• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

More evidence that Christians Really are the American Taliban

Easy to ignore the horrible things modern day Christians do. D Nile ain't just a rive in Egypt.

Speaking of Africa. Crazed Christains there really are no different than Muslim Radivals.
Lord's Resistance Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course, most Christians will argue this bunch isn't really Christian.

Look up the meaning of denial. And the spelling, too. :roll:

And yes, that isn't what Christianity is all about. See what I mean about ignorance of the subject you're criticising?
Thanks for proving my point.
 
Were you being unintentionally ironic here?

No "Jesus Christ" was an exclamation like "Holy ****!" or "God damn!" but in a more disappointing tone, and how little you know was me just telling him he knows so little.
 
Look up the meaning of denial. And the spelling, too. :roll:

And yes, that isn't what Christianity is all about. See what I mean about ignorance of the subject you're criticising?
Thanks for proving my point.

Look up "No True Scotsman". Here, I'll help.
No true Scotsman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule.
Christians love using the No True Scotsman argument, by denying that anyone committing horrible acts in the name of Christianity is a true Christian.

BTW: in this case, D Nile = denial.
 
Thanks for that. :roll:
no problem.

Speaking of problem, the Christians had an issue with heresy. A big issue.

The Christian Church and the Persecution of Heretics
In the first century there was no heresy for the simple reason that there was no orthodoxy. The 'heresies' referred to in old translations of the New Testament are merely differences of opinion . Small Christian communities believed what they wanted to, and worshipped as they chose. As we have seen, there were no central authorities, no set rituals, no agreed canon of scripture, no Church hierarchy, and no established body of doctrine. In line with the toleration practised throughout the empire each group of Christians was free to believe whatever it wanted. The natural consequence of this state of affairs was that ideas and practices in different communities diverged.

Towards the end of the second century Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, saw the dangers of numerous opinions developing. He attempted to establish an orthodox body of teaching. He wrote a five volume work against heresies, and it was he who compiled a cannon of the New Testament. He also claimed that there was only one proper Church, outside of which there could be no salvation. Other Christians were heretics and should be expelled, and if possible destroyed. The first Christian Emperor agreed.

...St Augustine (AD 354-430) taught that error has no rights. He cited biblical texts, notably Luke 14:16-23, to justify the use of compulsion. Had not Christ himself blinded St Paul in order to make him see the true light. According to Augustine, coercion using "great violence" was justified. He made a distinction between unbelievers who persecuted because of cruelty as against Christians who persecuted because of love. A war to preserve or restore the unity of the Church was a just war, a bellum Deo auctore, a war waged by God himself.

Like I said, spare us the sanctimonious bull****.
 
Christians, until only a few short years ago, used to condone slavery in the US, and burned "witches" at the stake, which they still do in Africa to this day. So, spare me your sanctimonious bull****.

Actually it was Christians who fought to put a stop to slavery. Don't you realize yet that you know nothing of the topic? You are putting forth your beliefs, not facts.
 
Actually it was Christians who fought to put a stop to slavery. Don't you realize yet that you know nothing of the topic? You are putting forth your beliefs, not facts.

Northern Quakers were abolitionists. Southern Christians, also known as Rebs, were the Confederates who killed Yankees by the thousand in an attempt to preserve slavery.
 
Northern Quakers were abolitionists. Southern Christians, also known as Rebs, were the Confederates who killed Yankees by the thousand in an attempt to preserve slavery.

William Wilberforce - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Amazing Grace: The Story of John Newton | The Reformed Reader

Abraham Lincoln and slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These were all prominent Christians leading the fight against slavery among thousands, or millions, of others.

Are there many famous atheists who took part in the battle, or members of other religions?
 
William Wilberforce - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Amazing Grace: The Story of John Newton | The Reformed Reader

Abraham Lincoln and slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These were all prominent Christians leading the fight against slavery among thousands, or millions, of others.

Are there many famous atheists who took part in the battle, or members of other religions?
THe list of Christians fighting for Slavery is even longer. In fact, the Confederacy didn't exactly believe in the separation of Church and state.

While countless Union soldiers and northern civilians depended on theological narratives to sustain them, a providential view of history particularly influenced how Southerners reacted to and interpreted the events of the war. After all, the preamble to the Confederate constitution, unlike the federal one it replaced, explicitly invoked “the favor and guidance of Almighty God.”
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/27/the-south-the-war-and-christian-slavery/?_r=0
 
Where do these barbarians claim to be Christian? Do you feel that they are following the teachings of Jesus Christ?

Here we go again with the "No True Scotsman" argument.
 
Here we go again with the "No True Scotsman" argument.

Don't rely on that "No True Scotsman" argument. It is just silly, as are your posts.

You can try to deny that your posts are ludicrous but that's just denial, and not to be taken seriously. No true anti Christian would use the No True Scotsman argument because that would only demonstrate their denial.

You may boink other people regularly and still call yourself a virgin, but that won't make you one.,
 
Laws against living as you want?

Yeah, that's the basic anarchist position. They want no laws because every law out there stops somebody from living as he or she wants to. You know, speeding laws, laws against murder and bank robbery, laws regulating what they can put in our food and water. All designed to stop somebody from living as he wants to.

so I guess you are an anarchist.
 
THe list of Christians fighting for Slavery is even longer. In fact, the Confederacy didn't exactly believe in the separation of Church and state.

Southerners also relied on the bible for their defense of slavery - you know, the part about slaves obeying their masters.
 
THe list of Christians fighting for Slavery is even longer. In fact, the Confederacy didn't exactly believe in the separation of Church and state.

God obviously wasn't on the side of the Confederate slave owners, despite their profound hopes.
 
Don't rely on that "No True Scotsman" argument. It is just silly, as are your posts.

You can try to deny that your posts are ludicrous but that's just denial, and not to be taken seriously. No true anti Christian would use the No True Scotsman argument because that would only demonstrate their denial.
Nonsense. I show you Christians burning people alive and you say those aren't Christians. Now that's denial. :)

You may boink other people regularly and still call yourself a virgin, but that won't make you one.,
No True Scotsman again. Saying, "Those people aren't real Christians" is not a valid argument to counter the fact that Christians are burning people alive in 2013.
 
Southerners also relied on the bible for their defense of slavery - you know, the part about slaves obeying their masters.

You seem to be confused between the old and new Testaments here. In order to defame Jesus you'll have to do it using his quotes. Do you understand, for example, that the words Christian and Christianity comes from Jesus Christ?
 
Nonsense. I show you Christians burning people alive and you say those aren't Christians. Now that's denial. :)

Where did they claim to be Christians? I never saw that,
No True Scotsman again. Saying, "Those people aren't real Christians" is not a valid argument to counter the fact that Christians are burning people alive in 2013.

So you believe that Christ told people to burn witches? Please provide a link.
 
Where did they claim to be Christians? I never saw that,

the headline.

So you believe that Christ told people to burn witches? Please provide a link.
where did I imply anything along those lines? Christ never told anyone to destroy heretics either, getting back the the 2000 years ago reference you made, which began this stretch of the debate.
 
Back
Top Bottom