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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX


It's always fun to see Muslim apologists proudly point out that "harmless" Muslims even slaughter one another in great numbers

Christians have been around for nearly twice as long as Muslims, and as a rule do not slaughter everyone they come in contact with the way Muslims often do

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX


It's always fun to see Muslim apologists proudly point out that "harmless" Muslims even slaughter one another in great numbers

Christians have been around for nearly twice as long as Muslims, and as a rule do not slaughter everyone they come in contact with the way Muslims often do

You are correct, slaughter was not one of the things that Christians did when meeting indigenous people....

Enslaving, yes, all one has to do is look at the history of the Spanish Conquests of the new world, as well as their Imperial expansion in Africa and Asia...

Not o mention exploitation of natural resources AND keeping the indigenous peoples in poverty, but then there was those few incidents such as their actions with the Aztecs and Incas....

And there was the peaceful expansion of the United States westward with all the Christian love for others as exemplified at Sand Creek Colorado and Wounded Knee among others.

And then there was the programs of Americanization that the elected officials of the US Government came up with (elected by Christians I will point out) that took native American children from their families, put them in boarding schools where they were punished for speaking their own language or practicing their customs (the last of these schools closed a very long time ago, 1965)

But then there was the US government policy of eradication of Native American peoples by either forced relocation (Trail of Tears) and just about every reservation west of the Mississippi, where Native Americans were told to become farmers on land that was not suited for farming.

Reservations where the supplied meat (by the government) was almost always rancid and rotting, along with whiskey, blankets that were more like cheese clothe and other wonderful items for their comfort.

All of these actions in a country with the motto on its currency "In God We Trust."

A country where there were 634 Treaties made with the Native American peoples and the US Government broke 598 of them, many within two years of them being signed.

You are entirely right, Christian base European colonialism and Empire building did not slaughter indigenous people (which would have been merciful, when looking at the millions who died as a result of enslavement and enforced poverty) they did much worse.

But the US is improving.

In 1960, for every dollar spent on urban development and schools in the United States, two cents was spent on similar programs on reservations.

In 2010, for every dollar spent on schools in the rest of the country, 35 cents was spent on reservations. For every dollar contributed by the federal government for building and upgrading hospitals in the country, 14 cents was spent on reservations.

The average health clinic on a reservation is equipped with diagnostic equipment deemed obsolete and usually 4 technological generations out of date. Staph infections contracted during treatment is 40 times higher at a native American clinic than any other similar function facility in the US.

Revenues from natural resources found on Indian lands do not go to the tribes, but to the Federal government, and placed in a fund administered by the BIA to be distributed as it sees fit, so money from oil, gold or other resource that could build modern schools, hospitals and housing that meets the minimum federal standards is instead held 'in trust' which means the government can borrow it to use on any fucking thing it desires.

But you are right, countries established by Christian founded Empires or evolving from colonies founded by 'Christians' do not go out of their way to slaughter subjugated people.

No, countries populated by a majority of Christians do not go into wholesale slaughter of native peoples, it would eliminate a pool of cheap labor. And, 200 plus years later, they do not do a fucking thing to improve the lot of the peoples they subjugated.

Hence the hyprocisy of the US government decrying the human rights violations of other countries while turning a blind eye to the violations within our own borders.

No, the US is not a 'Christian' government, but it is made up of elected officials, the majority of which profess to be Christians and claim to hold Christian values.

And anyone that says the US flag is not stained with the blood of millions of Native Americans outright killed by the military or state militias flying that flag and the continued failure to accept that it is an ongoing process is no better than the Muslims who become terrorists, or the Muslim conquerors who actually killed the people they conquered.

Christian populated countries did it on the installment plan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

read 2 timothy 3:16-17

at the same time, preaching from the old testament is not de facto an admonition to "follow" it.

quote:


attempts to create a sort of moral equivalency between the old testament for Christians, and what the Koran is for many muslims, are just plain wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX
Christians believe that Jesus nullified the Old Testament,

Really??? So all those Christians who quote Deuteronomy at queers are wrong? That's Old Testament isn't it? And all those self identified Christians who believe in the Biblical injunction "An eye for an eye ...." and use it to justify the death penalty aren't Christians in your book? All those Christians who assert that the entire Bible is the unvarnished word of God are wrong? There are millions of them. They're called fundamentalists and/or literalists and there's lots of them about.
Every religion has its lunatic fundamentalists, and they all sound insane to me. But there's no reason to single one religion out and insist that the fundamentalists' interpretation of that religion is the only valid one. If I were to do that about Christians you would rightly criticise me.
So I don't see any reason why only Muslims are subjected to this inane approach and Christian fundamentalists get off scot free - except bigotry.

Not to mention the fact that in churches all across the country preachers still preach from the Old Testament. It's still taught in Sunday school classes. And yes, still cited by many Christmas as the basis for their beliefs about social issues. So that argument is BS.
It's not from the New testament that we get all those "hellfire and brimstone" sermons that so many Christians are brought up on.

Really?

http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Brimstone

14 occurrences of "brimstone." 6 are in Revelations (the rest are Old Testament).

http://bible.knowing-jesus.com/phrases/Lake-of-Fire

6 occurrences of "Lake of Fire." All are in Revelations.

There were 641 uses of the word "Fire." Not all of them had anything to do with "Fire and Brimstone" preaching.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


If you want me to defend the treatment of the American Indian you are barking up the wrong tree.
However how far back do you have to go to find a case.
On the other hand how far back do you have to go to find a riot because a black person got shot by the police, how far back do you have to go to find a cop murdered because of this, even less.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


If you want me to defend the treatment of the American Indian you are barking up the wrong tree.
However how far back do you have to go to find a case.
On the other hand how far back do you have to go to find a riot because a black person got shot by the police, how far back do you have to go to find a cop murdered because of this, even less.

Not that I was addressing you, I was addressing that pompous ass known as Bosco.

But to answer your question...

How far back do I have to go to find a case?

How about the last Federal Budget?

13.5 cents to improve schools on reservations for every 5 dollars spent elsewhere in the country.

Or the infamous Affordable Care Act, which failed completely to address the fact that there are no proper medical facilities on reservations.

Or the 124 unsolved murders on the Pine Ridge Reservation from the 1970's, including the one where a FEDERAL medical examiner stated the victim died of exposure... with a large gunshot wound to the back of her head.

Then there is the little known but still blaring fact that any group with the purpose of Native American Rights falls onto the Department of Justice list of subversive or militant organizations?

But you are correct, there have not been any riots over the death of indians on reservations. That stopped in the 70's after the occupation of Wounded Knee by AIM supporters. When AIM leader's homes have fire bombs tossed through windows and they get to bury family that died in the fire, it tends to change how they worked.

Of course, there is still a man in federal prison, convicted of the murder of two FBI agents, in a trial that had a prosecutor say in his closing statement, "we cannot prove the defendant fired the shots that killed the agents, we cannot prove he held the weapon that killed the agents, but two agents are dead and someone has to pay."

No, American indians are not routinely killed by white cops, they have tendency to die of alcoholism, infections caught in unsanitary health clinics, poor living conditions due to zero funding for proper housing.

And instead of rioting or militant acts, they are now trying to work by electing people to congress, to change things.

To be honest, I think they should go back to the militant acts, at least they might get a few headlines looking at the average living conditions on most reservations.

And the cases are not near as headline grabbing as a unarmed black man killed by a white cop, or a white cop ambushed by person or persons unknown, or a bunch of fucking idiots rioting in their own neighborhoods burning down businesses owned by their neighbors trying to teach white america a lesson.

Which is exactly what happened both times in LA, in Ferguson MO and Baltimore. The rioters did not go to white neighborhoods to burn and loot, they did it in their own.

Really taught the white establishment a lesson.

Seriously Bama, burning down businesses owned by members of your own community makes about as much sense as if you decided to shoot yourself in the head to teach the asshole that stole your parking place a lesson.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

quote:


attempts to create a sort of moral equivalency between the old testament for Christians, and what the Koran is for many muslims, are just plain wrong.

Direct your comment elsewhere. My post was in response to the comment about the Old Testament being nullified in Christianity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Then you're little better than they are. At least you're not calling for killing them. Any Muslim, of any denomination, has the same basic religious rights than any other religious follower has in the US.
How can you not understand that? You can stomp your feet all you want. Cross your arms, stick that lower lip out, and pout in the corner all you want. We aren't changing the Constitution to massage your delusions. The majority of those that follow Islam in the US aren't bloodthirsty stark raving mad lunatics hellbent on killing "infidels." If they are here and aren't breaking any of our laws, then there is no legal consequence we can visit upon them. What happens in other countries doesn't determine how we treat people here.
I don't want to "import" anyone, regardless of their religion, ethnicity, or intellect. I agree we have to have a robust immigration system to prevent those that would do us harm from getting the opportunity to do so within our borders.

Before you go screaming down Howler Lane, point out where I advocated taking away anyone's "right" to be a member of a bloodthirsty cult (which frankly, isn't a bad idea, as the Constitution was never meant to be a suicide pact).
What I wrote is, common sense would dictate that we cease importing them in mass quantities

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

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.

Problem with this idea is that there has been no case of white violence over a police shooting.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

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

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.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

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.

Problem with this idea is that there has been no case of white violence over a police shooting.

There's an adage that I can find no quote attribution for, but, it goes something like this: "There's a first time for everything." This could be that first time. Just because there haven't been any violent responses over a (Somali) police officer shooting a white person doesn't mean this can't be a case of a white person acting out violently against a mosque where there is a multitude of Somalis in the congregation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Of course if you wish to judge people by their adherence to a particular book, we must apply the same standard to all:

" In 2 Kings 10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshippers of a different god in their very own church! In total God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered

The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 & Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9)."
http://www.evilbible.com/

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX


Were it an attack by a non-Muslim, odds are that it was personal rather than ideological

By that I mean, Westerners don't blow up other religions. They just don't. I could see this as revenge though, or someone trying to keep their neighborhood or their homeland safe from a notoriously bloodthirsty cult

That's not the same as what Muslims do, when they persecute others. When Muslims do it, they do it for Allah, and to further the goal of establishing a worldwide caliphate

Which has been their goal all along. Why they have slaughtered the estimated 200 - 300 million (and counting) non-believers that they have so far

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

FR

I think the worst thing about this nobody saw who did it. Hope they got street cams who can identify the suspect.

I want to know who did it! And why.