Originally posted by Facee
@ ms warehouseI'm thinking because an AK fires 700 rounds per minute. I mean if the killer sets himself up near the exit/ entry way I don't see how they could get to him without being shot.
But he wasn't. He was going around room to room. You see people hiding in the bathroom sending goodbye texts. You would totally have a point if he stood in one location and just fired, but he was moving.
Originally posted by Lestov16
So just talk about the political Islamic aspect and ignore the political homophobic aspect. Just dehumanize Muslims to ignore the pervasive religious dehumanization of homosexuals. I see....
You just tried de humanizing Christians, and blamed them for this, hypocritical much?
Ironic we are trying to explain to lestov this guy was a terrorist while he idolizes terrorists and hijackers.
Originally posted by MS Warehouse
That's such a liberal mindset. You're wanting to find out if there is personal responsibility or societal factors? Come on, really?Also, nobody has asked this but I am really wondering how 1 guy could do this? It was a club with hundreds of people and I know there's panic and confusion, but how does 1 guy meet no resistance? How does 1 guy at one point hold 20+ people hostage? It's a legitimate question because I don't understand how that can happen.
Obviously it's personal responsibility. I'm just curious whether it's because he was at the mosque too many times or maybe his daddy beat him. I would like to know just how much religion played a part. You call it "a liberal mindset". I call it "Psychologically analyzing a terrorist". You guys just want to be like "stamp this one as a Muslim attack and let's move on" when there are so many social issues that this attack exposes for scrutiny.
Yea and I am sure you would have the exact same opinion if he was a white male. Then he would be a biggot, racist, homophobe.
Im going to find the quote of you saying "why whenever a white person kills someone its mental illness"
You are such a hypocrite. I can't even believe people here have not figured you out yet.
The word is out on you, your gay and your dad is Muslim, so you are never going to blame Islam.
Originally posted by Lestov16
So we are blaming Abrahamic religion now? Is religious homophobia a factor or not? I'm getting confused here. Nib says it has nothing to do with religion whereas you say it has everything to do with religion. Which is it?
Two different people said something different so why are you asking me which is it like I'm secretly the other poster? I am blaming religion in the sense that there are parts of it you can interpret that are hateful. If you are raised in this environment you will most likely have similar views, right?
Originally posted by Lestov16
So you're saying this then:My question really boils down to this: If the Bible makers of the world decided to print new bibles, and all of these bibles were to have Leviticus 20:13 removed from print, would this be accepted? Same thing with the Quran and it's violent verses on infidels and such. And if it is not acceptable, then the question becomes are those scriptures inherently intolerant?
Essentially I'm bringing in a question of whether subjective interpretation or dogmatic fundamentalism is the "proper" way to practice a religion. What matters more? The scripture itself or the interpretation of the individual reading it?
I mean you are a Christian and you clearly aren't homophobic, so that means you, the Pope, and all other tolerant Christians are ignoring the Leviticus passage. You have mentally retconned the Bible so it could fit your beliefs. So clearly your interpretation is prioritized over the scripture. In that case, does the scripture even matter? Do you need a bible to believe in God? Because while you may have cosmological beliefs based on the Bible, the fact that you retconned the intolerant parts means you don't believe in it fully. IOW, you, and everybody else technically is following their own self made religion, their own personal connection to God based on whatever belief system they believe is best to get there. These beliefs vary for every person, only comparable based on the Holy Book they used a foundation of those beliefs. But, as stated, at the end of the day the scripture of that Holy Book is just mentally retconned to fit the thoughts of the believer. So is the Holy Book even necessary?
Not that this is a rhetorical rant, meant to pose questions about topics. This isn't a versus battle. If you disagree, please state your reasoning rather than devolving into personal attacks and flaming. This terrorist attack has opened up a Pandora's box of complex issues. No reason for things to become a trollfest
It is for the Church (and those tasked with determining w/c passages are canon) to decide what to keep in the books.
And no, SJWs pressuring the Church to remove passages they don't like is something I would vehemently oppose. The same way I would oppose censorship, the removal of the individual's freedom of expression and book burning. Because such a thing would be equivalent to those 3.
I'm a Catholic, not a Christian. There is actually a difference, you know.
And the error here is that you are trying to justify belief within a logical framework. Faith in an emotional connection. I could go on but I really don't like the entire premise of your inquiry. And the problem I have with your questioning is that you're asking me to justify my faith to you. I wonder how offended you'd be if someone asked you to justify your sexual orientation to them and they attempt to use cold logic and science to try to prove to you how "flawed" your choices are. I bet it wouldn't take 2 seconds for you to be calling that person a bigot.
I wasn't "flaming". If you keep doing bigot-things, you'll get called a bigot. That's just reality. The best way to stop being called a bigot is to stop saying bigot things. That is actually a no-brainer. And I also have already stated repeatedly where your reasoning went wrong in just about everything, how much further do I need to explain things?
Seriously, dude. Bada already stated for us to drop it.
So drop it.
Nib why are you even wasting your time trying to explain crayons to an incompetent bias mess like this. The bag is out on this guy, he's gay and his dad is muslim, He aint ever going to blame islam. He's going to blame white christians and catholics, he wont answer the questions, and everything up to this point has been wrong and or spinning of the truth or just flat out lies. He tried to say that this was the same as kim davis. He then said Trump wants to ban same sex marriage, which he said the exact opposite.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Nib why are you even wasting your time trying to explain crayons to an incompetent bias mess like this. The bag is out on this guy, he's gay and his dad is muslim, He aint ever going to blame islam.
That would be my last reply, Bada made it clear. Heading back to the MVS forum to relax my head.
This is why I don't really post much in the GDF. The issues are fascinating but a LOT kinda hits too close to home.
So this is blamed on Islam, the barbaric religion of pure evil. Ok then. How is that going to be resolved? Omar was a naturally born US citizen. Anti immigration policing won't be applicable and anti-religious policing would be unconstitutional. So how do we solve the problem of the big bad Muslims?
Originally posted by Lestov16
So this is blamed on Islam, the barbaric religion of pure evil. Ok then. How is that going to be resolved? Omar was a naturally born US citizen. Anti immigration policing won't be applicable and anti-religious policing would be unconstitutional. So how do we solve the problem of the big bad Muslims?
We don't. We don't do it with Trump's Muslim ban and we don't do it with Hilary's "love and kindness" rhetoric. This whole "preach love" nonsense has never worked so I'm not sure why everyone's flooding their FB with it. Obviously it's something in the middle.
Personally I think the U.S. needs to take a stance. I don't like Trump, but one thing he said that I agree with is that we need to start putting embargoes on places like Saudi Arabia, regardless of geopolitical consequences. The longer the western world supports theocracies, the more Islam will be twisted into a cult of barbarism. Also too, as TI said, mosque leaders should make more effort at espousing virtue rather than dogma to their followers.
Ultimately though, humans want everyone else to change but will do nothing to change themselves. I feel this stubbornness will be the fall of humanity.
If Hilary is elected that will never happen. But your still going to vote for her anyways so it doesn't matter what you just posted, its almost worthless text, cause you are going to vote for someone who takes money from SA. So by voting for Hilary you are voting for a cult or barbarism which you just spoke against. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
If Hilary is elected that will never happen. But your still going to vote for her anyways so it doesn't matter what you just posted, its almost worthless text, cause you are going to vote for someone who takes money from SA. So by voting for Hilary you are voting for a cult or barbarism which you just spoke against. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Bada just said stop turning this political, did you not get the memo?
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial Say what you mean, and mean what you say.
Originally posted by Lestov16
Personally I think the U.S. needs to take a stance. I don't like Trump, but one thing he said that I agree with is that we need to start putting embargoes on places like Saudi Arabia, regardless of geopolitical consequences. The longer the western world supports theocracies, the more Islam will be twisted into a cult of barbarism. Also too, as TI said, mosque leaders should make more effort at espousing virtue rather than dogma to their followers.Ultimately though, humans want everyone else to change but will do nothing to change themselves. I feel this stubbornness will be the fall of humanity.
Nice try, you turned this political again with your last post, do you think you get to say whatever you want and not be called out on it?
Originally posted by Lestov16
Personally I think the U.S. needs to take a stance. I don't like Trump,
Right here, nice try.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
If Hilary is elected that will never happen. But your still going to vote for her anyways so it doesn't matter what you just posted, its almost worthless text, cause you are going to vote for someone who takes money from SA. So by voting for Hilary you are voting for a cult or barbarism which you just spoke against. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.
This isn't ad holmium, quit lying.