case, it was a rule against "overt religious displays." In the teacher's case, a policy against distributing religious literature. In the Marine's case, it alienated members and was considered endorsing Christianity, which conflicted with a regulation of endorsing any one faith, among other things.

Don't mistake my writing for my thoughts on the image of Christianity as a whole though. I think this problem is more specific to the the right's intertwining with it despite the two being so contradictory.
Nice virtue signalling using that same mentality that SJW's use to justify white genocide ("Oh but what about slavery, white people must pay"), but in an attempt to justify any attack against christianity. You couldn't hide your hate or ideological bias even if you tried.

This is exactly what i was talking about.

I'm saying that the writer is blowing things out of proportion. When even the big examples fail to spell a bad omen for Christians, it's time to dial things back.
Yeah of course, how can vandalisms, bombings, shootings, and brutal executions aside from other daily basis injustices and the ever growing constant mockery and mistreatment etc. done by artists, the mainstream media, and just about any other atheist in general. How could any of it spell bad omen for Christians. The writer is obviously just blowing things out of proportion because it's Fox News, and everyone knows the only reliable sources are BBC, CNN, And The Guardian cus they be spitting out them racism facts and who doesn't love being a victim to have special treatment.
 

Aim64C

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
3,681
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
So you are saying you can prove that google has servers there? I doubt it. If you have that information it'd be great for you to provide me with it but I doubt you will. You'll probably reply with something super speculative that is connecting dots that don't exist. But if you do have that evidence I'd love it.
Well, I could. But that is not exactly the point. Pay attention to the coming lawsuits involving the President. This will come to light over the coming months. Pelosi sold North Korean missiles. Clinton sold Russia and Iran Uranium, as well as allowed strategic action plans to be sold to China. Obama authorized the replacement of domestic steel supplies with those from China, in spite of analysis that those steels were of inferior quality. All of whom used MS13 as hitmen against political opponents.

It's not entirely clear if the pedophile ring will be pulled out. It will certainly be prosecuted, but as many of these people were involved in blatant treason and will get the death penalty, it will be unnecessary to try them for the pedophilia charges. However, if you want to trace it, yourself - Allison Mack, who was just arrested for her involvement in NXIVM, had an interesting twitter post including Marina Abramovic. Abramovic is a rather incendiary personality - but an insider source (... If you know who 17 or 4,10,20 is) claimed that Mack is singing like a canary and Abramovic came up.

Of course, the democrats are panicking and trying to push every lawsuit they can against POTUS. But this is exactly what gives legal grounds to bring in PRISM and Five Eyes records. "We" (being the military) have everything. Every burner phone used (Maggie distributed the phone numbers via her tweets, mentioned in the WL email drops), every conversation made within reach of a phone, etc. They even gave us the pleasure of targeting Carter Page with a FISA warrant - which made much of the surveillance of Papapotomus possible. Page was an FBI informant - hence why his activities are blacked out of the Schiff Memo. Sources and methods. Will become clear in the IG report as that is released.

Now - none of that directly answers your question, nor was it intended to. However, do you not find it odd how quickly North Korea reversed their position after the Olympic games? Why was Jong Un's sister sitting so close to Pence? Did some of us receive advanced warning that this would happen, as well as pictures from China showing evidence of a take-down in Hong Kong?

There is a war being fought in the shadows of our society, and it's beginning to spill over into the public.



The problem is that Hillary and the Democrats believed that the military was their lap-dog, that we would never catch onto what they were doing, or that we would ever oppose and expose them. Election fraud in California will be coming out, soon. The use of surveillance tools against political opponents will be coming out... as well as North Korea's role in all of this. As well as Iran. Iran will be the next country liberated from the Circus. Should be pretty soon, judging by the events unfolding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Uverdore9

HowDidIGetPrem

Active member
Elite
Joined
Jan 18, 2018
Messages
5,820
Kin
5,803💸
Kumi
1,192💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
You're engaging in deflection.
It has a strong purpose in the reasoning of why they perceive attacks. The author seemingly works under the premise that the criticism is unwarranted("bigoted" by the writer's own words), thereby painting criticism in a different light. I'll admit I went a wee bit overboard and neglected important bits in the process. I'm not quite sure what your overall complaint is though, so I'm not even sure why I'm replying back.

You're missing the forest for the trees.

You are trying to say what a religion is... based on what? Let's expand our context of this debate a little bit. You sit there and tell Christians what they are supposed to believe with no real scriptural basis. You 'feel' this is what the religion should be about, because you want all religions to be the same candy, but different flavors. So, we have Muslims as the toffee flavor of Christianity. Where, again, 'you' (being people in your general position) insist that Islam is this great and holy thing.
I'm not going to dive through script after script. It'd require me to read the entire thing or at least a ridiculous portion to actually weigh one script against the next. You seem to be interested in that kind of thing, but I'm not. Waddle across the countless Christian communities and it'll make itself as apparent as daylight.
But a double-standard is applied. The Christian - particularly the White Male Christian, is never allowed to be right. His life must be endlessly excavated for some sin or another to then try and persecute him for crimes against what you have stated his religion is. This practice is completely absent from the very strong Christian Blacks - who are, instead, simply ignored as a factor in Black culture (where I would argue it is a very powerful and positive influence on the Black community).


On the other hand, Islam is endlessly excavated for how things like Burkas are actually signs of liberal feminism. Any evaluation of the scripture leads to some argument where 'context' that is asserted to exist makes the entirety of the Qu'ran benign while the Old testament is datamined for quotes of brutality and contradiction... and no argument of 'context' is permitted.
Nothing to be argued here on my end, but I'll pick off the easy one. The white, male Christian is more likely to be held to his religion's text because he's also more likely to hold others to it to a greater extent. Blacks tend to align with Democrats and whites with Republicans. Guess which party aligns most to Christianity while constantly citing it as a reason for their goals.
What it all boils down to is the targeted destruction of Western identity and culture. Atheists involved in this are perfectly fine elevating Islam - which is being pumped into Western nations by CIA and MI6 terrorist organizations - to a sanctity above the dominant Western religion of Christianity. If it can subvert or otherwise be used to assault the Western world, it has been elevated to a sanctified status where a double-standard is applied.

Note that Muslims are NOT allowed into Japan.
Stay out the deep end. This is just alienating without anything substantial behind it and something that's only tangentially related to what I said once again.

You have far too much faith in the education system. Pretty much every historical fact your world view is hinged on has been severely compromised where it is not an outright lie. Have the bodies buried outside concentration camps in Poland ever been located?

You'll find, in the coming years, that a number of villains throughout history were constructed to distract from more ominous historical clues. Who financed the Red Revolution in Russia?

Why did Churchill not sue for peace... as if he, or someone in the decision making camp, knew that Germany would senselessly attack Russia?

This may all seem like unrelated errata, but I can assure you that it all ties in with the truth behind the Catholic Church - of which most Catholics are completely unaware.
Too much rambling. I won't hail the education system, but I'm not naive enough to believe it's a good idea to trample over its standards.
Did they fail to make the case? You assert as such, but, as they say... move along, there is nothing to see here.
I agree.



Specific. Generalizations are unacceptable. We rule based on the wording of law. Else, again, we are simply nations of men who get to persecute each other based on feelings and emotions.

Though I can tell you, already, that these are going to all run into problems with point number 2. Amendment 1 of the Constitution says: "Congress shall make no law...." regarding the establishment of religion. We can debate semantics, substantially, but a conservative interpretation of the Constitution which limits the powers of government where not expressly permitted would rule that the Constitution prohibits these statutes from existing in the first place. Even government employees are allowed to display their religion so long as the display or wording is not such that it conflicts with the job. IE - if I were to have a quote from Ezekiel on Jerusalem being a *****.
I gave you enough of the specifics that it wouldn't count as a generalization. You're introducing a whole new can of worms with everything that comes after that statement.


We've already established that you're not really consistent on what it is you think. As such, your assertions that you think x or y are not exactly comforting.

Here, again, you are saying that you know what Christianity represents - and that you know what an arbitrary political label also believes. What is "the right" and what is it that you insist they believe? What evidence do you have to suggest that?
@Bold, and how'd you reach this conclusion? The label is hardly arbitrary if it's wearers act in such unity. Ignoring the ridiculous with glaring questions.


Nice virtue signalling using that same mentality that SJW's use to justify white genocide ("Oh but what about slavery, white people must pay"), but in an attempt to justify any attack against christianity. You couldn't hide your hate or ideological bias even if you tried.


This is exactly what i was talking about.
No, not really. As you'd see, the whites in Africa aren't being attacked for their actions. Matter of fact, they're LITERALLY being attacked opposed to criticized. You're right though. My justification isn't applicable to South Africa's problem, and to that I say no shit. Screw off with the transitive property used to say "because his reasoning isn't applicable to the South Africa, it also isn't here."

Yeah of course, how can vandalisms, bombings, shootings, and brutal executions aside from other daily basis injustices and the ever growing constant mockery and mistreatment etc. done by artists, the mainstream media, and just about any other atheist in general. How could any of it spell bad omen for Christians. The writer is obviously just blowing things out of proportion because it's Fox News, and everyone knows the only reliable sources are BBC, CNN, And The Guardian cus they be spitting out them racism facts and who doesn't love being a victim to have special treatment.
@Bold. Bombing, shootings, brutal executions? Are you even speaking of America? If you aren't, shove it. Both this article and thread are specifically about Christian treatment in America. Christians are mocked for legitimate reasons, and that doesn't spell catastrophe for them. American mass shootings have NEVER been targeted at churches(as far as I know) just because the attacker hated the religious. The only church killings I know of have been because the members were mainly black or to get a highscore. How are Christians mistreated when they practically run the country?
 
Last edited:

Aim64C

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
3,681
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
It has a strong purpose in the reasoning of why they perceive attacks. The author seemingly works under the premise that the criticism is unwarranted("bigoted" by the writer's own words), thereby painting criticism in a different light. I'll admit I went a wee bit overboard and neglected important bits in the process. I'm not quite sure what your overall complaint is though, so I'm not even sure why I'm replying back.
Isn't it great how every Christian is equally guilty for the misconduct of, say, a bishop?

I'm not going to dive through script after script. It'd require me to read the entire thing or at least a ridiculous portion to actually weigh one script against the next. You seem to be interested in that kind of thing, but I'm not. Waddle across the countless Christian communities and it'll make itself as apparent as daylight.
You come to a lazy conclusion and then sit from a position constructed of laziness to accuse the world as if you have accumulated a worthy intellect.

If I love a child of mine, would I ever throw them out of the house and lock the door?
What if they are 20 years old and not employed, seeking employment, etc?

When dealing with religions, you are talking about institutions that underwrite the definition of words associated with moral conduct. Religions affect what it means to love, what the extent and context of loyalty or obedience are, what is 'good' and what is 'evil.' In that sense, it behooves one to investigate into what it is that separates the religions based on their definitions of good, moral behavior and evil behavior.

I can create a religion and say it is the good and moral thing for every female to service my member. That is good and righteous. To those who are simply waddling through, they can hear me talk about doing good and righteous things - and, oh boy, now all of their ideas of good and righteous acts get piggy-backed on top of my message. What a good, honest, and upstanding member of society I am.

Nothing to be argued here on my end, but I'll pick off the easy one. The white, male Christian is more likely to be held to his religion's text because he's also more likely to hold others to it to a greater extent. Blacks tend to align with Democrats and whites with Republicans. Guess which party aligns most to Christianity while constantly citing it as a reason for their goals.
And the Democrats align with satanic rituals that use mock human sacrifice and *** rituals.... or... are they mock? ... Stand by, Allison Mack is dropping names. This goes world wide, for example, you'll notice that Peter Munk owns some yacht clubs in Montenegro frequented by the same people who liked to go to Epstein Island. It's a category 10 storm that is building and about to destroy your entire understanding of reality.

While I would be among the first to accuse the Church as it is, today, of being the antichrist - context reigns as king in these kinds of discussions.

Stay out the deep end. This is just alienating without anything substantial behind it and something that's only tangentially related to what I said once again.
Well, yes, we've already established you're being shallow and lazy.

To the contrary, it is not alienating. When the CIA flew Al Qaeda into Bosnia to attack ethnic Serbs, the media went to great lengths to obscure the tragedy and accuse the Serbs of perpetrating crimes and genocide that were not, at all, their doing. The whole process was a deliberate invasion and destruction of their identity and culture - until, ultimately, when they acted in self-defense to preserve the unity of their nation, NATO was called in to dismantle the infrastructure used to preserve the Yugoslavian state as U.S. diplomatic channels supported secession within the region.

Yugoslavia served as the model for what is being done in Europe and the United States. Big boys swim in the deep end of the pool. We know how to dive.

Too much rambling. I won't hail the education system, but I'm not naive enough to believe it's a good idea to trample over its standards.
What standards? The standards and principles of education were abandoned long ago. The only people given a semi-real education are those screened by gifted education programs in their communities. The rest are effectively given a set of conditioned responses to stimuli. Even among those of us who test among the top in intelligence, we are selected or black-listed based on our acceptance of 'progressive' doctrine. Truth is treason in the empire of lies.

You missed the point.

I gave you enough of the specifics that it wouldn't count as a generalization. You're introducing a whole new can of worms with everything that comes after that statement.
And it is a can of worms that needs to be eaten and digested. The reality is that all of this begins to set into question the bounds of the first amendment. If it is 'against policy' to kneel in prayer before a ball game, then is it also against policy to wear a bracelet with a cross? If it is 'against policy' to display a bible verse, can it also be against policy to display a quote from Yoda about the Jedi?

There is actually a Jedi religion. It may or may not be officially recognized by nations - but what makes a passage or quote religious? Would a quote from Jesus about "Do unto your neighbor as you do unto yourself" be a display of a religious preference and be "exclusion?"

If such is perfectly possible under the First Amendment, then why do we even have the illusion of such freedoms of expression? Religion could practically be banned by the first amendment on the basis of policies as described above - all while 'being consistent' with the first amendment.

@Bold, and how'd you reach this conclusion? The label is hardly arbitrary if it's wearers act in such unity. Ignoring the ridiculous with glaring questions.
By being deep.

The label is arbitrary? Is Ron Paul "Right?" What about Gary Noland? Contrast them to Jeb Bush. Ben Carson. Camile Paglia is, actually, coming out to be more in line with the right as time has gone on, than those under the label of 'the left.'

The label is useless, as we are effectively talking about insanity co-opting political parties and social concepts and then abusing the rest of the population into compliance with that insanity. Hence "Liberalism is a mental disorder."

@Bold. Bombing, shootings, brutal executions? Are you even speaking of America? If you aren't, shove it. Both this article and thread is specifically about Christian treatment in America. Christians are mocked for legitimate reasons, and that doesn't spell catastrophe for them. American mass shootings have NEVER been targeted at churches(as far as I know) just because the attacker hated the religious. The only church killings I know of have been because the members were mainly black or to get a highscore. How are Christians mistreated when they practically run the country?
Would it surprise you to learn that the U.S. was being slated for mass extinction events (starvation, disease, and the civil wars that would precipitate)?

You have no idea what you were being made an accessory to - what fate you have been spared. This will all begin coming to light in the subsequent years. You should look at Europe to see what was being done to Christianity. Police looked the other way or completely misdocumented events where muslims would assault Christian communities - still do.

The left in the U.S. has been rather careful not to attack Churches, outright. They love to shoot at small town communities or into country music concerts, however.

Then, as you say, you self-righteously proclaim yourself to be above criticism and then begin to lay into the Christian communities with a whole host of accusations. They are guilty... yet, you are not? Turn the same accusations you level against Christians around to virtually any other community in existence. Yet, here you single them out and say it is 'justified' to do so.
 

Fountain

Active member
Elite
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Messages
5,415
Kin
13💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
No, not really. As you'd see, the whites in Africa aren't being attacked for their actions. Matter of fact, they're LITERALLY being attacked opposed to criticized. You're right though. My justification isn't applicable to South Africa's problem, and to that I say no shit. Screw off with the transitive property used to say "because his reasoning isn't applicable to the South Africa, it also isn't here."
I wasn't even talking about the white genocide in South Africa. I made a comparison between SJW's using slavery to justify violence against whites (reasons for the violence are irrelevant for the comparison) and you doing the same thing with Christianity to justify whatever actions against it. Hence why you continue down below to do so, making comments such as "Christians are mocked for legitimate reasons". "American mass shootings have NEVER been targeted at churches(as far as I know)" Even though there had been, wich is interesting that you note "(as far as i know)" because, yes, clearly you do not know, at least you seem to be self aware to some extent. "The only church killings I know of have been because the members were mainly black or to get a highscore" When the only one i can remember that targeted black people was the Dylan Roof shooting, and nothing about any of the other shootings including the black man who shot up a bunch of people at a church. "How are Christians mistreated when they practically run the country? " As if. If anything i'd say the jews have a higher chance of running the country but i still wouldn't make that claim.

@Bold. Bombing, shootings, brutal executions? Are you even speaking of America? If you aren't, shove it. Both this article and thread are specifically about Christian treatment in America. Christians are mocked for legitimate reasons, and that doesn't spell catastrophe for them. American mass shootings have NEVER been targeted at churches(as far as I know) just because the attacker hated the religious. The only church killings I know of have been because the members were mainly black or to get a highscore. How are Christians mistreated when they practically run the country?
It doesn't matter cause i'm talking about Christianity in general.
 
Last edited:

Multiply

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Messages
12,839
Kin
3💸
Kumi
3💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
Well, I could. But that is not exactly the point. Pay attention to the coming lawsuits involving the President. This will come to light over the coming months. Pelosi sold North Korean missiles. Clinton sold Russia and Iran Uranium, as well as allowed strategic action plans to be sold to China. Obama authorized the replacement of domestic steel supplies with those from China, in spite of analysis that those steels were of inferior quality. All of whom used MS13 as hitmen against political opponents.

It's not entirely clear if the pedophile ring will be pulled out. It will certainly be prosecuted, but as many of these people were involved in blatant treason and will get the death penalty, it will be unnecessary to try them for the pedophilia charges. However, if you want to trace it, yourself - Allison Mack, who was just arrested for her involvement in NXIVM, had an interesting twitter post including Marina Abramovic. Abramovic is a rather incendiary personality - but an insider source (... If you know who 17 or 4,10,20 is) claimed that Mack is singing like a canary and Abramovic came up.

Of course, the democrats are panicking and trying to push every lawsuit they can against POTUS. But this is exactly what gives legal grounds to bring in PRISM and Five Eyes records. "We" (being the military) have everything. Every burner phone used (Maggie distributed the phone numbers via her tweets, mentioned in the WL email drops), every conversation made within reach of a phone, etc. They even gave us the pleasure of targeting Carter Page with a FISA warrant - which made much of the surveillance of Papapotomus possible. Page was an FBI informant - hence why his activities are blacked out of the Schiff Memo. Sources and methods. Will become clear in the IG report as that is released.

Now - none of that directly answers your question, nor was it intended to. However, do you not find it odd how quickly North Korea reversed their position after the Olympic games? Why was Jong Un's sister sitting so close to Pence? Did some of us receive advanced warning that this would happen, as well as pictures from China showing evidence of a take-down in Hong Kong?

There is a war being fought in the shadows of our society, and it's beginning to spill over into the public.



The problem is that Hillary and the Democrats believed that the military was their lap-dog, that we would never catch onto what they were doing, or that we would ever oppose and expose them. Election fraud in California will be coming out, soon. The use of surveillance tools against political opponents will be coming out... as well as North Korea's role in all of this. As well as Iran. Iran will be the next country liberated from the Circus. Should be pretty soon, judging by the events unfolding.

Ohhh... So you don't have any proof and it was all just speculation. Got it.
 

Fountain

Active member
Elite
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Messages
5,415
Kin
13💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
What does that have to do with the topic at hand?
As much as your reply. Zero.

Everything he said was pure speculation. Unless, of course, you have some evidence to back up his claims.
Oh yeah sure. That's what i always say when people bring up bs but now all of a sudden what he's saying happens to be "speculation". It's called convenience. And it makes you look both childish and lazy every time you go "but evidence", it's almost like the equivalent of "Ree". You cannot expect me to take you seriously when you act like some kind of scientist wannabe. Do you ask people for evidence whenever they talk to you in real life? Get real.

Bottom line is you couldn't argue against any of the points he made. You didn't even try.

Perhaps if the things he said didn't clash with whatever your belives are, and were in fact the complete opposite, and the link did not originate from Fox News but rather from Nytimes. No matter how much bs there would be, maybe then it would be sufficient to count as facts and evidence and for you take it seriously, am i right?
 

Deadlift

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2015
Messages
2,387
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
While the Catholics, as individuals, may be Christian - the Catholic institution is, first and foremost, an extension of a much more ancient order that traces its roots back to the reason why we don't like to say McCain's name. These are people who stole their inheritance by murder and have jealously guarded it ever since.
Except that a claim like this is pure conspiracy theory, and is treated as such by any source that is even slightly more authoritative than Chick tracts. Looking forward to hearing your arguments to back up your claims.

Explain why you think that Catholics are not Christians
 

Multiply

Active member
Legendary
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Messages
12,839
Kin
3💸
Kumi
3💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
As much as your reply. Zero.
Unless you count, "Well, I could. But that is not exactly the point." as staying on the topic, he literally deflected.


Oh yeah sure. That's what i always say when people bring up bs but now all of a sudden what he's saying happens to be "speculation". It's called convenience. And it makes you look both childish and lazy every time you go "but evidence", it's almost like the equivalent of "Ree". You cannot expect me to take you seriously when you act like some kind of scientist wannabe. Do you ask people for evidence whenever they talk to you in real life? Get real.
Wait... Asking for evidence before I blindly agree with someone makes me childish and lazy? I even took the extra step in looking through that link he provided when he posted that drivel about google servers in North Korea. Guess what? It literally had nothing to do with google servers in North Korea.


Bottom line is you couldn't argue against any of the points he made. You didn't even try.
What points did he make? None that pertained to the topic we were discussing. I called him out on his bold claim. His retort was essentially, "I could tell you... But then I'd have to kill you.".

Perhaps if the things he said didn't clash with whatever your belives are, and were in fact the complete opposite, and the link did not originate from Fox News but rather from Nytimes. No matter how much bs there would be, maybe then it would be sufficient to count as facts and evidence and for you take it seriously, am i right?
I think you're confused. I don't care about anything else he said after the point in which he posted that 'theguardian' link to back up his feeble claim of google servers being in North Korea. Everything other than that was a deflection to get me to argue a different point.
 

Aim64C

Active member
Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
3,681
Kin
0💸
Kumi
0💴
Trait Points
0⚔️
Awards
Ohhh... So you don't have any proof and it was all just speculation. Got it.
There is having proof, and then there is when it is the proper time to provide proof. You are a trash tier shill, so you just get a drive-by from me. When the big fish come out, as you will soon see, that is when you will know I was right. The proof will be in the court documents.

See, what the Democrats did by filing suits against Trump and Wikileaks, was open up these cases to discovery. The Democrats are getting desperate, because it has become rather obvious, by now, that the Mueller investigation is not going to do what they wanted it to do. Worse - it is actually beginning to backfire on them. Mueller has been digging for quite some time... but there's a detail many people miss. Before Mueller was appointed to the special council, he was interviewed by Trump for the position of head of the FBI. However, laws prohibit the FBI director being seated by the same person for more than ten years - and Mueller had already served in the position for 12 with an extension provided by Obama.

Now, you either believe POTUS is retarded, and are about to have your mind blown into orbit - or you believe he is a competent individual and see that Mueller was an officer in the Marines - the branch which rests under the direct control of the President.

Of course, if you know this much - you probably already know who 4,10,20 and 17 are. You, likely, also know that Admiral Rogers visited Trump prior to his assuming the Presidency in an unauthorized visit. The next day, the Trump campaign relocated to the other side of the country.

There is a lot that has been going on that the media does not and will not cover.

Except that a claim like this is pure conspiracy theory, and is treated as such by any source that is even slightly more authoritative than Chick tracts. Looking forward to hearing your arguments to back up your claims.
*yawn*

No, it's pretty much the history of the Catholic Church, even according to the Catholics. They like to be sure and trace their lineage back through to the Apostle Paul, but the reality is that Christianity was a very loosely organized group, but very widespread and diverse long before the Catholic Church appeared. Different groups and denominations had separate traditions and bibles for centuries. It was, actually, through the use of military power by Rome that the Church began to become more standard as a religion.

It's also hard to overlook the fact that the Vatican is in Rome - on the actual imperial seat of Rome, depending on exactly who you listen to.

Now, that is what it is... but if you want to understand the modern Catholic Church, you need only follow the money. Back in the 1800s, if I remember correctly, a certain bank gave a substantial loan to the Catholic Church... who was that... and why is it relevant to whose ring the Pope kisses?

Explain why you think that Catholics are not Christians
Because they basically constructed an entirely new order of the Pharisee, which would be like claiming to be a white mage after using the blood of an infant in a blood ritual to curse a puppy.

To be more accurate, I would argue that Catholics are not necessarily un-Christian, but the order and structure of Catholicism is such that it is designed to damage and destroy the message of Jesus. Though few churches can be considered exempt from this accusation, these days.
 
Top