ADVERTISEMENT

Another mass shooting

99% of who believes in Sharia? My guess would be more like his parents left Afghanistan to escape Sharia as enforced by the Taliban. That's far more likely than your statement. You should read a couple of Khaled Hosseini books for some insight on life in that country prior to our invasion.

Ah, I see it now from the Pew research. Still, in the time that his parents immigrated to the United States, many of those immigrants did so precisely to escape Sharia. We have no way of knowing if his parents support Sharia, and in any event they don't live in Afghanistan so Sharia isn't the law here and isn't going to be the law here ever.

Otherwise, the vast majority of Muslims follow the Koran the same way the vast majority of Christians follow the bible.
There's a 1% chance that they don't support sharia. "So you're telling me there's a chance!"

It makes no sense to import tens of thousands of people here who don't believe in freedom and liberty. Let them go to Western Europe, they will feel right at home there. I'll take the Hindus and Buddhists.
 
ISIS provides encouragement, and that's all this whack-job needed was something on which to hang his hat to make him feel as though his action was justified. In my opinion, it is not Islam that justifies this behavior because otherwise you'd see this happening here all the time with stonings and shootings and such any time a Muslim was exposed to homosexuality. Fortunately, the vast, vast majority of Muslims are able to understand secular moralism and follow the Koran the same way most Christians follow the bible. The problem is the select few that do not, those who favor and then take it upon themselves to enforce Sharia for whatever reason.

I did not mean to paint this as entirely internal - certainly he was externally influenced by ISIS propaganda as well as his interpretation of Muslim teachings and the actions to which he believed it called him (again, ISIS).

In this specific case, I think you had a homophobic Muslim man who required justification for his desired action and found it in ISIS via the web. So yes, stamping out ISIS will help, but I think people like this will find other justification even after ISIS is eradicated, and that is likely to be in the form of another radical Imam or extremist group.

There is a distinction there, in my opinion, between an "ISIS gunman" carrying out jihad and this man's actions. I don't think his actions had anything to do with jihad. I think this is just as accurately described as a hate crime as it is Islamic terrorism. There are elements of both, and both are founded in fundamentalist, extremist Islam.
Gr8, please read and stifle....

By TUCKER REALS CBS NEWS June 13, 2016, 6:02 AM
What has the Orlando gunman's father said?

Last Updated Jun 13, 2016 2:14 PM EDT

The Orland gay club gunman's father has well-known anti-American views and is an ideological supporter of the Afghan Taliban. A new message posted by the father on Facebook early Monday morning also makes it clear he could have passed anti-homosexual views onto his son.

Seddique Mir Mateen, father of Orlando gunman Omar Mateen, who died in a shootout with police after killing at least 49 people early Sunday morning, regularly attended Friday prayers at a Florida mosque with his son.

In the video posted early Monday, Seddique Mateen says his son was well-educated and respectful to his parents, and that he was "not aware what motivated him to go into a gay club and kill 50 people."

The elder Mateen says he was saddened by his son's actions during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

He then adds: "God will punish those involved in homosexuality," saying it's, "not an issue that humans should deal with."

(Editor's Note: Mateen asked for an interview with CBS News to clarify any confusion that his comments mentioned in this article caused. You can find the interview here.)

The statement, and previous videos by Seddique Mateen, lend some insight into the environment in which his U.S.-born son was raised.

Seddique Mateen hosts a program on a California-based satellite Afghan TV station, aimed at the Afghan diaspora in the in the U.S., called the "Durand Jirga Show."

A senior Afghan intelligence source tells CBS News correspondent Lara Logan that the show is watched by some in people in Afghanistan but the primary audience is ethnic Pashtun Afghans living in the U.S. and Europe.

The Taliban Islamic extremist movement is comprised almost entirely of Pashtuns, and Mateen's show takes a decidedly Pashtun nationalistic, pro-Taliban slant; full of anti-U.S. rhetoric and inflammatory language aimed at non-Pashtuns and at Pakistan, the source told Logan.

The name of the show references the Durand line, the disputed border between Afghanistan and Pakistan that was established in the 19th century by Britain. It has long been at the heart of deep-seated mistrust between Afghans and Pakistanis.

Seddique Mateen once campaigned in the United States for current Afghan President Ashraf Ghani -- seen as a moderate leader -- who appeared on his program in 2014. But since then Seddique has turned against Ghani in both his broadcasts and numerous videos posted to a Facebook account.

In his Facebook videos, the alleged gunman's father has often appeared wearing a military uniform and declaring himself the leader of a "transitional revolutionary government" of Afghanistan. He claims to have his own intelligence agency and close ties to the U.S. Congress -- assets he says he will use to subvert Pakistani influence and take control of Afghanistan.

After watching his videos -- none of which were recorded in English -- CBS News' Ahmad Mukhtar said it seemed possible that Seddique Mateen is delusional. "He thinks he runs a government in exile and will soon take the power in Kabul in a revolution," notes Mukhtar.

The younger Mateen, suspected of the killings in Orlando, was said by his ex-wife to have suffered from mental illness. She said she left him just months after they were married as he appeared to suffer from a mood disorder and would become violently abusive and controlling.

Speaking later Monday to the Associated Press Television News, Seddique Mateen stressed that he did not in any way support his son's actions, say he "would have arrested him myself" had he known of plans to commit mass murder.

He told APTN it was a "painful" time for him as a father. He did not make any remarks regarding his or his son's stance on homosexuality.

ISIS has claimed responsibility for the attack in Orlando, lauding "brother Omar Mateen, one of the soldiers of the Caliphate in America," for the killings.

Thus far, however, there has been no indication that Mateen had any tangible connection to the terrorist group prior to the shooting spree.
 
If you preach the teachings of the God of Abraham, you are evil.

This is utterly absurd. The teachings of the "God of Abraham" were the first code of laws in known human history to include provisions requiring care for the weak, the oppressed, the poor, widows, orphans, and immigrants. The teachings of the "God of Abraham" speak of caring for the earth and offer lament in the face of war and violence.

Is the Old Testament violent? Absolutely. Was the Jewish religion depicted there violent? Yup. Was every single other religion of the time also violent? Yes.

You have a serious flaw in your logic about this. You make the assumption that to be a Christian automatically requires holding to a literal view of the Old Testament and, therefore, supporting the violence it contains. That shows you lack knowledge of Christian faith. The teachings of the Christian faith are personified in the person of Jesus and no one else. We believe that Jesus is the Word of God.

So why don't you tell me about how violent and evil Jesus is? Or, since you can't do that, why don't you acknowledge that it is not the religion itself, but perversion of the religion that is the issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: threeeputtt
I know the New Testament very well. Sadly, there is nothing in the New Testament that "reverses" what the Old Testament says about homosexuality being a killable offense. And as I trust you know, Jesus repeatedly affirmed the teachings of the Old Testament, citing the Old Testament as both historical fact, as well as the direct word of God, as well as a collection of religious laws that should all be followed. (Google it or here's a decent summary among many examples: http://creation.com/jesus-christ-on-the-infallibility-of-scripture)

So your line of argument falls way short. Unless you're also disaffirming Jesus, at which point it would seem you've not only abandoned the first half of the Bible, but the second half as well. Which would be the proper choice, by the way, by any basic standard of modern morality.

If you're looking for a word for word "reversal," it's not there. If you are as familiar with the New Testament as you claim, though, you know that Jesus speaks very clearly against violence over and over again. In one instance, where the law (the same law that demands death for homosexuals) called for an execution, Jesus physically and theologically intervened and saved a woman's life. In effect, Jesus reverses all "killable offenses" in that moment.

Jesus does say that he has not come to change the law. He also says that he has come to fulfill the law - as in fulfill the requirements of the law that demand blood sacrifice.

It is one thing to disagree with Christian faith. I can understand that - we are not always very good at following our own preaching. But to argue that Jesus was immoral is the height of stupidity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: threeeputtt
Well, I think we now know why daddy was on the feds radar.

The family were Taliban supporters and openly ant-gay. The old, God will punish gays line.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando...ish-gays/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=25479970
This is utterly absurd. The teachings of the "God of Abraham" were the first code of laws in known human history to include provisions requiring care for the weak, the oppressed, the poor, widows, orphans, and immigrants. The teachings of the "God of Abraham" speak of caring for the earth and offer lament in the face of war and violence.

Is the Old Testament violent? Absolutely. Was the Jewish religion depicted there violent? Yup. Was every single other religion of the time also violent? Yes.

You have a serious flaw in your logic about this. You make the assumption that to be a Christian automatically requires holding to a literal view of the Old Testament and, therefore, supporting the violence it contains. That shows you lack knowledge of Christian faith. The teachings of the Christian faith are personified in the person of Jesus and no one else. We believe that Jesus is the Word of God.

So why don't you tell me about how violent and evil Jesus is? Or, since you can't do that, why don't you acknowledge that it is not the religion itself, but perversion of the religion that is the issue.

If you think the God of Abraham was the "first code of laws in known human history to include provisions requiring care for the weak, the oppressed, the poor, widows, orphans, and immigrants.", you haven't done ANY homework. This isn't a statement that deserves more attention than what I have provided. It is that basic.

The rest is OT apologetics. Boring.

Human sacrifice. Eternal torture for your soul. Vicarious redemption. Jesus was a monster by any philosophical standard. Of course, it isn't clear Jesus ever existed.

And don't forget, you are evil.

¶ 304.3: The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Therefore self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church

¶ 341.6: Ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions shall not be conducted by our ministers and shall not be conducted in our churches.

  • ¶ 613: The [conference council on finance and administration] shall have authority and responsibility to .... ensure that no annual conference board, agency, committee, commission, or council shall give United Methodist funds to any gay caucus or group, or otherwise use such funds to promote the acceptance of homosexuality or violate the expressed commitment of The UMC "not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends" (¶ 161F). View full statement.

¶ 806.9: [The General Council on Finance and Administration] shall be responsible for ensuring that no board, agency, committee, commission, or council shall give United Methodist funds to any gay caucus or group, or otherwise use such funds to promote the acceptance of homosexuality or violate the expressed commitment of The United Methodist Church 'not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends' (¶ 161F)

Are you a member?

Your sect loves to target gays, to the point it is in your rules of conduct.

I did read where the most recent convention (conclave, whatever you want to call them) the biting issue was gay marriage. Your religion is coming around. Welcome to secular morality.

Do you see where, when you endorse, that you are incompatible with god's ACTUAL WORDS that bad stuff is likely to happen?

We know Genisis is a story.

We know the Exodus is a story.

There is no reason to continue lying to children without evidence. An evil act.
 
Last edited:
terrorism

noun ter·ror·ism \ˈter-ər-ˌi-zəm\

Simple Definition of terrorism
  • : the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal
Source: Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary

The people behind these things: Al Qaida, ISIS, etc certainly fit the definition. I of course, am assuming a lot here that my conscious, Qaz, is quick to remind me that I am quick to a conclusion.
who said it wasn't terrorism? You know what else fits the definition? Gay-hating weirdos. New evidence out suggests he might have been gay himself as he apparently spent three years at this bar and was also on a gay dating app...so could be some twisted gay internal conflict going on. Everything I've seen suggests this is a lone wolf guy who had a ton of issues. His dad is apparently a nutjob too. ISIS glommed onto to this because why wouldn't they? There is no evidence he was coordinating with them. His first link to them was a 9/11 call. His ex wife said he wasn't even religious. Sounds to me like a guy a crazy guy who would have gone off regardless...which is usually what most of these mass killers are.
 
I agree with most of what you are getting at, but being anti-gay is not extremist Islam. It's standard run of the mill Islam.
It's also standard run of the mill Catholicism and various other versions of Christianity, but most Christians don't persecute/punish/murder LGBT either, though there are historical examples of it (though not as extreme as this). This is not Islam, IMO.

Adnan Virk on ESPN radio was a fascinating listen today, talking about exactly this point regarding Islam and what his mosque has to do every time something like this happens. He very much echoed my sentiment (as you might expect) that this guy was a Muslim looking for an excuse to act on his rage about homosexuality. He said the vast majority of Muslims are put off by homosexuality, but on the same level that many conservatives in America are.

Something else he talked about which was interesting was the contrast between today and last Monday. Last week, we were celebrating a devout Muslim who called Jews to wish them Merry Christmas and would say, laughing, "Hey man, we're all trying to get to the same place!"

That's what we need more of.
 
ISIS provides encouragement, and that's all this whack-job needed was something on which to hang his hat to make him feel as though his action was justified. In my opinion, it is not Islam that justifies this behavior because otherwise you'd see this happening here all the time with stonings and shootings and such any time a Muslim was exposed to homosexuality. Fortunately, the vast, vast majority of Muslims are able to understand secular moralism and follow the Koran the same way most Christians follow the bible. The problem is the select few that do not, those who favor and then take it upon themselves to enforce Sharia for whatever reason.

I did not mean to paint this as entirely internal - certainly he was externally influenced by ISIS propaganda as well as his interpretation of Muslim teachings and the actions to which he believed it called him (again, ISIS).

In this specific case, I think you had a homophobic Muslim man who required justification for his desired action and found it in ISIS via the web. So yes, stamping out ISIS will help, but I think people like this will find other justification even after ISIS is eradicated, and that is likely to be in the form of another radical Imam or extremist group.

There is a distinction there, in my opinion, between an "ISIS gunman" carrying out jihad and this man's actions. I don't think his actions had anything to do with jihad. I think this is just as accurately described as a hate crime as it is Islamic terrorism. There are elements of both, and both are founded in fundamentalist, extremist Islam.
you're first line is the key here. New evidence suggests he wasn't simply a gay hating Islamist, he was actually gay himself, and probably had some internal self-loathing going on. He was also a violent man as seen with his wife, and he comes from a crazy dad and we all know mental illness is hereditary. Mix it all together and you get a nutjob with internal conflict who latches onto ISIS as a reason why he's really ok and doing the right thing. There is NO solution for that kind of nutjob lone wolf.
 
It's also standard run of the mill Catholicism and various other versions of Christianity, but most Christians don't persecute/punish/murder LGBT either, though there are historical examples of it (though not as extreme as this). This is not Islam, IMO.

Adnan Virk on ESPN radio was a fascinating listen today, talking about exactly this point regarding Islam and what his mosque has to do every time something like this happens. He very much echoed my sentiment (as you might expect) that this guy was a Muslim looking for an excuse to act on his rage about homosexuality. He said the vast majority of Muslims are put off by homosexuality, but on the same level that many conservatives in America are.

Something else he talked about which was interesting was the contrast between today and last Monday. Last week, we were celebrating a devout Muslim who called Jews to wish them Merry Christmas and would say, laughing, "Hey man, we're all trying to get to the same place!"

That's what we need more of.
there was another guy arrested with weapons about to engage a gay pride parade in Cali IIRC...and I don't believe he was Muslim. OT says to kill gays. Point blank. Most modern versions of Christianity disavow that, but it's point blank in the OT.
 
Gr8, please read and stifle....
You must've missed the part where he said that homosexuals will be dealt with by God and humans should not intervene. That's strictly contrary to his son's actions.

But anyway, if true, then yep. It's not surprising that those who live under Taliban rule willingly are supportive of Sharia. It's also true that many Afghans living in this country fled the Taliban expressly because of Sharia. If this dude's dad isn't one of them, then that's great. It doesn't mean this was "jihad" any more than it was an extremist hate crime.

The thing about the Taliban and mujaheddin in Afghanistan is that there is an entire generation in that country that views them as liberators (from the Soviets) without recognizing them for what they are internally.
 
It's also standard run of the mill Catholicism and various other versions of Christianity, but most Christians don't persecute/punish/murder LGBT either, though there are historical examples of it (though not as extreme as this). This is not Islam, IMO.

Adnan Virk on ESPN radio was a fascinating listen today, talking about exactly this point regarding Islam and what his mosque has to do every time something like this happens. He very much echoed my sentiment (as you might expect) that this guy was a Muslim looking for an excuse to act on his rage about homosexuality. He said the vast majority of Muslims are put off by homosexuality, but on the same level that many conservatives in America are.

Something else he talked about which was interesting was the contrast between today and last Monday. Last week, we were celebrating a devout Muslim who called Jews to wish them Merry Christmas and would say, laughing, "Hey man, we're all trying to get to the same place!"

That's what we need more of.
It may not be what you see here in the US, but in other parts of the world it is quite brutal, particularly the wahabi (or worse) controlled areas.
 
It may not be what you see here in the US, but in other parts of the world it is quite brutal, particularly the wahabi (or worse) controlled areas.
Yes, I am aware. I've been there, studied it, met them, been glared at and "threatened" for being an infidel... The Wahabbi are a major issue in SA that we tiptoe around because of their money. Thank the Bush family for that...
 
Yes, I am aware. I've been there, studied it, met them, been glared at and "threatened" for being an infidel... The Wahabbi are a major issue in SA that we tiptoe around because of their money. Thank the Bush family for that...

The close relationship between Saudi Arabia and the U.S. began in 1933 during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 1943 FDR doubled down on SA and made defense of the kingdom a priority.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gr8indoorsman
I got it Terminal (interesting name for this topic). I obviously touched a nerve. You have obviously done a great deal of study and research to find stuff to support you preconceived notion of how religions are so hypocritical and immoral. That said I also assume that you have read and investigated other works, the best organized is, in my opinion, is "The Case for Christ", by Lee Strobelwho was an Atheist Journalist determine to write a book that destroyed religion by digging out the "truth" . Good Luck, I will be praying that you find real truth.

Thanks Bruce, I may check out that book some day. Although I'm much more well-read on Christianity than I am on atheism, despite being (if it wasn't obvious by now haha) an atheist. Nonetheless it's important to stay open-minded and so I like to keep my reading/research diversified, and I think I've heard of this book before, maybe I'll give it a look.
 
"by any basic standard of modern morality" WTH does that mean?

e.g. the morality that informs the official laws as well as social customs of modern societies such as (but not limited to) the U.S. Anyone who subscribes to basic modern morals can easily improve the Bible simply by removing a lot of the immoral passages from it, as I've suggested above. I don't think my point here is controversial.
 
Nice try but your reading comprehension is a bit off. Notice how the Biblical verse you picked out does not "command" followers of Christianity to kill homosexuals? It states they shall surely be put to death (and that could mean literal, or in a spiritual sense, as in not having a home in heaven) but it does not command followers to kill. Now read the verse from the Koran that you used ... notice how that IS a direct command to followers of Islam to murder homosexuals. Can you see the difference? Probably not because your ideology blinds you from the truth.

I'd also like to point out how ridiculous it is that you think morality is something that must be modified and updated to keep up with current society. Morality is an absolute, and without it being so society will, over time, morph into a lawless society.

Shall is a synonym for should. So the Bible says gays shall (should) surely be put to death. I agree with you that it's not a "command" for followers to kill the gay person, but it would easily give "biblical cover" to someone who went out and killed a homosexual, or for example to capital punishment for gays, because after all the Bible says the gay person shall die.

I agree with you that the Muslim quote was more direct, more of a commandment. Seems like we're splitting hairs though and missing the forest for the trees. You're not going to find even a hint of ambiguity about killing gays in secular laws in modern societies--there everyone understands that it's simply not appropriate to kill someone because of their sexual preference.

Your second paragraph has me quite confused. "Morality is an absolute and should never be updated to keep up with current society." ??? Examples abound but to illustrate my confusion, at the time of the Bible it was not considered immoral to keep human slaves. Now it is. Modern morality (codified by laws) thankfully updated this to keep up with current society. I'm not sure, are you suggesting we should have instead maintained the same moral code we had hundreds of years ago? Or thousands of years ago? Just not sure what you meant there. Morality may be absolute in an idealistic sense, but mankind's understanding and development of morality over time is most certainly ever-changing...usually for the better but not always I suppose.
 
If you're looking for a word for word "reversal," it's not there. If you are as familiar with the New Testament as you claim, though, you know that Jesus speaks very clearly against violence over and over again. In one instance, where the law (the same law that demands death for homosexuals) called for an execution, Jesus physically and theologically intervened and saved a woman's life. In effect, Jesus reverses all "killable offenses" in that moment.

Jesus does say that he has not come to change the law. He also says that he has come to fulfill the law - as in fulfill the requirements of the law that demand blood sacrifice.

It is one thing to disagree with Christian faith. I can understand that - we are not always very good at following our own preaching. But to argue that Jesus was immoral is the height of stupidity.

How tough would it have been for Jesus to have simply said, "I know past scripture wasn't always kind to certain types of individuals, such as homosexuals, women, slaves, prostitutes, and even children. So I'm here to bring to you crystal clear clarity on these subjects. Women are of equal "value" to men and should always be treated as such. Homosexuality is not immoral--it's actually natural among a small percentage of the population. Children should never be sacrificed to appease God. Human slavery is absolutely, unequivocally wrong, and anyone who tries to hold another man a slave should himself be imprisoned under the law. Every man of every race, color, etc. is of equal "value" etc. etc."

How many hundreds of millions of lives could Jesus have helped if he had explicitly "reversed" the immoral parts of scripture? You're familiar with the term "sin of omission"...well this is that. Sure maybe 80% of these primitive people still wouldn't have behaved in kind because their culture wasn't ready yet, but that's then on them, not Jesus.

Morally speaking (setting aside religion for a moment), if Person A has it within his power to save the lives and improve the livelihood of hundreds of millions of humans, with almost no effort and with no adverse side effects, and yet Person A chooses not to use this power, then Person A in this scenario is highly immoral. And if Person A is also divine and all-powerful, that would seem to magnify the immorality.

It's a similar argument to suggesting that God is highly immoral when he creates a new baby that is born of a horribly painful terminal illness, which lives in agony for 6 months, then dies, and meanwhile the parents are now broke because of hundreds of thousands of dollars of hospital bills. That act by God is immoral by any rational definition of human morality. Therefore if God exists as defined by Christians (omnipotent/omniscient) then God too is often immoral, not just Jesus.
 
who said it wasn't terrorism? You know what else fits the definition? Gay-hating weirdos. New evidence out suggests he might have been gay himself as he apparently spent three years at this bar and was also on a gay dating app...so could be some twisted gay internal conflict going on. Everything I've seen suggests this is a lone wolf guy who had a ton of issues. His dad is apparently a nutjob too. ISIS glommed onto to this because why wouldn't they? There is no evidence he was coordinating with them. His first link to them was a 9/11 call. His ex wife said he wasn't even religious. Sounds to me like a guy a crazy guy who would have gone off regardless...which is usually what most of these mass killers are.
You'll run out of stupid shit to post eventually....we hope.

You're in denial, just like Obama and Hillary.

This was done by a follower of Islam, the least tolerant religion of homosexuals in the world. It couldn't be any f%^€><g clearer what this was.

And you're here making excuses for a mass murderer. How sad for you.
 
You'll run out of stupid shit to post eventually....we hope.

You're in denial, just like Obama and Hillary.

This was done by a follower of Islam, the least tolerant religion of homosexuals in the world. It couldn't be any f%^€><g clearer what this was.

And you're here making excuses for a mass murderer. How sad for you.
I wouldn't want someone like you to think anything I post is anything but stupid. Because if you, or a few of the other new idiots on this board agree with something I post, it's time to for me to re-evaluate my mental process.
 
I'm suggesting friendships, business deals, and yeah, probably financial too in the same way they gave money to various Clinton efforts, but not directly to campaigns.

A review of the net worth of both Bushes, Chaney, Gore and Clinton speaks volumes.
 
It's also standard run of the mill Catholicism and various other versions of Christianity, but most Christians don't persecute/punish/murder LGBT either, though there are historical examples of it (though not as extreme as this). This is not Islam, IMO.

Adnan Virk on ESPN radio was a fascinating listen today, talking about exactly this point regarding Islam and what his mosque has to do every time something like this happens. He very much echoed my sentiment (as you might expect) that this guy was a Muslim looking for an excuse to act on his rage about homosexuality. He said the vast majority of Muslims are put off by homosexuality, but on the same level that many conservatives in America are.

Something else he talked about which was interesting was the contrast between today and last Monday. Last week, we were celebrating a devout Muslim who called Jews to wish them Merry Christmas and would say, laughing, "Hey man, we're all trying to get to the same place!"

That's what we need more of.
what does this have to do, in the slightest, with my comment? Am I christian? Was the shooter? If you want to argue that this isn't Islam, that's a different argument. The guy clearly had some gay guilt due to his or his parents' religion, so I don't accept it didn't have something to do with this. islam is a disease of the mind and it contributed to his confusion.
 
what does this have to do, in the slightest, with my comment? Am I christian? Was the shooter? If you want to argue that this isn't Islam, that's a different argument. The guy clearly had some gay guilt due to his or his parents' religion, so I don't accept it didn't have something to do with this. islam is a disease of the mind and it contributed to his confusion.

My point had nothing to do with what YOU believe. My point was that if you believe "Islam is a disease of the mind", then you must believe Christianity, especially Catholicism, is as well because the beliefs on homosexuality are the same when read at face value. Fortunately, most Christians, like most Western Muslims, in particular, can apply secular morality and understand that stoning gays or shooting 49 of them isn't "God's will".

Your statement that Islam is a disease of the mind might be the most appalling thing I've ever read on this forum, and that's saying something!
 
My point had nothing to do with what YOU believe. My point was that if you believe "Islam is a disease of the mind", then you must believe Christianity, especially Catholicism, is as well because the beliefs on homosexuality are the same when read at face value. Fortunately, most Christians, like most Western Muslims, in particular, can apply secular morality and understand that stoning gays or shooting 49 of them isn't "God's will".

Your statement that Islam is a disease of the mind might be the most appalling thing I've ever read on this forum, and that's saying something!
Delusion needs to be denounced in its entirety. The death penalty is applied in several muslim countries for homosexuality.
 
Delusion needs to be denounced in its entirety. The death penalty is applied in several muslim countries for homosexuality.
I take that to mean you believe all religion should then be denounced? That all religion is a "disease of the mind?"

Sorry, your assertion that somehow Islam is a mental illness is indefensible and you should retract it or at least say what you actually mean. If that is what you mean, then you should defend it and attempt prove that Islam is, in fact, a diagnosable mental illness along the same lines as bipolarity, OCD, etc.

The laws applied by human leaders in a few Muslim countries do not make them blanket beliefs applied and thus acted on by all Muslims.
 
I take that to mean you believe all religion should then be denounced? That all religion is a "disease of the mind?"

Sorry, your assertion that somehow Islam is a mental illness is indefensible and you should retract it or at least say what you actually mean. If that is what you mean, then you should defend it and attempt prove that Islam is, in fact, a diagnosable mental illness along the same lines as bipolarity, OCD, etc.

The laws applied by human leaders in a few Muslim countries do not make them blanket beliefs applied and thus acted on by all Muslims.

Just read a list of ten Muslim countries where homosexual activity is illegal and punishment varied. One of the most severe is Iran, but we wink and nod at anything they do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pboiler18
I take that to mean you believe all religion should then be denounced? That all religion is a "disease of the mind?"

Sorry, your assertion that somehow Islam is a mental illness is indefensible and you should retract it or at least say what you actually mean. If that is what you mean, then you should defend it and attempt prove that Islam is, in fact, a diagnosable mental illness along the same lines as bipolarity, OCD, etc.

The laws applied by human leaders in a few Muslim countries do not make them blanket beliefs applied and thus acted on by all Muslims.
yes. The Antichrist - Nietzsche has explained it far better than most. He spent his life on the subject.
Almost all religions aside from a very few, require their followers to admit they are ill or incomplete (original sin in christianity) in some way and that the only cure is fall under the guidance of the ascetic priest who can guide them to the good life. It is an illness of a bored mind that "modern" society left bereft of the minute to minute decision making for survival. So we have all these diseased people convinced they need a cure, convinced that somewhere there is a greater power looking out after the weak, when nature shows us quite the opposite example. The final portion of this is the promise of eternal bliss for their loyal membership and the ascetic priest helps them to stay on the straight and narrow, striking a careful balance of admonishing and praising his flock to keep them in the fold.

It is strictly delusion. An attack on the weakminded to get them to give away their power now for the promise of eternal life later.
 
  • Like
Reactions: terminalg92
We winked and nodded at everything The Shah of Iran did also.

And, your point is? We winked and nodded at everything Saudi Arabia did from FDR to Eisenhower to Clinton to Bush to Obama. So what? How many domestic mad shootings did we have by Persons of Muslim Faith prior to Fort Hood.
 
Well why not? Why wouldn't some good Christian somewhere be inspired to publish an updated version of the Bible that simply removes the dozens and dozens of indefensibly immoral parts of it? And if someone were to publish a more moral edition, why then wouldn't every church and synagogue in the world start using this version and repudiate the original version? That would inarguably be the morally correct choice, I trust you agree.

Bottom line, the worst mass shooting in U.S. history was explicitly sanctioned by the "holiest" book of the Islamic, Christian, and Jewish religions. If those holy books can't be updated to remove these types of passages, then there's not much left to do other than reject these books in the same way that one should reject any text that sanctions hate crimes, child sacrifice, genocide, mass murder, and human slavery.

Not to mention, the "Bible" that people read today isn't the same as the "Bible" that men originally wrote centuries ago, so it's kind of disingenuous to say that it can't be updated, when it has been updated and censored by those in power so that it could be used as a means of control since the dawn of the Holy Roman Empire.
 
  • Like
Reactions: terminalg92
yes. The Antichrist - Nietzsche has explained it far better than most. He spent his life on the subject.
Almost all religions aside from a very few, require their followers to admit they are ill or incomplete (original sin in christianity) in some way and that the only cure is fall under the guidance of the ascetic priest who can guide them to the good life. It is an illness of a bored mind that "modern" society left bereft of the minute to minute decision making for survival. So we have all these diseased people convinced they need a cure, convinced that somewhere there is a greater power looking out after the weak, when nature shows us quite the opposite example. The final portion of this is the promise of eternal bliss for their loyal membership and the ascetic priest helps them to stay on the straight and narrow, striking a careful balance of admonishing and praising his flock to keep them in the fold.

It is strictly delusion. An attack on the weakminded to get them to give away their power now for the promise of eternal life later.
Your understanding of Christianity is flawed. Christianity says EVERYONE is sinful, as does Judaisim and Islam (I believe). I don't need an ascetic priest to guide me through life or to obtain a good life. Sin is only an illness if you don't do anything to address it. It's analogous to having cancer and either refusing to acknowledge you have it or refusing to have it treated if you do know you have it. Eventually, it will kill you if not addressed.

Your argument sounds similar to Lenin when he said "Religion is the opiate of the masses". His secular, communist viewpoint tried to eradicate belief in anything except for the "state". He tried to make himself into a god of sorts. Millions of people died who didn't conform. That kind of belief is a form of religion whether you care to admit it or not, but I contend it is more perverse than anything you claim is immoral in the Abrahamic traditions.

Some people consider it weakminded to state that believers (for instance in Christianity) "give away their power". Outside of not considering myself God, my beliefs to don't force me to give away power to anyone, except for institutions established under the laws of the land. Yet in this country we have a Bill of Rights that protects my right to believe what I want and your right to believe what you want.

Even Obama understood that Christians in this country "cling to their guns and their religion". Most gun owners I know are believers and I'm sure there are millions who aren't. Millions of people in this country who consider themselves "patriots" are also Christian and they'll be the first to fight to defend their 2nd Amendment rights and to limit the tyranny of government overreach.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT