RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota

RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

WhoreMods -> RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota (8/10/2017 7:00:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul However, going back to the original statement that prompted my comment, do you believe that Christianity has nullified the Old Testament? Christians really should, particularly as where Christ's message conflicts with the refitted chunks of the talmud stuck on the front of the gospels somebody claiming our Lord and saviour as their moral guru should favour him over the alternative suggestions offered elsewhere in the bible. Of course, alleged "christians" who don't know the sermon on the mount from a hole in the ground feel that anything Christ is supposed to have said is far less important than a few lines of Leviticus that seem to support some of their secular prejudices. Bit depressing, really.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota (8/10/2017 8:24:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Yes there is a first time for everything. However that is no reason to assume that is the case. There has never been a Amish terror attack, are we to assume that is what happened? I am asking that we get some proof before accusing people. Note I haven't accused rival Moslems either. I'm completely with you. I didn't accuse anyone. Pointing out that it could have been someone (never mentioned skin color, did I?) acting violently against a mosque with a relatively large Somali presence in the congregation in the same general area where a Somali police officer shot and killed a white woman (it might not even matter that she was white, yanno) from inside the police vehicle, across his partner's body doesn't automatically mean I'm blaming a white person for the crime. To answer your question, I don't think we can assume it was an Amish terror attack, but, if there is enough of an Amish presence in the area, and there is a realistic possibility of a motive, then we can't rule out an Amish terror attack either, can we?

WhoreMods -> RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota (8/10/2017 8:31:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri To answer your question, I don't think we can assume it was an Amish terror attack, but, if there is enough of an Amish presence in the area, and there is a realistic possibility of a motive, then we can't rule out an Amish terror attack either, can we? I'm not sure a bombing would fit with the institutionalised luddism the Amish are notorious for? Running over a few moslems with a horse and buggy (or, depending on the sect, a tractor), or a drive by shooting with flintlocks would be a better fit for Amish terrorism...

DesideriScuri -> RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota (8/10/2017 8:35:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul That was a reference to a style of preaching and evangelicalism, not to sermons that specifically reference those terms. It is a hallmark of some denominations, especially in the South. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_and_brimstone I know exactly what you were referencing. Even your own link states this (emphasis mine): quote: Fire and brimstone (or, alternatively, brimstone and fire, translated from the Hebrew גפרית ואש) is an idiomatic expression of signs of God's wrath in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and the New Testament. I can see how you may have missed it, as it was buried in the very first sentence. My point, which you missed, was that "Fire and Brimstone" is in both the Old and New Testament. As most preachers base their sermons on Scripture and/or their interpretation of scripture, your assertion that fire and brimstone preachers are basing their sermons on the Old Testament is called into question. I realize that it does not completely exclude the New Testament. But after 45 years of sitting in the pews of various denominations, I can tell you from first hand experience that much of the imagery that is referenced in these types of sermons comes from the stories of the Old Testament. The God of the Old Testament is a very different one than That of the New Testament. The Old Testament is full of God's wrath and punishment for those who have angered Him. The God of the New Testament is love and sunshine and forgiveness (not entirely, granted, but much more so than that of the Old Testament). And every "fire and brimstone" style sermon I've heard is based more on the Book of Revelations. quote: However, going back to the original statement that prompted my comment, do you believe that Christianity has nullified the Old Testament? Nullified? No. But, Christ was a yuge game-changer. The rules changed, but not everything no longer applies.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota (8/10/2017 8:38:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri To answer your question, I don't think we can assume it was an Amish terror attack, but, if there is enough of an Amish presence in the area, and there is a realistic possibility of a motive, then we can't rule out an Amish terror attack either, can we? I'm not sure a bombing would fit with the institutionalised luddism the Amish are notorious for? Running over a few moslems with a horse and buggy (or, depending on the sect, a tractor), or a drive by shooting with flintlocks would be a better fit for Amish terrorism... Agreed, but it still can't be ruled out. I know Bama was trying to make a point to not just jump to conclusions (let's just ignore in this post that I hadn't jumped to any conclusions), but by his very example, he was jumping to a conclusion.

Lucylastic -> RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota (8/10/2017 8:56:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul That was a reference to a style of preaching and evangelicalism, not to sermons that specifically reference those terms. It is a hallmark of some denominations, especially in the South. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_and_brimstone I know exactly what you were referencing. Even your own link states this (emphasis mine): quote: Fire and brimstone (or, alternatively, brimstone and fire, translated from the Hebrew גפרית ואש) is an idiomatic expression of signs of God's wrath in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and the New Testament. I can see how you may have missed it, as it was buried in the very first sentence. My point, which you missed, was that "Fire and Brimstone" is in both the Old and New Testament. As most preachers base their sermons on Scripture and/or their interpretation of scripture, your assertion that fire and brimstone preachers are basing their sermons on the Old Testament is called into question. I realize that it does not completely exclude the New Testament. But after 45 years of sitting in the pews of various denominations, I can tell you from first hand experience that much of the imagery that is referenced in these types of sermons comes from the stories of the Old Testament. The God of the Old Testament is a very different one than That of the New Testament. The Old Testament is full of God's wrath and punishment for those who have angered Him. The God of the New Testament is love and sunshine and forgiveness (not entirely, granted, but much more so than that of the Old Testament). However, going back to the original statement that prompted my comment, do you believe that Christianity has nullified the Old Testament? My question is Which particular sects of christianity has nullified the OT???

BamaD -> RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota (8/10/2017 9:09:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Yes there is a first time for everything. However that is no reason to assume that is the case. There has never been a Amish terror attack, are we to assume that is what happened? I am asking that we get some proof before accusing people. Note I haven't accused rival Moslems either. I'm completely with you. I didn't accuse anyone. Pointing out that it could have been someone (never mentioned skin color, did I?) acting violently against a mosque with a relatively large Somali presence in the congregation in the same general area where a Somali police officer shot and killed a white woman (it might not even matter that she was white, yanno) from inside the police vehicle, across his partner's body doesn't automatically mean I'm blaming a white person for the crime. To answer your question, I don't think we can assume it was an Amish terror attack, but, if there is enough of an Amish presence in the area, and there is a realistic possibility of a motive, then we can't rule out an Amish terror attack either, can we? We can't assume it was anyone. Your statements seem to implicate white people. Who else would be getting revenge for that totally unjustifiable shooting? It sure wouldn't be BLM, she was white so they don't care. Maybe a bunch of Australians came over to get even? Any connections with that shooting are tenuous at best (at the present) and would be a terrible development. If white people start taking the law into their own hands before a ruling is even out like BLM and Moslems civilization may be doomed.

Wayward5oul -> RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota (8/10/2017 10:38:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul That was a reference to a style of preaching and evangelicalism, not to sermons that specifically reference those terms. It is a hallmark of some denominations, especially in the South. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_and_brimstone I know exactly what you were referencing. Even your own link states this (emphasis mine): quote: Fire and brimstone (or, alternatively, brimstone and fire, translated from the Hebrew גפרית ואש) is an idiomatic expression of signs of God's wrath in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and the New Testament. I can see how you may have missed it, as it was buried in the very first sentence. My point, which you missed, was that "Fire and Brimstone" is in both the Old and New Testament. As most preachers base their sermons on Scripture and/or their interpretation of scripture, your assertion that fire and brimstone preachers are basing their sermons on the Old Testament is called into question. I realize that it does not completely exclude the New Testament. But after 45 years of sitting in the pews of various denominations, I can tell you from first hand experience that much of the imagery that is referenced in these types of sermons comes from the stories of the Old Testament. The God of the Old Testament is a very different one than That of the New Testament. The Old Testament is full of God's wrath and punishment for those who have angered Him. The God of the New Testament is love and sunshine and forgiveness (not entirely, granted, but much more so than that of the Old Testament). However, going back to the original statement that prompted my comment, do you believe that Christianity has nullified the Old Testament? My question is Which particular sects of christianity has nullified the OT??? None.

BoscoX -> RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota (8/10/2017 10:44:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul That was a reference to a style of preaching and evangelicalism, not to sermons that specifically reference those terms. It is a hallmark of some denominations, especially in the South. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_and_brimstone I know exactly what you were referencing. Even your own link states this (emphasis mine): quote: Fire and brimstone (or, alternatively, brimstone and fire, translated from the Hebrew גפרית ואש) is an idiomatic expression of signs of God's wrath in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and the New Testament. I can see how you may have missed it, as it was buried in the very first sentence. My point, which you missed, was that "Fire and Brimstone" is in both the Old and New Testament. As most preachers base their sermons on Scripture and/or their interpretation of scripture, your assertion that fire and brimstone preachers are basing their sermons on the Old Testament is called into question. I realize that it does not completely exclude the New Testament. But after 45 years of sitting in the pews of various denominations, I can tell you from first hand experience that much of the imagery that is referenced in these types of sermons comes from the stories of the Old Testament. The God of the Old Testament is a very different one than That of the New Testament. The Old Testament is full of God's wrath and punishment for those who have angered Him. The God of the New Testament is love and sunshine and forgiveness (not entirely, granted, but much more so than that of the Old Testament). However, going back to the original statement that prompted my comment, do you believe that Christianity has nullified the Old Testament? My question is Which particular sects of christianity has nullified the OT??? None. From Mathew: Eye for Eye 38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. Love for Enemies 43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor' and 'hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. But you are far too stupid and insane to understand such simple words

Greta75 -> RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota (8/10/2017 10:49:30 AM)
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. Yup, that's Jesus right there, contradicting the old testament and as I said, Jesus was trying to reform Christianity into something nicer and kinder. Damn Muhammad came after Jesus and tries to say Jesus teachings isn't accurate and brought back the old testament in the form of his Quran. Seriously, historically, sequence of events. I can't see how Islam was ever accepted as a nice religion ever. We all gotta agree the old testament was horrible.

WhoreMods -> RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota (8/10/2017 11:18:12 AM)
Ecclesiastes is quite nice: there's some good stuff in there.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota (8/10/2017 12:04:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Yes there is a first time for everything. However that is no reason to assume that is the case. There has never been a Amish terror attack, are we to assume that is what happened? I am asking that we get some proof before accusing people. Note I haven't accused rival Moslems either. I'm completely with you. I didn't accuse anyone. Pointing out that it could have been someone (never mentioned skin color, did I?) acting violently against a mosque with a relatively large Somali presence in the congregation in the same general area where a Somali police officer shot and killed a white woman (it might not even matter that she was white, yanno) from inside the police vehicle, across his partner's body doesn't automatically mean I'm blaming a white person for the crime. To answer your question, I don't think we can assume it was an Amish terror attack, but, if there is enough of an Amish presence in the area, and there is a realistic possibility of a motive, then we can't rule out an Amish terror attack either, can we? We can't assume it was anyone. What you don't get is that my only assumption, is that it was someone. I truly don't believe no one did it. I truly believe it happened. That is my only assumption. quote: Your statements seem to implicate white people. Who else would be getting revenge for that totally unjustifiable shooting? It sure wouldn't be BLM, she was white so they don't care. Maybe a bunch of Australians came over to get even? Any connections with that shooting are tenuous at best (at the present) and would be a terrible development. If white people start taking the law into their own hands before a ruling is even out like BLM and Moslems civilization may be doomed. So, let's start over. This is the post where you seem to think I assumed the person that committed the crime was white (Post#146): quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 Question is, who did the bombing? And over what motive? I did read an article that stated (don't recall which article I read off the Yahoo! News feed, so this may or may not be true) this mosque had a large number of Somali's in the congregation. Since the cop that shot the woman through the cruiser door was Somali, this might have something to do with why it was bombed. Again, that might all be hearsay, or it might be true. I don't know. I read it off the Yahoo! News feed. I acknowledge it may or may not be true. I stated the article claimed there were a large number of Somali's in the congregation. I showed how that information and that the cop was Somali might have something to do with the bombing. Notice: might have I end acknowledging it could all be hearsay, or it could all be true, and that I didn't know. Nowhere in there did I mention that it was a white person, that I assumed it was a white person, or that I was making the assumption that the article's claims were even accurate. I even fucking stated that the article's claims may or may not be true. TWICE! Now, maybe you mistook what someone else said as something I said. I know that can happen. I've even done it. I'm going to go ahead and assume this is the case. I know what I wrote. I know you're accusing me of things that I didn't state, nor imply. Based on those two things, I'm just going to assume you have mistaken what someone else wrote as coming from me.

BamaD -> RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota (8/10/2017 1:15:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Yes there is a first time for everything. However that is no reason to assume that is the case. There has never been a Amish terror attack, are we to assume that is what happened? I am asking that we get some proof before accusing people. Note I haven't accused rival Moslems either. I'm completely with you. I didn't accuse anyone. Pointing out that it could have been someone (never mentioned skin color, did I?) acting violently against a mosque with a relatively large Somali presence in the congregation in the same general area where a Somali police officer shot and killed a white woman (it might not even matter that she was white, yanno) from inside the police vehicle, across his partner's body doesn't automatically mean I'm blaming a white person for the crime. To answer your question, I don't think we can assume it was an Amish terror attack, but, if there is enough of an Amish presence in the area, and there is a realistic possibility of a motive, then we can't rule out an Amish terror attack either, can we? We can't assume it was anyone. What you don't get is that my only assumption, is that it was someone. I truly don't believe no one did it. I truly believe it happened. That is my only assumption. quote: Your statements seem to implicate white people. Who else would be getting revenge for that totally unjustifiable shooting? It sure wouldn't be BLM, she was white so they don't care. Maybe a bunch of Australians came over to get even? Any connections with that shooting are tenuous at best (at the present) and would be a terrible development. If white people start taking the law into their own hands before a ruling is even out like BLM and Moslems civilization may be doomed. So, let's start over. This is the post where you seem to think I assumed the person that committed the crime was white (Post#146): quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 Question is, who did the bombing? And over what motive? I did read an article that stated (don't recall which article I read off the Yahoo! News feed, so this may or may not be true) this mosque had a large number of Somali's in the congregation. Since the cop that shot the woman through the cruiser door was Somali, this might have something to do with why it was bombed. Again, that might all be hearsay, or it might be true. I don't know. I read it off the Yahoo! News feed. I acknowledge it may or may not be true. I stated the article claimed there were a large number of Somali's in the congregation. I showed how that information and that the cop was Somali might have something to do with the bombing. Notice: might have I end acknowledging it could all be hearsay, or it could all be true, and that I didn't know. Nowhere in there did I mention that it was a white person, that I assumed it was a white person, or that I was making the assumption that the article's claims were even accurate. I even fucking stated that the article's claims may or may not be true. TWICE! Now, maybe you mistook what someone else said as something I said. I know that can happen. I've even done it. I'm going to go ahead and assume this is the case. I know what I wrote. I know you're accusing me of things that I didn't state, nor imply. Based on those two things, I'm just going to assume you have mistaken what someone else wrote as coming from me. Ok, np.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota (8/10/2017 4:15:35 PM)
FR Am i the only one who finds it hilarious that the Tightie Righties are all so desperately pointing out that there is no proof it was a white person who did it, and yet not one of them has said a word against the attack itself. Looks like they don't actually disapprove of bombing a mosque, they just disapprove of anybody suggesting it might have been a white person behind the attack. Racist? nah, not at all.

BoscoX -> RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota (8/10/2017 4:24:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick Racist? nah, not at all. Islam isn't a race, idiot It's a cult. What are we supposed to condemn. How do you know it wasn't just an accident in vest-making class

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota (8/10/2017 4:37:08 PM)
quote: Islam isn't a race, idiot I made no mention of Islam, idiot. Please try to pay attention.

BamaD -> RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota (8/10/2017 4:53:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick FR Am i the only one who finds it hilarious that the Tightie Righties are all so desperately pointing out that there is no proof it was a white person who did it, and yet not one of them has said a word against the attack itself. Looks like they don't actually disapprove of bombing a mosque, they just disapprove of anybody suggesting it might have been a white person behind the attack. Racist? nah, not at all. Again you don't read to well. I have repeatedly that I want to know who did it so we condemn the right people. And it is treated as bad by your ilk because those horrible white people did it.

BamaD -> RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota (8/10/2017 4:54:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick FR Am i the only one who finds it hilarious that the Tightie Righties are all so desperately pointing out that there is no proof it was a white person who did it, and yet not one of them has said a word against the attack itself. Looks like they don't actually disapprove of bombing a mosque, they just disapprove of anybody suggesting it might have been a white person behind the attack. Racist? nah, not at all. I disapprove of assuming it must be white people, when you have no proof.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota (8/10/2017 8:20:09 PM)
quote: And it is treated as bad by your ilk because those horrible white people did it. That's where you are wrong, I have said nothing about who may or may not have done it, I have just mocked you for your rabid defense of white people, even though hardly anybody has blamed them, you continue to defend them oh so vociferously. Methinks perhaps the lady doth protest way too fucking much here. And I also mocked Bosco's obvious and pathetic attempt to justify the attack You really need to pay far more attention here Bama, you are making an absolute idiot of yourself by making shit up. But your blatant incompetence when it comes to following an online discussion is really fucking funny, so I thank you for that, and hereby officially award you the title of Chucklebunny.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Terrorist attack in Minnesota (8/11/2017 9:30:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick FR Am i the only one who finds it hilarious that the Tightie Righties are all so desperately pointing out that there is no proof it was a white person who did it, and yet not one of them has said a word against the attack itself. Looks like they don't actually disapprove of bombing a mosque, they just disapprove of anybody suggesting it might have been a white person behind the attack. Racist? nah, not at all. I was accused of assuming it was a white person, which I didn't do. I didn't assume the race of the bomber in any way shape or form. Nowhere have I stated there was no attack. In fact, I affirmed that I believe it did happen and that my only assumption of the bomber, was that it was someone.

Page: << < prev 7 8 9 [10] 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625