jump to last post 1-37 of 37 discussions (565 posts)

Do Christian fundamentalists and ISIS have anything in common?

  1. Pam Ryan profile image59
    Pam Ryanposted 2 years ago

    Sometimes I think radical Islam and radical Christianity have more in common with each other than they do with any of the more moderate or secular belief systems.  All this burning in hell for all eternity and everything. It's evil, isn't it?  Not to put too fine a point on it, what's the difference between this and the stuff you hear coming out of Jihad merchants? Would the rad Christians hesitate to kill people if they thought it might serve their interests? Just asking.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      If history is any guide, they won't hesitate a moment.

      It started with the murder of the gnostics, then the crusades.  The inquisition comes to mind, as does witch burning.  More recent times see the murder of Jews and now we still see an occasional gay killing.

      Radicals are not totally sane, and will stop at nothing to follow the instructions their god has given them.

      1. Pam Ryan profile image59
        Pam Ryanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Could not agree more, wilderness. The whole thing is disturbing.

        1. jackclee lm profile image78
          jackclee lmposted 11 months ago in reply to this

          Could not DISAGREE with you more. Fundamentalist Christians are no way similar to Radical Islamist. How many people do you know that will sacrifice their own lives for a greater glory?

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 11 months ago in reply to this

            You mean like Jonestown, Guyana, 1978? 

            Or do we just say that such Christian whackos aren't Christian, but Muslim whackos are are still Muslim?

      2. PhoenixV profile image79
        PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        If history is a guide, it is far safer to have religions than, atheism.

        What was the final body count by mass murdering atheist pol pot? 3 million?

        What was the final body count by mass murdering atheist joseph stalin? 50 million?

        What was the final body count by mass murdering atheist mao zedong? 50 million?

        We are not talking about military campaigns a - thousand years ago -  in a response to muslim conquests.......mass murdering atheist dictators killed a hundred million human beings in the last approx 75 years.

        Over 100 million human beings in the last 75 -80 years....

        The whole thing is disturbing.

        1. bBerean profile image60
          bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Phoenix, I didn't consider the pathetically sensational and leading OP or like minded post worthy of response, but if they were, then yours was appropriate.  Thank you.

        2. 0
          Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          You've created multiple logical fallacies with this post. Way to much to go into right now, however did these people order the murder of people for religious reasons?

          1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
            oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            This was your response to Phoenix's first post, I believe.  My question on this is, why *would* Mao, Pol Pot, or Stalin order the murder of people for religious reasons?  Fair question though I suppose.

            The answer is telling.  They did it for non religious reasons.  That has been my point, all along.

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Okay so you finally admit that those buffoons and their atrocities had nothing to do with religion or lack thereof? Thanks. Their supposed Atheism was incidental to their atrocities, unlike Hitler...

              1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                So do you think atheism is a religion?  I hadn't realized that if so.  Ok.  Most atheists I come across do not think that.  Most think its a lack of belief, and want nothing to do with religion. 

                Yes, those atrocities were from a lack of religion, lack of belief.  Many atheists like in the OP, like to link the worst atrocities in the world like ISIS, with religion, especially Christianity it seems.  She likely was either forgetting, or didn't know about the secular (aka non religious) incidents Phoenix brought up. 

                In this thread, through historical fact, it was shown how many problems from those leaders/dictators those that have no religion, or a lack of belief, can cause,   In just the last approx 80 years.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Like the admitted Christian Hitler?

                  1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                    oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    In the OP's mind, if she has the similar belief of many atheists and atheist supporters, she was likely already lumping Hitler in with her ISIS charge in her title and OP.  I don't claim to know that for sure.

                    The point of bringing up the secular, non religious mass murderers, is there are so many of them in recent history, and they killed so many.  It shows the illogic of the belief she and many others may hold, seem to hold.  That is, that religion causes so many problems. As if, religion alone causes so many problems. 

                    Non religious people, can also cause a ton of problems, as we all just saw.

        3. oceansnsunsets profile image88
          oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          +1

          Thank you for reminding us of relatively recent events in the not too distant past, of examples of secular belief systems that are far better comparisons to ISIS than Christianity (even Radical Christianity.) 

          I know some don't want reminders of what people can do to millions, in modern history even, if they lack a belief in god and religion.  In other words, the common belief held by so many here on HubPages that Christianity causes such things and is to be compared to such things, is put back in perspective with simple facts and logic.  Their personally held beliefs about Christianity and even hatred for it, won't ever trump the facts.

        4. oceansnsunsets profile image88
          oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          In case some don't know about these mass murdering fellows like Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao, here are some links to just Wikipedia that show their Lenin Marxist leanings/ Communist, etc....  (even very liberal Wikpedia shows this isn't being made up)

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

          Please everyone, learn about these guys, and don't just believe everything you hear.  This is recent history comparatively speaking.  I think we need to all really look inward for the greater benefit to all free people everywhere, no matter what we believe, so we can all live peaceably.  Lying about people matters, propaganda matters, because true evil has desires that can't have such killing so easily accomplished without the deception and lies that create the right climate for it.  If you think it can't happen again, that the religious can't be targeted again to that same degree, then you may be being very naive, sadly. Religious OR non religious need not ever be targeted again like that!  It happened not that long ago really.  It can, and we need to not be so naive, if we are.

      3. EmVeeT profile image80
        EmVeeTposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Interesting. You said, "If history is any guide, they won't hesitate a moment." Who wouldn't hesitate a moment? Those who 'CALL' themselves Christian? Because 'calling oneself by a particular title does not make that title true. Therefore, the proper etiquette would be to give a name to those you have simply called, 'they'. 'They' could be any group of people. Who are 'they'?

        You then say:

        It started with the murder of the gnostics, then the crusades.  The inquisition comes to mind, as does witch burning.  More recent times see the murder of Jews and now we still see an occasional gay killing.

        Who exactly are you referring to? Christians? Or those who use the title in order to defame the ones who follow JESUS? You see, the word 'Christian' was actually formed in mockery of those who follow JESUS. The usage of this title by those who 'kill, steal life from, or destroy' anyone belongs to the 'prince of darkness' not to TRUE followers of JESUS CHRIST.

        You finish by saying:

        Radicals are not totally sane, and will stop at nothing to follow the instructions their god has given them.

        I consider some of the first part of this statement reasonable: "radicals (MAY) not (be) totally sane, and (SOME) will stop at nothing to ..."
        ...here is where the schism in thought is created. Let me explain.

        When you say, 'some will stop at nothing to follow the instructions their god has given them'... if you are trying to articulate that their 'god' has given them the instruction to do indescribable damage, then I hope you are not referring to the God Christians follow, because the God I follow WOULD NOT GIVE such instructions. If, on the other hand, you are referring to the 'god' (small 'g' differentiates correctly) of hatred, whatever god that might be... (depending on the person's faith base) then this might be a fair assumption. Except... please...please tell me you are not referring to The God of The Bible, because to do so would be defamation of character.

        JESUS DIED to SAVE us from humanity's destructions. You may not agree. You may not believe the same. However, this is TRUTH. Those who have done what you say, DID NOT FOLLOW JESUS' TEACHINGS as presented in The Holy Bible.

        The 'god' who promotes such hatred has nothing to do with Christians (TRUE followers of JESUS).  Therefore, while the 'radicals' you mentioned have committed heinous crimes, NONE of those should be truly called, 'Christian'. Those who participated in the murder of humans because the numbers on their side were greater, or the money they made murdering was a blinding temptation, or the position desired came at the price of human bloodshed, were NOT TRUE FOLLOWERS of JESUS, THE MESSIAH.

        Though many leaders have hidden behind political and religious garments, the right to destroy lives in order to keep the position, status or power never belonged to those leaders. In fact, those individuals who have scattered blood in rivers like water, in order to maintain what should never have been theirs, have that blood on their hands now. Imagine.

        Just, please, be kind enough not to call them, "Christian'. Evil undergirded by torturous murder is not according to the instruction of THE LIVING GOD. Such evil is birthed in hell and shall remain there for all eternity.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Would you be so kind to define what a true Christian is? What do they look like? How can one differentiate between a True Christian and a fake one? Do True Christians never kill?

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Forgive me for stepping in here, but I've given this much thought and in the light of what this conversation has taught me there seems to be a very easy answer to your question. Real Christians are those that do their very best to follow the words of Christ, which means they are the ones who when confronted simply turn the other cheek to allow the other side to be slapped as well. Which is unlike those that started to slandering Atheism in order to draw attention away from their lack of ability to turn the other cheek. Unfortunately there seems to be very few examples of real Christians, but the best example I can give is of the true Christian Ghandi and perhaps Mo who is dearly missed in these forums because she turned the other cheek and took a slap from those who think they are real Christians.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, according to that definition I agree there are very, very few True Christians. I'll admit I fail the test.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                well, you seem to very humble and you've been away from here for sometime now, I don't know why but perhaps you've turned the other cheek and are a real Christian.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Sadly by your definition, still no. I'll work on it though smile

                2. PhoenixV profile image79
                  PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I thought you were saying Hitler was a Christian? Are Melissa and Hitler Christians or not?

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                    MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    By his definition neither Hitler nor I are. Are you?

                  2. 0
                    Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm pretty sure I said he was a fundy rather than a real Christian. He like you stated he was a Christian.

                  3. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                    oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    And Mo, was considered one.

                    You and I didn't fare so well, many times over, according to Radman.  Its why I said earlier, I am glad he isn't god.

                    It does make me scratch my chin some though...

            2. PhoenixV profile image79
              PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Petitio Principii. You are assuming atheism ever had a good name to begin with, to slander.

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                It does to atheists. Like Christianity does to Christians and Islam does to Muslims.

          2. bBerean profile image60
            bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Welcome back Melissa.  You mostly stayed away from the forums weeks longer than I expected.  Same question, same answer: http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2484031

            Other than answering your OP in that thread, I barely said a word...but it is a good resource for your perspective as you participated heavily for 47 pages, so if anyone wonders that's a good place to look.  I was going to go into detail or repost my response here, but it isn't really what the OP was about, which I hate to even dignify with a response, (and haven't).

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Thank you bBerean.

              I've come to the conclusion that none of us were ever/ever will be True Christians. I figure I'll laugh at everyone's judgments and occasionally pluck the log from my own eye.

              This thread has made me giggle a lot. I'm under the impression that everyone is so busy trying to figure out who is best that the fact that thousands of people are being killed daily has escaped them. It would be horrible if any of us were of the sort that we would actually do anything about it anyway... but since there are no world-changers to be found in these pages, it's just a fine example of why the world is the way it is.

              I'm sure all the dead people are relieved that someone is fighting on a writer's forum somewhere about the faith of the person that killed them. They are hanging on the edge of their graves waiting to see who wins the giant stuffed bear that show that they are the best on the internet.

              Meanwhile, crazy people continue doing crazy things. No one will take responsibility for them and no one actually wants to lift a finger to do anything but point it at someone else.  The world marches on and so forth.

          3. EmVeeT profile image80
            EmVeeTposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            ... I would truly love to be able to give you a definition of a TRUE Christian... or more simply said, 'a true follower of Christ', but there is a chance my definition may not satisfy. You see, in my estimation, a true follower of CHRIST JESUS is a 'work in progress', continually learning from experience, from life lessons, from betrayals imposed by those closest to them, from anguish that is born in the pits of pain, from despair that can only be met with the hope of THE ONE WHO PROMISES... and in time KEEPS those PROMISES, and from being faithful to the commitment to learn, no matter how much learning HIS TRUTH may cost... no matter how deeply learning may cut.

            ... I have been away from this Forum for a very long time too, Melissa. During this season, the heart of me has been exposed to many intricate life lessons... so that my eyes have been opened to the travesties failure to "be" the person JESUS asks HIS Followers to be have the power to cause. Nevertheless, the many failure(s) I have witnessed/experienced, being proof of the fact that a 'TRUE follower' is a WORK IN PROGRESS, day by day, hour by hour, minute by minute, second by second... especially today, considering the evidence of our living in the last days.

            There has never been greater temptation to be a failure for a True follower of CHRIST JESUS. That is the challenge. However, I have also learned, through experiential anguish and deep-seated joy that when I am weakest, my LORD and KING is STRONG and IS ABLE to keep that which I have dedicated to HIM.

            TRUE Believers in CHRIST do exist; however, every breath has the potential to take such a person in one of two directions. ONLY BY THE GRACE of GOD, and continued hunger for what is good, noble, true, faithful, just and loving can such a person continue to exist. The enemy works 24/7 to kill, steal and destroy. Those who fall for the tactics of overpowering evil, or submit to using tactics that are evil, will never have justification, no matter what name they use to cover their wickedness.

            This may not be an exhaustive definition, by any means; but this is the definition of a TRUE Believer that might be considered fair... GOD's work-in-progress...

            smile

    2. 0
      Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      To be fair there is a rather stark contrast between radical Islam and fundamental Christians. Radical/fundamental Christians are not called to kill those who leave the faith or kill anyone who speaks poorly of the religion or even draws a cartoon. Those are simply bad ideas, where as Christians are called to turn the other cheek. Which of course they don't do, but at least the idea isn't there.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Christianity has grown and developed in the last thousand years, while Islam hasn't.  But the radicals of either religion have not - they remain stuck in the past and refuse to grow.  Because Christianity HAS grown, though, there are far fewer radicals willing to murder (or commit other atrocities) for God.

      2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
        oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        +1 

        Radman, in your comment here you attempt fairness, and I greatly appreciate it.  I haven't yet read your other comments, and lest they make me change my mind, I have to say this is VERY fair of you.  Thank you for that, truly.  That is cool you spoke out against it at least here.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Well thanks Oceans. I don't think it's a fair comparison. I find Phoenix's comments without merit as well, I just wonder why none of the Christians have told him that. If I have the time I'll show him his logical fallacies and why he is saying things that are equally as hatful and ignorant as the original post.

          Right now I'm just waiting to see if someone like yourself will tell him it would have been better to show us why the OP was wrong (as I did) rather than creating more hate speech?

          1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
            oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            How exactly do you think he created more hate speech?  He seemed to be responding with examples from history as Wilderness did, only Phoenix gave more details of who exactly he was talking about, and wasn't lumping them with a whole group as I saw Wilderness do.  Wilderness seemed to be chiming in with the OP and her tone in general.  I was totally shocked. 

            I am not caught up yet, but perhaps you chided Wilderness for that.  If so, my apologies, I just didn't see it yet. 

            Edit: If you personally believe that Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin were not atheists, and did actually believe in a god or gods, that is a first for me to even hear of such a thing.  That is not part of history that I know of whatsoever.

    3. oceansnsunsets profile image88
      oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Requesting all Hubbers and visitors to HubPages to please report this hate speech thread.  We need your help, as many reports of this thread have not had it removed as of yet.

      Please don't just report the hubber who posted this thread, but ask in your request, to have the thread completely removed.

      Ideas matter, and ideas like these help to breed more hatred among those that do not seem to care about conscience, facts, or morals.  When that hatred is bred, we see more momentum grow for all kinds of things, and it needs to end.  I am doing this publicly, in hopes that maybe the leadership of HubPages is not aware of how their moderators seem to be boldly ignoring repeated attempts at reporting such hate speech.

      There are three little blue links underneath the first post in the thread, one says report.  Please help, because it could be your own group that is targeted next.  I am asking atheists, Gnostics, Christians, Islamists, Jewish people, and anyone else of any faith or non-faith to help. Thank you.  Keep in mind, I and many others have been on HubPages for years, and what you might think of as a "radical" Christian, is not what many of these hubbers in this and the other religious threads think of as radical.  That is why I take it to mean mainstream, especially as the example is those that believe in an afterlife that might include hell.  That seems to be the definition, and something God himself would do, not any Christian.  ISIS takes Judgement into their own hands without any mercy, and well we know just some of their stories.

      Edit:  I want to make it clear, that any group short of ISIS itself, compared to ISIS, that equally doesn't do what ISIS does, should get similar treatment/protection from such horrible comments. I am not just out to protect Christianity here.  This is a human problem.  So far, I have reported this thread, and asked it to be removed twice, before even answering it publicly.  Since its been ignored, I had to speak out here.  That is it allowed to go on unanswered is truly appalling.

      1. PhoenixV profile image79
        PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this
    4. Onusonus profile image87
      Onusonusposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Yes they are exactly the same. Every day in the news we see examples of Christian Fundamentalists in America and abroad, cutting the heads off of unbelievers, parading up and down the streets shouting anti American and antisemitic propaganda, threatening death to all who insult them, stoning infidels in the streets, beating , mutilating, and torturing women and children, and executing homosexuals.

      Here is a video of some of the latest violence that occurred in a Christian community in Bozeman, Montana. They are actually shooting at a small boy and his sister for not converting to their prescribed brand of Fundamentalist Christianity. You can actually hear the shooters proclaiming; "Jesus says it's okay for us to shoot you!" It's in Arabic.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mgtbjcd9Ofk

      1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
        oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        While I was initially a little bit slow to realize, thank you for taking the time to make the points that its not Christian fundies doing these things.  Its so serious a thing, that I didn't see the irony of Iowa and Montana thrown in there. 

        You make great points in a different way and I appreciate it.

        1. Onusonus profile image87
          Onusonusposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I'm glad to see that you agree. I have seen several other videos of violent Christians, but I can't understand a single word they are saying. It's all in Arabic.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Have you seen what the Muslims have done to Uganda? It's awful, they have put laws in place that will put homosexuals in prison for life. There leader Scott Lively spear headed this agenda because he lost his fight in his own country so he brought it to third would countries because he new they would be easer to win over. If you don't know this guy, he's the guys who blames the Nazi movement on homosexuality  "Everything that we think about when we think about Nazis actually comes from the minds and perverted ideas of homosexuals". Wait that doesn't sound like a Muslim name, I'll have to look that up…. Oh dear.

    5. arksys profile image93
      arksysposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      not sure if you'll be able to see the video but i'll post the link anyways...

      https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10 … mp;theater

      Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)
      or
      Israeli Secret Intelligence Service (ISIS)

      quite interesting to know that a number of Islamic fanatics you see on TV turning out to be Jews.
      please watch the whole thing if you can.

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Be careful arksys, those first few photos were clearly photoshoped. Check your sources and check any biases you have for Jews at the door.

        1. arksys profile image93
          arksysposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          i have no biases at all against any religions. I understand, this information coming from a muslim makes it more suspicious ... its something i came across recently ... will do some more research as you have suggested.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Watch the beginning part of that video again and look out out of place the person that are pointing to looks in those room and then notice the little outline around him.

    6. Calypso02 profile image60
      Calypso02posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I do not think they are the same; but I believe evil is evil, and evil has nothing to do with religion

      1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
        oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I believe evil is evil too.  Fair point. 

        I think "evil" does target the good, and to be successful, uses a lot of untruth and delusion.

    7. EmVeeT profile image80
      EmVeeTposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      There has to be something terribly wrong with the thought process that considers the warning of eternal judgment equal with the vicious slaughter of human beings that do not agree with a particular stance. To read the words, 'in common', then to reflect on what ISIS stands for, and fulfills in a mandate of murderous crimes that has no mercy, sheds no light on truth and is bent on fear mongering of the most traumatic and terrorizing sort, renders the premise of a 'common' factor null and void.

      No matter how radical a Christian may be, if the person you are speaking about is a TRUE CHRISTIAN then equating a verbal warning (for a TRUE CHRISTIAN would not go farther than to verbalize a warning ) based on a platform promoting life to the fullest,  is not only incongruous, such a comparison is ridiculous. Utterly and completely ridiculous. In fact, thinking like this 'is evil', because this type of thought process promotes hatred against the 'general title, 'Christian' in this context.

      Saying Christianity and ISIS have anything in common is without foundation. In fact, such a statement should be analyzed more seriously, because the general title Christian could be misconstrued by those who hate religion, or want nothing to do (in general) with the idea of moral boundaries and are looking for more reasons to 'hate the title and those who call themselves such'. You see, the title 'Christian' is defined as one who 'follows Jesus Christ or is a member of a Christian denominational Church'. The title ISIS speaks of members who live to slaughter anyone and everyone who will not become a member of their radical group and follow their religious doctrines. This statement is evidenced by the slaughters of innocent individuals in a visual display of beheading for public notice.

      Christianity has been misrepresented on many fronts across the annals of time by people like Hitler, who used the title to brainwash his countrymen, leading them to believe they had a man of conscience at the helm (which was as far from the truth as hell is from heaven) ; however, no one who has ever lived upon this earth that teaches hatred at any level SHOULD CALL themselves a 'Christian'.  No one who is a TRUE FOLLOWERS of CHRIST JESUS has an agenda to 'kill' those who will not follow Jesus of their own free will. This position is the opposite of what THE LORD JESUS CHRIST taught HIS followers.

      If you refer to persons who live nominal Christian lives, many are distant enough from caring about whether or not there is such a thing as a real hell, so as not to even bother cleaning up their own lives, to their own detriment, let alone to plot the death of someone else for 'not following'.  If the persons you refer to, are calling themselves 'Christian' in order to tarnish the 'title' (on purpose or by default)... then you are not speaking about 'Christians' in the applicable sense of the word.  A true Christian is one who follows THE LORD JESUS CHRIST and LIVES by HIS WORD, which does not teach violence, but teaches LOVE, even for an enemy, even at the threat of one's own safety, or loss of life.

      Big difference. BIG difference. So big as to not fit in the same Universe for concept, precept or fact. That is the truth. Propagating the idea that Christianity and ISIS have anything in common seems much more dangerous and evil than warning someone of the threat of hell faced as a consequence for committing crimes of evil against oneself, or against others, especially since, people are free to ignore such warnings and continue living just as they please under the more correct Christian banner.

      1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
        oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        +

        Wow, thank you for sharing that EmVeeT. smile  Very well said.

      2. 0
        Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you for that most excellent argument as to why Christianly is nothing like ISIS. It's exactly what I was attempting to say in my first post.

        1. PhoenixV profile image79
          PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          @ EmVeeT


          I want to bring you up to speed EmVeeT. Radman made a sort of disclaimer similar to this after people were posting that they were going to report the thread.

          Since then he has said this (about Christians on this thread)  among other types of things, so give his sort of "disclaimer" the weight it deserves

          1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
            oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            You missed this one from Radman also

            " I've defended my position just fine, but you guys are unable to see the double standard, reason or logic, which I'm sad to say puts you guys just as ignorant of others as groups like ISIS are."

            Which of course has been shown untrue, as he defines what the points of showing the history as something other than what they were.  No matter, even if he was right, there is nothing that justifies comparing members of HP, even in ignorance, to ISIS.

            1. PhoenixV profile image79
              PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Then the often played, (paraphrased) but I defended yall at first - I guess a disclaimer, I may not be using the word disclaimer correctly. Immediately followed up by comparisons of us to ISIS.

              1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I have noticed that disclaimer or tactic also.

                Here is another comparison to ISIS he gave of us, from Radman.  "But I'm done. No sense attempting to reason with groups like ISIS either."

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I've noticed that several of your posts are about Radman but don't address him directly... Is there a reason that you seem so focused on him? Is there a reason that you feel the need to tell other people what he has said when they are capable of reading it themselves?

            2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Are you saying that even if such comparisons are correct, he is wrong in stating them? Why is that?

    8. the adopted one profile image79
      the adopted oneposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      My cousin was killed in the 9/11 attacks, after which I learned all I could about Islam in order to understand. It'll be time consuming, but here's what you should do (better to learn for yourself than have others explain it):

      Read the Qu'ran, Hadith and Sira. You need to learn about Muhammad and how it all started.
      Leran about the Muslim Brotherhood and their organizational structure.
      Learn about Halal meat (how it's produced and sold).

      Read the Muslim Brotherhood document "An Explanatory Memorandum On the General Strategic Goal for the Group In North America", dated 5/22/91

      Read the Muslim Brotherhood document "The Project", dated 1/12/82

      Read about the "Battle of the Trench" (627 AD I believe).

      Visit WikiIslam to see some Islamic words and what they mean.

      After all that, I learned that Muhammad and Jesus are total opposites, that Christianity and Islam are also total opposites. I learned that Islam is much more than a religion; it's a form of government. I learned there is no such thing as "radical" Islam. I learned that there is no possibility of coexistence with Islam, and that Islam will, unless action is taken, one day dominate the world (Europe will be Islamic in less than 50 years…my opinion). See what's happening in France, Sweden, England, Germany; even Australia and America.

      Good luck!

      1. Sed-me profile image83
        Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I am so sorry about your cousin.
        Thank you for your very clear and concise post.
        It is very helpful and positive.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Clear and concise? Sure.

          Helpful and positive? Not to the millions of secular Muslims who may now have a target on their back.

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            That's exactly it. That's why the supreme court has ruled it illegal... like "you will be jailed for this" illegal.

      2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Legally, that statement is known as a call to arms or a call to action. It encourages others to "take up arms" against another group. Such statements are dangerous and have been interpreted by the Supreme Court as presenting an imminent threat. We throw the words "hate-speech" around to define racist or bigoted speech, but that statement right there is the true legal definition.

        1. Sed-me profile image83
          Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Wow, we could not have read the post any differently if we had tried. lol

      3. oceansnsunsets profile image88
        oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I too am so sorry about your cousin.  I still can't believe what happened that day on 9/11.  Its such a tragedy.

        I think that it is good you share your experience, and encourage people to do thoughtful research.  Terrorism seems to believe that might makes right, that morality can take a back seat.

        I was horrified there was another beheading days ago, and my heart goes out to that family.  Its a tough time for sure, to be in positions of power over people you have sworn to protect, world over.

        If history is any guide, the mentality and its goals are not really so hidden.  I am speaking of the extremist terrorists that do this kind of thing.

      4. PhoenixV profile image79
        PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I am sorry that your cousin was killed in the 9/11 attacks.

        Islam is a religion, but I think I understand what you mean by form of government as well.  Unlike the thread title that actually specifies people or a group, and hence the claims of hate speech,  Islam is a religion, worldview or set of beliefs. Islam is not a person or group. I am American and if need be, to protect the safety of American citizens, I believe all lawful "action should be taken" to protect them and the sovereignty of the United States from any threat.

        Source Koran: This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion...

  2. Sed-me profile image83
    Sed-meposted 2 years ago

    I reported this thread as hate speech. This is the msg. I sent HPs staff. I don't know if anything will come of it, but you should know that you were reported and by whom.

    "I want to report this thread. The OP is comparing a large portion of HPs contributors and readers (not that the size of the audience matters) to Isis. We all know the atrocities going on in Iraq right now. I consider this hate speech. To suggest that any of us would bury children alive, behead ppl of different faiths, or sell women and children into sex slavery is an insult of the most offensive kind. I am going to post this msg. in the forum so they will know who reported them and why. Thank you for your time."

    1. cjhunsinger profile image70
      cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The only hate speech here is yours and your attempt to shut down the truth of the founding of Christianity and what any belief in a god has the potential to accomplish.
      I find your tone insulting to intelligent inquiry and hateful towards free speech. I would suggest you read up on the history of Christianity and learn of it's savagery in the name of the lord jesus.

      1. Sed-me profile image83
        Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Ok CJ.

        1. cjhunsinger profile image70
          cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Does your condescending answer indicate an inability to respond or that you agree with me?

      2. mishpat profile image60
        mishpatposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        CJ, it would seem the OP was pandering for the reactions and responses given.  History is history and cannot be erased though there is room for discussion.  The question not answered by the OP is "What is radical Christianity?"  One need only read the tabloids, liberal and conservative, to understand what is meant by radical islum but where do we find this comparative, sizable "radical" Christianity today. 

        And, yes, even though I grit my teeth at times, it is an open forum for thought and input.  The rules set by the censor police seem arbitrary to the point of being applied depended on the first cup of coffee for that day, but, like congress, we are stuck with it.  Its their ball field.

        1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
          oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          +1

          Good and fair points.

      3. oceansnsunsets profile image88
        oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Wow, Cj. 

        Insultig to intelligent inquiry?  Do you know of actual Christians that really could be compared to ISIS?  You would have to be, to be so up in arms as that post exhibits. 

        Since you are so about the intelligence, and care about others insulting, can you please educate me on what you think the truth of the founding of Christianity is?  I thought it was Christ.  Christ, his teachings, and the followers of those teachings.  I have an idea where your actual distaste might be coming from, but don't want to assume.  It may be with the first true distortions of Christ and his teachings, but I will have to see you define Christianity that makes it so easy for you attack it.  (Something anyone can do, but  not with intellectual integrity.)

        She is speaking of Christians and ISIS, Jihadi merchants, and radical Islam. I KNOW the news would have shared if Christians were beheading, like yesterday in the news was a beheading by a group that actually does that.

    2. Jomine Jose profile image78
      Jomine Joseposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Why don't you get rid of the bible then? The bible support all these and you say that is your moral compass. So why do you blame the OP?

      1. Sed-me profile image83
        Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Ai yi yi Jomine.

    3. oceansnsunsets profile image88
      oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      +1

      So far, I have reported it twice.  I originally posted right away, then removed my comment.  I thought surely it would be gone by now, and didn't want to dignify the Original Post with any response or bump.  Ideas matter, and you make excellent points in your report there to HP.  Thanks for sharing it.

      1. Sed-me profile image83
        Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah, I felt strongly that it was an absolutely unacceptable post... kind of shocking.

    4. Pam Ryan profile image59
      Pam Ryanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I honestly thought this reply was an attempt at a spoof when I first read it. Perhaps I was right. I hope I was right, in fact.

      1. Sed-me profile image83
        Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I guess that means you only read that post and none of the others? If you had read all of the other posts, you would surely know it was not a spoof.
        There are few groups... possibly no groups I can think of that wouldn't be greatly insulted at being compared to ISIS. They are murderers and heinous villains. I would be very surprised if this had not occurred to you.

        1. Pam Ryan profile image59
          Pam Ryanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          You seem to have interpreted the OP as statements fact. The reality is, these are questions, not pronouncements.

          1. Sed-me profile image83
            Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            If I said that I wondered if all ppl from Manchester weren't terrible thugs, based on the brutality of certain Manchester City fans, I would imagine you would be slightly insulted and you might also wonder what kind of bubble I was living in to base a large group of ppl on the actions of a few crazies. I mean, ppl have been stabbed in parking lots over the wins and losses of these games.

            Now imagine being compared to monsters, who kill off, not only whole groups of ppl based on their origin and faith, but also behead children and the old... and sell little girls as sex slaves. Do you not see this as an unbelievably offensive comparison?

            1. PhoenixV profile image79
              PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Oh no, they see no problem with the smear. Now if you were to compare philosophical materialism to a mud pie, then the gloves come off.  It becomes a Kantian Vs Descartes fistfight. How dare we insult Materialism. The imagery of a mud pie is just plain outrageously nasty and derogatory.

              1. psycheskinner profile image80
                psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                The gloves come of like someone politely referring to it revealing your lack of respect for that philosophy, as it clearly does?

                Hardly bare knuckle boxing.

          2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
            oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I didn't see it as fact, because facts mean something that is actual, and factual.  Pam,  you didn't provide any facts.  I saw it for what it is, and now we know that all the questions from the title to the end, were intended to be the means you thought to get away with what you said.  People aren't stupid.  I think you know that though.  That you bring this up now, after the thread had actually quieted down,  after days proving you wrong with facts and reasoning, all points to what is clearly obvious. 

            A couple of Atheists here even felt the need to show how they defended Christians against your OP, if they defended it at all, and they were here to do that alone, while the person that made that mess hid for the most part.  Nice. 

            I had already clarified with Sed-me, when I +1'd her post, and she clarified her intention with her original post. 

            This all doesn't take a rocket scientist. 

            May I ask, what is your own personal view, Pam?

            1. Pam Ryan profile image59
              Pam Ryanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              You're making me cringe.

              1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Yeah, this is all really bad actually.  I'm sorry you decided to post what you did in your OP, and still not apologize after all these days, as well as not ask HP to please take it down if you can't yourself. 

                I tried the silent approach first, for days first.

                Edit:  When I read your OP, I still cringe, as have many others.  They don't even know if they should response like I didn't, because it would almost dignify such post.

  3. 0
    SirDentposted 2 years ago

    I see this thread is still up so I may as well say what is on my mind.

    The OP has things wrong in her assertion.  Isis has more in common with atheists than anyone else.  You see, atheists want to get rid of Christians, even though many say they don't.  It is the belief in God that bothers them the most, therefore the constant badgering, poking fun at, mocking and downright nastiness at times is pointed towards Christians. 

    Isis also wants to get rid of all Christians.  By persecution and beheading or any others means possible for them.

    1. Jomine Jose profile image78
      Jomine Joseposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Yea,  isis and atheists are similar.
      http://s1.hubimg.com/u/11979004.jpg

      1. Jomine Jose profile image78
        Jomine Joseposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Not to forget the rioting atheists
        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/11979013.jpg

      2. PhoenixV profile image79
        PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this
        1. Jomine Jose profile image78
          Jomine Joseposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          All the above three are believers, the only difference is instead of god they chose communist ideology to worship. It's simply one set of believers killing another for the primacy of their belief. The communist leaders mostly embrace atheism because they can direct the god worship to idea worship and gain more power and money that was earlier given to church. They perceived the god idea as a threat to communist (and not atheist) idea.
          By your argument,  Bush's attack is the latest christian atrocity (more recent than Mao and Polpot), how many died? We have Hitler and Mussolini before. It is not the numbers that matter but the willingness to kill and the high numbers is only because of the technology that was not available to earlier church leaders and because of the increased population. Religious ideology can justify killing while atheism is just a rejection the idea of god (for various reasons) which neither justify nor condemn human killings.
          I am against all these blind believers including Christianity and atheism.

          1. PhoenixV profile image79
            PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Other than equivocating, improper transposition and non sequitur, you do MASS MURDERING ATHEIST REGIME apologetics pretty good. Some of Fundamental Christianity's core tenets are turn the other cheek and love your enemy. Atheism has no such intrinsic tenet. It's darwinism of survival of the fittest, dog eat dog, kill or be killed, with no concept of absolute justice or absolute objective morality: Hence MASS MURDERING ATHEIST REGIMES.

            One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic. - Joseph Stalin

            1. Jomine Jose profile image78
              Jomine Joseposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              No need to shout, atheism is not communism nor Darwinism. They were communist regimes who incidently modeled themselves on christian politics.
              If Christianity's fundamental core was turning the other cheek, christians wouldn't have killed, burned witches, tortured to convert and turn papal palaces into brothels. Atheism has no tenets except that there is no god, it's a-theism and its opposite is theism not christianity. Just like theism consists of a myriad of religions, atheism have different forms. Atheism has no take on morality/immorality.
              And there is no absolute morality as exemplified by christians. All these advocacy of love didn't prevent them from killing the vast majority of humans in the last two millennium.
              PS: "Other than equivocating, improper transposition and non sequitur, you do MASS MURDERING CHRISTIAN REGIME apologetics pretty good."
              The same fallacies you used, how do you see it now?

              1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                There is absolute morality exemplified in Christ.  The point of bringing up those regimes is in response to the OP, and the first response that said if history is any guide....... and all the rest.  Christians follow Christ, or are supposed to.  Those that don't, make a bold point of how much they go against it, because its SO black and white, so clear, how to BE as a Christian. 

                IF history is any guide, then we do need to look at all history, and stop excusing things like the OP, which turns out to not only be not true, but we have recent examples that are telling.  Its not that all atheists are like these regimes, far from it.  (Hopefully they don't want to make certain groups out to be enemies of humanity and freedom, when they are not, and terminate them....)  That is the point.   But the point about history brings up all points in history, including recent.

                You cannot be so far removed from the idea of what has happened in history, that you don't want to see it, and only see the 'heretics" of Christianity and judge only them.  ISIS is worse than even the normal extremists we see in Islam, they are a whole new step up, a whole new level of evil.   

                Christianity makes the point long before others, that Christians are to be like Christ but will struggle with the same human problem we all do, Sin.  Until we don't struggle anymore, its said how we are to deal with it.  We are therefore all hypocrites, unfortunately, at least to some degree, but the striving to do right ought to be there. (as another poster pointed out.) Pointing out those that strive to mass murder or steal peace and freedom and life from others, emboldens the point of the Christian's values in that Christianity teaches what Phoenix was saying about Christ.  Its very opposite of what feels natural to do, but its right. 

                Terror makes a HUGE difference in ALL of our discussions, because its the only thing that is the truest threat to our very lives if not answered.  It isn't open to reason, logic, dialogue, or morality. It must be answered, and great care must be taken when being so flippant like the OP and those that echoed her.  There is great, unexplained, irrational hatred for Christianity in particular held by many.  It seems to be growing and not warranted, as seen in OP's like this and all the other threads.  This thread, being allowed to remain up, keeps the idea up and open that its OK to attack like this, in light of the actual facts of matters.  This is why I was so bold in my request to all people of all faiths and non faiths to please help for the sake of freedom and to avoid further stirring up of hatred.  Its not nothing.  Its the kind of thing that terrorists feed on.  I am incredibly disheartened by the fact this is still even up.

                1. Jomine Jose profile image78
                  Jomine Joseposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Jesus is a myth and sincerely hope that he remains so as I don't see any morality in him.
                  Islam and Christianity are twins, only one is 600 years younger and now has an acquired inferiority complex owing to the poverty and lack of military capabilities that followed shortly after a world domination. The ISIS is no more evil than the European colonizers of America and Australia/New Zealand.  It appear more evil only because of the proximity and deadliness due to the superior technology.
                  The problems with religion is that they see human sins but that is just the wrong headed way. Humans are just another sort of animals that behave just like an animal in our particular situation behaves. The only difference is our rational brain which can help as deliberately analyse and change our behavior but most humans are driven by ideologies instead of reason. But irrespective of the ideologies we are basically good not saints but humans. There are aberrations but neither religion nor atheism can correct it. Unless we see it as it is neither are we going to come up with any solution.
                  Terroism is the fight by the underdog, the ones without ground support or minimal support. They know they cannot win and they have nothing to loose. 
                  It is not the irrational fear of Christianity but the lack of fear of Christianity and the proximity of Christianity. For most Isis is only a news. Islam is still a religion of the poor in middle east and Africa that can never threaten the west now nor in future. There is a demographic collapse that is happening there and terrorists understand that.  They have nothing to loose but only the heaven they hope to get.

                  1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                    oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I appreciate you sharing your views and personal beliefs on these things.  If you don't see any morality in Jesus and no real threat from the terrorists like ISIS or otherwise, in our own lives and areas, then I'm not sure what to say.  Your beliefs about Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Christianity, and Islam, etc. show we are poles apart.

                    Something made me wonder at your very fist line...."Jesus is a myth and sincerely hope that he remains so...." 

                    Anyway, my greater point here (not the greatest of all points to be made, to be clear), is that people with diametrically opposing views ought to be able to still live peaceably side by side in our societies, and ought to look out for each other.  I believe there is high value to be placed on life and living, and freedom for all. 

                    The things that chip away at those things in the ways they do, are enemies of the same.  We have to have life first, to even begin to protect freedoms.  We are getting into territories where we have to choose life/survival first, and then can get back to the business of living in freedom.  My heart breaks as this world and the people in it seem to be choosing the opposite.  Even when we disagree on that, the effect of death and loss of freedoms is being seen, and is undeniable.  Yes, we aren't hopefully close yet, but people ought to care more.  Current events in news shows that those warning of these things in the past, weren't wrong at all.  Everyone thought they were all so crazy.

    2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
      oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      People here know full well what ISIS is all about and what they have done.  The desire to lump so many together with them is alarming and truly sickening to me.  Its very dangerous, as ideas have consequences so often, and we have seen what propaganda against a group has done in history.  . 

      The supporting of such a strongly held belief and delusion is so outright obvious and alarming, it should startle people into action everywhere.  That this delusion is sided with and propagated and not setting off alarms in other atheists about some other atheist's beliefs, is heartbreaking, because it shows that what Jesus said was so true about some people.  If I was an atheist, I have to think that stuff like this would totally shake me awake out of a deep delusion/slumber like nothing else.  Enough to ask, "WTH am I really believing in and why?"

  4. 0
    Rad Manposted 2 years ago

    What's most interesting here is that someone asked a question about the similarities between radical Muslims and Christian. The first Christian called it hate speech and the next two turned the hate speech onto Atheists rather than defending your own religion as I have just done for you.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Ditto as to defending Christians as a group - like you I defended them.  The two atheists to contribute so far.

      Makes you wonder sometimes where the problem really lies, doesn't it?  The OP was about a small, select group of madmen which the Christian base turned into a rant about atheists.

    2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
      oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Did you ever call the OP,hate speech? Or is it just hate speech when Christians are pointing out the examples in history that proved the OP wrong?

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Appeal to hypocrisy. This is where you avoid criticism with criticism.

        1. PhoenixV profile image79
          PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Did you just admit you are a hypocrite?

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Is there a reason you are responding to his posts but haven't answered my question? Do you have an agenda other than open conversation?

          2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
            oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I wondered about that, with the response of appeal to hypocrisy, and avoiding a criticism with a criticism.... 

            and I almost said, "at least you are honest...."  Because it doesn't apply to what i asked, a legitimate question about the OP and his responses in the thread.

            If anything, the response is a red herring, at least.  Point was made, he didn't call the OP hate speech.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Again, does that mean that other hate speech is acceptable? Why are you so focused on what Radman does rather than hate speech itself? Is it OK if he doesn't point it out? Or is it OK if he does? Does his opinion influence whether YOU think something is hatespeech? Does it make it acceptable to you?

            2. 0
              Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Because the OP wasn't hate speech, it was a question. but I most certainly did voice my opinion that Christianity was better than that.

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I didn't think the OP was hate speech either. It seemed like a reasonable question... but by my observation people don't like questions around here. I wonder why that is.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  They seem to like asking them, but refuse to answer any and when they do it's usually accompanied with a logical fallacy that they claim to not understand.

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                    MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Give them the benefit of the doubt. It's entirely possible that they really don't understand.

                  2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                    oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Radman, you haven't been showing the logical fallacies accurately.    I have noticed you are trying to include them more, like I asked, so thanks for that.  I don't think the fallacy applies like you think it does, very often. 

                    I am going back and responding to lots of things, before I leave from this thread.  I will say this one thing to Melissa, as I see she is here, and you are talking about how questions aren't answered. I have had to stop reading and answering from a couple of people on HP, and she is one of them.  I think its fair to mention it, so she doesn't waste her time on me, in hopes I will answer.  Its like a self blocking, and is better for all involved.  This isn't new, and I believe once she asked me to stop talking to her anyway, and it stuck from way back then.  Same with McFarland.  She asked me to never speak to her again, and I have not, nor do I read her posts either.  So often, I am doing a self blocking thing, when I am  not responding, that is all.

                    Edit: This is a peacemaking tool I think, actually. I certainly don't mean it to sound as harsh as it might, and I am sorry I have to do it.  People can judge me all they want for it. 

                    Second Edit:  I found that if I respond , and I am not technically sure if i am or am not supposed to answer certain people.... then at a certain point if you think its safe, it can be said, "I told you to stop talking to me!", and I have seen this with Cat, or Genaea, or someone else.....  So its just easier on a few fronts, and not so personal, truly.

      2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Does him not pointing out one type of hate speech (if such a thing happened) make other hate speech more acceptable?

  5. mishpat profile image60
    mishpatposted 2 years ago

    Both the conservative and liberal press have "defined" radical islum.  Could someone define radical Christianity?

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The whackos that wish harm (and usually do it themselves) to others simply because they don't conform to the right religion.

      Same as the Islamic radicals.

      1. mishpat profile image60
        mishpatposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        That is rather generic.  What groups are we looking at here?

        1. 0
          SirDentposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          The thread title states fundamental Christians.  The Op goes on to say radical christians. 

          I am a fundamental Christian.  I believe in the basic teachings of Jesus as shown in the Bible. 

          This thread is actually only one more attempt to ridicule believers.

          1. PhoenixV profile image79
            PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Any Christian that adheres to the main and most commonly held beliefs and doctrines of the NT is also a a fundamental Christian, so yes the thread does in fact LABEL Christians and compares them to ISIS and Jihadists. This is dangerous speech and it does have precedents in history.

            Atheist Pol Pot and - The Khmer Rouge also classified people by religion and ethnic group. They banned all religion and dispersed minority groups, forbidding them to speak their languages or to practice their customs. They especially targeted Buddhist monks, Muslims, Christians, Western-educated intellectuals, educated people in general. -wiki

            The Khmer Rouge

            Modern research has located 20,000 mass graves from the Khmer Rouge era all over Cambodia. Various studies have estimated the death toll at between 740,000 and 3,000,000, most commonly between 1.4 million and 2.2 million, with perhaps half of those deaths being due to executions, and the rest from starvation and disease

            In power, the Khmer Rouge carried out a radical program that included isolating the country from all foreign influences, closing schools, hospitals, and factories, abolishing banking, finance, and currency, outlawing all religions....-wiki

            All religion was banned by the Khmer Rouge. Any people seen taking part in religious rituals or services would be executed. Several Buddhists, Muslims, and Christians were killed for exercising their beliefs -wiki

            Atheist Stalin

            ."....Stalin became an atheist. He followed the position that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. His government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, anti-religious propaganda, the anti-religious work of public institutions (Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s, it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion.." -wiki

            Atheist Mao

            The worst of the famine was steered towards enemies of the state.As Jasper Becker explains:

                "The most vulnerable section of China's population, around five per cent, were those whom Mao called 'enemies of the people'. Anyone who had in previous campaigns of repression been labeled a 'black element' was given the lowest priority in the allocation of food. Landlords, rich peasants, former members of the nationalist regime, religious leaders, rightists, counter-revolutionaries and the families of such individuals died in the greatest numbers-wiki

            You will notice in bold that Stalin used anti-religious propaganda and Mao labeled people "black element' and enemies of the people. <--> Do Christian fundamentalists and ISIS have anything in common?


            All in all over 100 million human beings were tortured, starved to death and or murdered by three Atheists and their tactics included anti-religion propaganda and labeling people

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I'll try to keep this short.

              I see you used the atheist atrocities fallacy as a defence rather than defending your religion.

              STALIN, was a confirmed atheist. Stalin was raised Christian under the religious influence of his mother and attended seminary school and decided upon himself to study for the priesthood. It was teachings like Romans 13:1-2 that lead the Russian Orthodox church to justify this new Tsar.

              "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves."

              POL POT, was a Buddhist and most likely not an Atheist.

              Alexander Laban Hinton
              "This [Pol Pot’s regime’s] line of thinking about revolutionary consciousness directly parallels Buddhist thought, with the “Party line” and “collective stand” being substituted for dhamma…One could certainly push this argument further , contending that the Khmer Rouge attempted to assume the monk’s traditional role as moral instructor (teaching their new brand of “mindfulness”) and that DK regime’s glorification of asceticism, detachment, the elimination of attachment and desire, renunciation (of material goods and personal behaviors, sentiments, and attitudes), and purity paralleled prominent Buddhist themes…"


              In summery...
              Michael Sherlock
              "The atheist atrocities fallacy is a multifaceted and multidimensional monster, comprised of a cocktail of illogically contrived arguments. It is, at its core, a tu quoque fallacy, employed to deflect justified charges of religious violence, by erroneously charging atheism with similar, if not worse, conduct. But it is much more than this, for within its tangled and mangled edifice can be found the false analogy fallacy, the poisoning of the well fallacy, the false cause fallacy, and even an implied slippery slope fallacy."

              1. PhoenixV profile image79
                PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                -



                You realize that a "made up fallacy" by an atheist with a wordpress blog is: 1 Not a real logical fallacy and 2. does not make them an authority on squat, especially HISTORICAL FACT.


                They all subscribed to Marxist-Leninist ideology and they did not believe in God and targeted the religious.


                The Marxism–Leninist worldview promotes atheism as a fundamental tenet.[29][30] Marxist–Leninist atheism has its roots in the philosophy of Ludwig Feuerbach, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Marx, and Lenin.[31] Materialism, the philosophical standpoint that the universe exists independently of human consciousness consisting of only atoms and physical forces, is central to the worldview of Marxism–Leninism in the form of dialectical materialism. Vitaly Ginzburg, a Soviet physicist, wrote that the "Bolshevik communists were not merely atheists but, according to Lenin's terminology, militant atheists."[32] Therefore, many Marxist–Leninist states, historically and currently, are also atheist states.[33] Under these regimes, several religions and their adherents were targeted to be "stamped out."[34]


                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism%E2 … heological

              2. PhoenixV profile image79
                PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Instead of copy pasting from some goofball atheist site, why don't you go fetch your atheist blogger and I will educate you both on regimes that adhered to Marxist/Leninist ideology, and how they and their regimes and their state sponsored atheism carried out that ideology by targeting religion and the religious to the tune of over 100 million human beings.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  LOL,
                  Romans 13:1-2
                  "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves."

                  What does that say about your God or your Book?

                  I have to say this has been an eye opener. Someone says extreme Christianity is not dislike extreme Islam and some demand the whole thread is removed, but when someone says Atheism is worse than extreme Islam all the Christian seem to agree.

                  Anyhow I attempted to defend Christianity and Atheism. I'm done.

                2. cjhunsinger profile image70
                  cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I am an Atheist and I am always willing to take a lesson or give one. To start, I believe it is important to define positions. What exactly do you stand for? I am an American, politically and philosophically an Atheist. I believe in the individual and individual freedom. As an Atheist, I have no value for the belief in any described deity,  whether of a religious or secular nature, as all deities are defined by Man. I believe that you have a right to believe in whatever god you choose and that I possess the right to say that you are wrong.
                  Your turn.

                  1. mishpat profile image60
                    mishpatposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I am a Christian and a hypocrite because one cannot be the first without the second, as is easily apparent.  I believe the Bible in its entirety.

                    I converse with CJ on occasion off line and we have pleasant exchanges.  But he is a thinking man unlike like many of the malcontents found here in the forums so exchanges are not and need not be of the childish nature of some here.  As I have said to him, I believe him to be an agnostic as he is always searching for truth.  He, of course denies it.

                    Like him, I am an American and proud to be such.  I do not support certain tenets and life styles, but as long as they are legal, and do not encroach upon my freedoms, I will abide them.  I do no take kindly to non-Americans telling us what we should do to make things better here.  Its those thought processes that are dragging us toward 3rd world country status, which is usually their status.

                    Again, I am a Christian.  My faith is based on reasoning and study.  I make no excuses for my beliefs.  Your response may tighten my jaw initially, but God is my schoolmaster and judge.

                  2. PhoenixV profile image79
                    PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I am an American too, Mr. Cjhunsinger  It's ironic to me that you say you are politically an atheist. I bet I see a half dozen people saying that Christians and their beliefs should not even be spoken in public or politics, on a daily basis. As usually the case they will make a crude reference to a male body part and how it should not be out in public. Crude references seems to be their forte, from my experience. Yet you want to be politically atheist.  Political atheism did not play out too well in China, Russia and SE Asia.

                    What do you want to discuss exactly? Are you going to do some Mass Murdering Atheist Regime apologetics too?

                  3. PhoenixV profile image79
                    PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    You are an American? Are you doing apologetics for Marxist–Leninist atheism? I'm old, but thought I saw it all, until now. Oh wait, Marxism-Leninism advocates the abolition of religion and the acceptance of atheism. "just dont count" cuz you say Atheism has nothing to do with the tyranny of the examples you mentioned." - cuz you say so? Probably never even happened? 100 million dead people probably faking it. Religion and the religious were specifically targeted because that is what that Marxist–Leninist philosophy does.

      2. Sed-me profile image83
        Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Now how about someone who actually understands true biblical Christianity instead of someone who pulled the quickest insult out of his hat.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Don't you fall into the morass, too.

          The topic is the radicals, both Christian and Muslim, that take it upon themselves to harm others in the name of religion.  Not the religion, not the mainstream people that profess belief.  ONLY that handful of crazies that have decided their god wants them to murder or otherwise harm in his name.

          And you think there aren't any out there you are sadly mistaken.  A quick, and relatively innocuous, example is Westboro church - if you think their objective is not to cause hurt and pain you're wrong again.  Then there was the fine folks not too far from me a couple of years ago that dragged a gay man behind their car for a couple of miles and then tied him, torn and bleeding, to a barbed wire fence to die.

          For just this matter, I would have to say "Not a true Christian".  Biblical Christianity has nothing to do with it.

          1. Sed-me profile image83
            Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Which is exactly my point. Hitler called himself a Christian while killing 6 million Jews. Does this jibe? Jesus was a Jew.

            A radical Christian is exactly as DJ described... someone who loves to the extreme. Jesus loved to the point of giving his own life to save that which is lost. As Sir Dent said, the OP entitles this thread with "fundamentalist Christians" then switches the wording to "radical Christians."

            If a group calls themselves Christian, then performs acts of hate and behave contrarily to the Bible, then I would question their claimed identity.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              So where is the insult then?  The stated fact that a handful of nuts change Christianity into something it is not?  That there is insanity out there, occasionally labeling itself as Christian? 

              There is insult in this thread all right, but it is provided by the Christians looking for it when it isn't there and then making up reasons to give insult themselves.

              1. Sed-me profile image83
                Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I can barely get past your first sentence.... nobody changed Christianity. We still have the Bible to show us what God has outlined as Christianity. Those who call themselves by a title, but do not live according to the true meaning or purpose of that title, have not changed ANY thing, except your perception of what that title means.

                1. Jomine Jose profile image78
                  Jomine Joseposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  The bible itself has changed over centuries. Some books were added some removed, some got readmission.
                  All were redacted.
                  God might have had second thoughts!!

                  1. Sed-me profile image83
                    Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Oh Jose.

                2. 0
                  Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  You really should do a little research on this one. Christianity has changed considerably over the years. For example there is much more of an emphasis put on Jesus now as opposed to when the first group of Christians came to America. The bible is open to many interpretations, that's why we so many denominations.

                  1. Sed-me profile image83
                    Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Where did you get your research from?

                3. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  So the "Christians" that murder for their God really are following His orders.

                  Can't say as I can accept interpretation of the bible.  Which is why I said that the changes they've made to His word make them not a true Christian.  I'm a little shocked that you disagree with that, though.

            2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
              oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              +1

              I think any rational, reasonable, educated person would do the same.  By educated, I  simply mean to just have a very basic understanding of what Christ taught, and then what Hitler did vs what he claimed, as in the example given, and know how to compare and contrast, etc.

    2. aka-dj profile image80
      aka-djposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      If you want to see radical Christianity, look at the life of Jesus.
      He as as radical as any of His followers will ever need to be.

      Then, follow the life and experiences of the original 12 Apostles, (and Paul in particular).

      You will find that each one gave his life for the Gospel.
      However, in contrast to Jihad, where they blow themselves up etc. and kill innocent victims, they died to get the Gospel message (of LOVE) to their fellow human.
      They laid down their lives FOR others, and not TAKE their lives!

      Often I wish I could live up to this high a standard!

      1. Sed-me profile image83
        Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        +1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
        Perfectly said.

      2. Jomine Jose profile image78
        Jomine Joseposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        The twelve apostles are fiction. And there was no 'christian' persecution as alleged in first century AD but was all pious fabrications.
        If gospel preachers ever tried to emulate jihadies chrisianity would have been wiped off by Roman military machine. Bit after gaining power christians did indeed behave like jihadies, if not worse.

      3. oceansnsunsets profile image88
        oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        +1!

        Yes, Jesus, he was the best example!  His message is not difficult to understand, but continues to be radically life changing to this day.

  6. mishpat profile image60
    mishpatposted 2 years ago

    OP, still don't have a definition of radical Christianity?

  7. Chrisphine Obado profile image60
    Chrisphine Obadoposted 2 years ago

    The mindset of a fundamentalist is plainly to cause havoc whether christian or ISIS. All of them kill for a religious cause.

    1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
      oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I have been labeled a fundie/fundy (fundamentalist) in this thread, as have others, and I don't fit your "all" in your description there.  I know of some people that would actually fit the "fundy or fundie" title in the way I think it is meant to smear here, and even THEY aren't killing.  So I would have to disagree.  Not all radicals kill, but some are sympathetic to the killing.  I am neither.

      As an example of some that are sympathetic, yet not killers, I recall very distinctly, the video footage from overseas, after 9/11 happened.  There was dancing in the streets, as if something wonderful had been achieved.  Those grandmothers and women I saw, and everyone else probably didn't actually kill anyone.  Rather, they seemed very sympathetic and siding with the killers as seen in their actions assuming it wasn't faked footage or anything.  Other examples echo that response can be given.  They didn't seem to stand up against it, they seemed to be rejoicing in it.

  8. oceansnsunsets profile image88
    oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago

    Here is a sincere question that arises out of many posts I saw that alluded to the need to ask it....

    Is one of the beliefs of atheists, that once a religionist of any kind, that that person is always still of that religion?  Wouldn't that include all the people that ever leave religion to become atheists, and if the answer is yes, then what do THOSE atheists that were once part of a religion think of their fellow atheists beliefs about them?

    The reason I ask this, is because it seems to have been suggested that if there is any hint of religion in an atheists background, then IF they ever commit any horrific acts AS an atheist later in life, then they can always be blamed STILL on religion from the past?  Surely I am not reading that insinuation correctly, right?  If this is what is being suggested, isn't this trying to pass off a really illogical idea on us all?  It might work for some, but it makes no sense.

    1. PhoenixV profile image79
      PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      It's the "hey they walked by a church one day in the past" or "his brother's, neighbor was a Priest" , so the FACT that they implemented their Marxist–Leninist atheism that specifically targeted religious people just don't count argument. It counted enough for the victims.

    2. 0
      Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Here is what we have here. Someone blaming deaths on an atheist who was raised as a very religious person. That same person doesn't recognize the responsibility of the death for any Christians. So if one is going to blame the persons religion or lack of we should look at his upbringing as well. I for one was brought up in a rather Catholic way and still do not believe abortions should take place. My religious upbringing has effected me in a profound way.

      That being said don't you think it's fair that if one is going to commit logical fallacies that allow them to blame a persons lack of faith on their doing one should also blame their faiths on there doings?

      The truth is I started out here defending your faiths, but it's becoming increasingly difficult.

      1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
        oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        No, not if they no longer have any faith and are an atheist, that left their faith and are now targeting people of faith. They don't believe in a god or gods, are are pretty sure they won't ever face the god they don't believe in, and won't have to answer for it.  If they hadn't left their faith, the wouldn't be targeting people of faith, right?  Look up Pol Pot, it says next to his religion, "none."  I can't believe I am having to help you see the severe stretch you have to even make to pin any actions on past religion.  This only makes my case all the more, the "spirit" of this thing almost, is a true desire to go after religion, even when its not in play and the religious are the ones targeted.  (Like in the OP)

        The example of abortion you give might not just be because of religious upbringing, but because the fact there is an innocent, unborn human person whose life is being ended, that if left alone would end up like you or me very likely. Its your conscience I think at play there, not just your past Catholicism.  Sometimes the morally correct stance wins no matter who holds it, and a case could be made that its morally the correct stance.  So that example to me doesn't make the case, that it makes sense to  blame past religion for a person's current killings if they happen to currently be without religion, as a stance.

        What if that atheist won the Nobel peace prize?   Can we "blame" that incredible success on his past religion only in that case, and not his current atheism?  Surely you can see the point there and the inherent problem?  Its simple picking and choosing, which illuminates the whole point of why this thread is so horrendous, and that those speaking up against it are making such valid points.   Its a targeting by cherry picking and avoidance with strong faith, of other hard facts.  Facts that fly in the face of certain strongly held beliefs. (Not fun, but we each choose our beliefs.)

        If someone commits logical fallacies, pointing them out and making a case showing how its illogical is a good thing to do.

        If any person were to blame the bad actions on past religion only,  and credit the good achieved to a person's atheism always when they are currently an atheist, then THAT is a person with very strongly held biases. This is like setting things up to always be a win win, which isn't logical or moral, but wanting to win and the other side to lose that badly.  Makes the case again if its done. Its the equivalent to cheating an getting mad, then blaming the other side for simply pointing it out, as doing something bad.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          So I take you you except the fact that your religion is responsible for WW1 and WW2 as the leaders were confirmed Christians? What about the War on Iraq?

          As for the logical fallacies what they do is help us understand when we are in error. It's an error to say that Christianity is to blame for WW1. 2 and the War on Iraq just as it's an error to say that atrocities caused by these people are because of their Atheism.

          You may want to read about people like Stalin and Pol Pot and what they were taught as Children and how that lead to the horrors that they did, just as you may want to read about what the Bush's and Hitler were taught that may have lead to the horrors they committed.

          Notice how PhoenixV pretended the mass suicide of a group of religiously indoctrinated people was mass murder? He shot no one or held a gun to their heads, he just talked them into it before he shot himself dead.

          The truth is I'm not blaming the religious upbringing of mass murderers on their upbringing, it's you who are blaming it on their unconfirmed Atheism. I simple defended that stance by pointing out what they have been taught by their religious upbringing and comparing that to what they have done. It's a very valid defence.

          So if you are going to continue pointing to these people and saying what they did was because of their lack of belief I'll point out the atrocities that religious folks have done and claim it was in fact because of their religion. It's only fair, and I started out defending Christianity in this forum. So do you concede it was Hitlers Christianity that led him to murder millions of Jews and attempt to take over the world killing millions in the process?

          1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
            oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            A simple study on the links I posted earlier, show the religious in the other cases were targeted.  This is the point of posting them, or I and others would be hypocrites.  For you to have a case like you are suggesting, more truths have to be in play. No one makes that argument, not seriously. 

            There have been Christian Presidents in this country for a long time.  Obama says he is one too.  If they and Congress decide to have to intervene in a world war, that is not a preferred thing, but I have never ever heard anyone suggest it had anything to do with their Christianity, it doesn't make sense.  Their Christianity however, has long been a reason I think they use to defend Israel, and be an ally.  The USA has taken great heat for that stance on standing by Israel.  The tide seems to be changing quite a bit.

            If you really believe that that many people collectively killed themselves and children on some random day because it felt like a good idea, with no impact at all from their leader, I suggest you are sugar coating something rather terribly, and showing extreme bias.  Its like wanting to excuse the main player in all of that, that if not there, there wouldn't even be a Jonestown.  Lets be fair.  Your struggle with those facts, doesn't mean Phoenix is pretending anything, or trying to smear.  Many refer to it as the Jonestown Massacre.  I just googled Jonestown and saw that as a result.  Christians aren't making this up.

            I don't agree it was a valid defense.  You are saying conflicting things. 

            You said, "The truth is I'm not blaming the religious upbringing of mass murderers on their upbringing, it's you who are blaming it on their unconfirmed Atheism. I simple defended that stance by pointing out what they have been taught by their religious upbringing and comparing that to what they have done. It's a very valid defence."

            Your first sentence, then your second conflict there, and you say its valid.  I disagree.

          2. PhoenixV profile image79
            PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            By your logic Hitler was innocent of actually killing anyone. It is not my opinion, it is the statements of some of the survivors -  To a certain extent, the actions in Jonestown were viewed as a mass suicide; some sources, including Jonestown survivors, regard the event as a mass murder. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown#cite_note-1

            However, I assert there are other groups of people who should fall into the category of being murdered:

                • Those who drank poison believing that they had only two choices: drink the poison, or be shot by armed guards. Is that “revolutionary suicide”? No, it is not. Their deaths were coerced. The pavilion was surrounded by armed guards. People witnessed others being pulled from their seats and forced to drink or being injected.

                • Those who may have voluntarily drunk the poison based on the lies of Jim Jones as told that day. Jones asserted that the children would be taken from us, that the Guyanese Defense Force was on its way and it was armed and would be shooting, etc. If someone “voluntarily” takes their life based on the lies of another, is that really suicide? Wouldn’t the perpetrator of the lie be responsible?

                • Those who voluntarily drank the poison through months/years of conditioning that created a state-of-siege mentality. Oftentimes, as many survivors have learned since, the “crises” we were experiencing were – literally – manufactured by Jones himself (e.g. gun shots being fired into the community in September of ‘77). If one commits “revolutionary suicide” based on years of experience, without the knowledge that the experiences themselves were created by the leader, is that suicide? I assert it is murder.

            How does one assign a numerical total to the people who fall into the above categories? It is impossible. Perhaps one guideline would be this: During the so-called “September Siege” of 1977, Jones twice asked the approximately 700 people in Jonestown “Who wants to commit revolutionary suicide?” The first vote revealed a total of two who voted “for” (Maria Katsaris and Harriett Tropp). The following day the total rose to three (Carolyn Layton, along with Maria and Harriett).

            That constitutes less than one percent of Jonestown’s population who felt revolutionary suicide was an option. Were the percentages higher on November 18, 1978? I say no, not discernibly. Those who were not in Jonestown on that day bolster that argument. Of the approximately 300 or so full-time members who were not in Jonestown, only two committed suicide (one after murdering her children). Again, we are left with a figure of around one percent.

            Giving much room for debate, I will say that 75 per cent of those 361 in the above named categories did not commit suicide (though, personally, I feel it is higher). That is 278 people, which – when added to the children and seniors and those injected with poison – brings us to a total of 829 people murdered, or ninety percent.

            Finally, I use Jim Jones’ own words, taken from the so-called “death” tape, to refute the assertion that the majority of people meekly acquiesced in their death: “Don’t lay it [your life] down with tears and agony. Stop this hysterics! This is not the way for [people] to die.”

            Jones himself tells the world what was happening in Jonestown: Tears. Agony. Hysteria. I can attest that agony and tears and hysteria (and fear) were the operative emotions of that day. The screams heard on the so-called “death” tape were far louder than those which come through on the tape itself.

            Mass suicide? Or mass murder? While some did commit suicide, the vast majority of those who perished in Jonestown were murdered. Jonestown should always be considered a mass murder, with some suicide. http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/?page_id=31976

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Well my brother Atheists and none fundy Christians I must apologies. I started out defending these people but can no longer do so as they portray the exact same zeal and lack of understanding of others that groups like ISIS seems to. There lack of understanding and compassion is rather apparent in these last few pages and I'm deeply sorry for confusing them for compassionate understanding people. I personally do not blame any of the non fundies that have left the forums, as these people exemplify a lack of understanding for humanity and have an inability to see any wrong doing of their own, much like ISIS. Not one of them have been able to come forward as I did and defend people against hate speech.

              1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Strange, there has been NO more ISIS activity here than there was at the OP.  Yet you do a 180 degree turn around and apologize for standing up for what you did prior.  This came after you were shown with quotes and facts from things like the "death tape" from Jonestown, that your beliefs don't always hold up to the facts and scrutiny, Radman.  So I find that an odd thing to have you say twice there, about ISIS.

                Fundys are something in particular, and people sharing facts to the degree we did today, does not make a person a fundy, just because you might feel like they are showing how poor ideas are wrong with facts and reasoning and logic. 

                You were right to defend what you did early on, only in that first post really.  That was cool, and I spoke out and said so.  Now you say you were wrong. Yet no ISIS activity though was done in sharing of what I saw here since that time, how could it have been of course.  Illogical and unreasonable, not gallant nor innocent, and all transparent.

                You say, "as these people exemplify a lack of understanding for humanity and have an inability to see any wrong doing of their own, much like ISIS."

                If you or I are wrong, then we are actually wrong or not, and that can be shown, no need for the comparisons you give there.  Good grief.  If you could equally show with facts how what you just said was true, then I suppose you would have done that, but chose not too. One reason would be that the facts don't support your held beliefs about Christianity and a lot of history.

                Edit:  Even though you did the same thing you stood up to initially, I would never still compare you to ISIS, because they do very particular things, and you are not doing them I assume, and neither is anyone else here.  That is called something in particular, by the way.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  It's sad really. I did try to defend fundies and the like, but it appears your are unable to understand the simplest of concepts and reasons.

                  For instance Jim Jones and his cult is on record as being one of many Christian mass suicides and yet you pretend it's something else entirely as do you pretend Hitler was not what he says he was. The simply fact is that Jonestown was an example of how someone can take advantage of the gullibility of fundies and some get them to commit mass suicide which included their own children. We can see another example in the news today as another couple was put in prison for failing to look after their children properly for religious reasons. Thought prayer would heal them. Sad really. It's one of the reasons why your religion causes and has causes so many wars.

                  It's sad you don't see the difference between Hitler and Jim Jones. Hitler orders the killing and Jim Jones simply asked the fundies to kill themselves AND THEY DID.

                  But I'm done. No sense attempting to reason with groups like ISIS either.

                  1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                    oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    And you did it again.  Another ISIS comment.  That is one thing. 

                    On the other stuff, We will have to agree to disagree, and that you think it is sad, that it is me that can't understand the simplest of concepts and reasons, while alarming, is not anything new from you.  I see you say this to others as well. The needless insulting when you cannot back up your beliefs and assertions with facts, nor answer to the actual facts from quotes from the people themselves, is what is really telling. 

                    What is sad is when someone's personally held and strong belief that is in obvious error when lined up with the facts, resorts to the tactics you do here.  If you had the facts and reasoning and logic to back you up, then you would have shared those things.  Those are the best way to make one's points morally.  You chose not to do that.   You can keep acting like you defended something when the truth is as we see now you have said what the OP said many times over as a response.  To avoid that, are people to just let you believe whatever you want?  That isn't actually caring about someone, by the way.  I know of some that would tell you want you want to hear, but that isn't really helping you to think any of this through.  So we see more of what you initially condemned. I hope in time, you will see that too.

              2. PhoenixV profile image79
                PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this
                1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Radman has said it one more time another way, since you posted this 

                  There is no greater defamation of character or hate speech, or personal attack,  than comparing people to that, than he has done now more than anyone else on this this whole thread, all the while "saying he defended them."  Not one person has said it more now than him, in the last two posts alone.

            2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
              oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              This line of facts and reasoning makes more sense, and cares about the particular details. It is more fair.  I think it is a better case, even if I were to agree with Radman on his belief about the whole thing.

    3. Jomine Jose profile image78
      Jomine Joseposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Atheism
      1) a lack of belief in a deity.
      2) a belief in the lack of deity.
      3) a position that there are no gods.
      The first two are still believers, they just changed the people whom they chose to believe and communists, fascists. .. and all those who profess atheism belief belonged to that category and their belief is a product of their respective ideology. (Since religion was the ideological tool that kept the system in place, Lenin believed atheistic propaganda to be of critical necessity. - from your own source wikipedia). Hence their morality also come from their ideology. Atheism has no morality attached to it.
      Stalin and Polpot killed because they were communist.
      Hitler killed because he was fascist.
      But why did Bush or the Spanish inquisidars killed?
      Religion has morality attached to it unlike atheism.

  9. Jay C OBrien profile image81
    Jay C OBrienposted 2 years ago

    Do Christian fundamentalists and ISIS have anything in common?

    Yes, we are all people.  We are all interconnected in some way as evidenced by the existence of telepathy or ESP.  I have my own verified personal experiences and I have researched others.  Some people are more spiritually mature than others.  The more mature are here to help the less mature.

  10. mishpat profile image60
    mishpatposted 2 years ago

    It goes on and on, doesn't it.  But are we forgetting that religion is just the tool?  The workers are the evil folks, evil hearted men leading a group of malcontents.

    Seems most every religion, as well as ethnicity, has had a shot at world leadership and domination.  Who's turn will it be next year?

    And where will the followers come from? The malcontents of this year.

    Isn't it interesting that the malcontents of the 60's and 70's here in the US are now the government leaders, either by direct ascension or philosophy?

    1. cjhunsinger profile image70
      cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      mishpat
      Seems to be a fatalistic observation and, if I can add, a correct one. It would seem that the call for a Utopia, whether of a godly or secular description provides ample followers, blinded by the idea of something for nothing, a heavenly reward or a perfection, that is not to be.
      Perhaps, the common thread that binds humanity is the reach for a promise of what cannot be and for the religious or political charlatan a possession of the knowledge of this very exploitative human characteristic.

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        The promise of immortality.

  11. Gnostic Bishop profile image60
    Gnostic Bishopposted 2 years ago

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02cia … =PLCBF574D

    Christianity ushered in the Dark Ages and Inquisition.

    ISIS wants to impose their own version of both ideas on us.

    I guess they feel that reciprocity is fair play and it is to all moral people.

    The question is, is this reciprocity that they think they are doing to us fair play?

    We do not think so but ISIS seems to think so.

    Do they have a point?

    Regards
    DL

  12. oceansnsunsets profile image88
    oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago

    One of the biggest problems with humanity and over history is that people get mad at the wrong things.  Of course people will get mad at things, but they direct what comes with the anger or frustration at something other than the source or core of their true anger or frustration.  I mean the things that actually cause the anger or frustration. Not the perceived things, the preferred or desired things.  This will never solve the true conflicts and they will never seem to really go away and then drastic things begin to be desired sometimes.  Then all are just hurt on all sides.  Good grief.

  13. Onusonus profile image87
    Onusonusposted 2 years ago

    Here's another video of Christian fundamentalists in Sioux City, Iowa stoning a man and woman to death for the offence of adultery. You can hear them shouting, "Let he who bears the biggest stone cast the first stone!" In Arabic...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH1JHHQxd7g

    1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
      oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Deleted

      1. PhoenixV profile image79
        PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        He using Sarcasm, because if it werent really evil it would be too stupid to rate a response.

        1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
          oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Of course,I stand corrected.  He was making an opposite point that Fundie Christians don't do that.  Gotcha.  So now I am fairly embarrassed, lol.  I am ill with a bad cold, does that give me any passes? lol.

        2. 0
          Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Wow, proud of yourself? Had to explain what sarcasm if to your little cult. Sad really, don't tell her to drink the cool aid.

          1. PhoenixV profile image79
            PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            wow

  14. oceansnsunsets profile image88
    oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago

    Oh my gosh, its like the points made yesterday that were shown to be full of fallacies, weren't even discussed.  hmm 

    We seem to just be revisiting the same points.  These were the failed points from yesterday that we all took the time to wade through and break apart as if with a fine toothed comb.   I would say I can't believe it, but I have remembered hitting this point before.

  15. Pam Ryan profile image59
    Pam Ryanposted 2 years ago

    What a superb post. Kudos to you, Rad. . I agree with every word you say.

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Well thanks Pam. They sadly won't. sad

      1. Pam Ryan profile image59
        Pam Ryanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Sadly, you are right.

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      A tip, Pam?  Using the "reply" button under a post will make a clear indication which post you are replying to.  Using the reply button at the bottom right of the screen means you are replying to the topic in general or at least to what the Original Post was.

  16. mishpat profile image60
    mishpatposted 2 years ago

    Just noted some statistics regarding immigration and religion in England.  I wonder if the OP's posting is just a show of frustration because English liberalism has failed to protect the country's sovereignty.  BTW,  Canada is on a par.  Look out America, your next.

    1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
      oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Mishpat, Very interesting.  I wondered something similar when I saw the location, myself. I pay some attention to Canada also.  Its going to be an interesting, ongoing observing of a playing out of cause and effect.

  17. oceansnsunsets profile image88
    oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago

    People see the wrong things as their enemy too often.  People get so mad at the wrong things.  The best antidote to a bad idea, is exchanging it with a better one, or the best one.  No one gets automatic "wins" on ideas, simply because that person is preferred, or has a bigger club, is in power, or can make the calls. 

    I think this is what infuriates and never gives satisfaction to powers that be (no matter how big or small), that are trying to pass off bad ideas as good. 

    Its actually all really simple conceptually.  Good, true, moral ideas win automatically without having to try.  Bad, false, immmoral ideas and beliefs have to work extra hard to pass off as the other kind, and thus we see power grabs, hurting others in various ways, and silencing.  This is how terror of various forms actually wins, when not stopped.  When allowed for whatever strange reason, people will be hurt, conflict will ensue, and blame will be assigned, and there are viscous cycles.  People often like to learn history for this reason, OR hate the truth of it being exposed. 

    History is the perfect way to learn about what has worked and not worked.  Those that want to pass off bad ideas, think that if they can just get in power and force it onto people, that it will work.  It doesn't, because truth isn't like that.  Sometimes I think people aren't just ambivalent to the idea of a god, but to the idea of truth.  It is its OWN thing, we can't own it, and it was here long before us and will be long after.  People don't want to submit to it, even when they can't beat it.  Very willful humans, we are.  Some dig heels in, until their live is over.  Even facing death, very obstinate.

    Cause and effect, we get what comes with our choices.  There is the greater, bigger picture.

  18. biblicaliving profile image83
    biblicalivingposted 2 years ago

    Although I find your question to be intriguing, I must confess that it is to nuanced to address with a  cut and dry response. It may actually be a case of presenting the logical fallacy of the false dilemma. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

    1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
      oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Now that you mention it, I think that sounds right about the false dilemma.  Thanks for pointing it out.

  19. mishpat profile image60
    mishpatposted 2 years ago

    Seeing some terms here over and over but it seems they mean different things to different people.

    The most recent being Jesus was a radical and intolerant.  Yes and no to each depending on how you see it.

    He was a radical in that he did not go along with the status quo of the religious leadership.  But is that a negative?  I think not.  Those folks which he label as hypocrite, vipers, etc, like many today, were fleecing the naive in the name of God.  And he spoke against it openly and publicly.

    He was also intolerant.  Was that a negative?  I think not.  He spoke to a variety of beliefs in conversation.  But He physically tossed out the "moneychangers" who were, again, fleecing the people in the temple.

    One of my favorite "radicals" of recent years was Che.  Oh, how he fought for the rights on the downtrodden.  But then, when the authorities finally finished his life, he was found wearing a Rolex.

    A thinking and reasoning person will recognize, not necessarily accept, that religions are, as one put it in the past, an opiate for the masses.  Guess they were right.

    But Christianity is not a religion.  It is a relationship by faith, one on one with God through the works of Jesus Christ.  You can't earn and you can't lose it once you got it.  You can only reject it.

    You can belong to any church you want, or islum or the order of the moose. Or maybe the Klan or the Democrat or Republican party.  They all have required rites/rules which must be followed religiously in order to keep their "membership."

    And if someone tells you, in the name of that religion, that you must do this or you must do that, keep one eye on them and the other on your wallet.

    1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
      oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I am more convinced that ever, that people struggle with the truth.  That has probably always been the case, but I think what seems to be more the norm, is how some lash out about things, rather than think them through carefully. 

      Even if I didn't agree with you on some random point, I can tell you like to think things through carefully.  I think that is wonderful, and rare. I hope to do that, it is my goal, as if fairness. (among other things.)

      The teachings of Jesus are tough at times, even and maybe especially for Christians.  This world has a lot of problems, and a lot of things are changing, including mindsets of people. 

      So true, about the watching your wallet comment.  Yes, some are easily led, and tricked.

  20. 59
    angelolositoposted 2 years ago

    One thing in common is that they're both fanatical. Christian tend to preach and bug US politics while the ISIS perpetuating violence.

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
      MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Fundies in America are given the ability to affect politics non-violently. Fundies in other areas have no access to the government through non-violent means so must address it violently to accomplish the same goals.

      Same thought processes, different situations.

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        The fundies in African have been negatively affecting change there unfortunately.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Yes. The Christian militias are out of hand over there. What they are doing to Muslims is horrible and inexcusable.

    2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
      oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Both sides, tend to "preach" their own views and beliefs, but only the Christian side is considered fanatical in that case? I see. 

      I see the same mentality exhibited here, that is problematic.  IF Christians are fanatical like ISIS for that reason, then so are a lot of others, but it just so happens only Christians get in the Original Post?  You see the problem.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Uhh...you did note that only a small subset of Christians, just as only a small subset of Muslims, made it into the OP?

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Somehow, on some planet, in some distant universe... it is fine for Christians to act that way because everyone else is as well. Instead of being outraged that members of one's own religion are behaving that way, it is preferable to point out that others are acting that way... so it's fine. Really.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            That's how it seems to work, all right.  It makes a good diversion, too, as not a single one has ever answered the OP - just rant about how Christians are always attacked and the thread should be closed down.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              OK, as a Christian I'll answer it.

              "Sometimes I think radical Islam and radical Christianity have more in common with each other than they do with any of the more moderate or secular belief systems.  All this burning in hell for all eternity and everything. It's evil, isn't it?  Not to put too fine a point on it, what's the difference between this and the stuff you hear coming out of Jihad merchants? Would the rad Christians hesitate to kill people if they thought it might serve their interests? Just asking."

              Yes, radical Islam and radical Christianity do have more in common with each other than moderate beliefs and normal secular beliefs. Absolutely. The similarities are that they are both radical. Radical Christians kill hundreds of thousands of people a day to serve their interests as do radical Muslims. There is absolutely no difference between the rhetoric of Jihad Muslims and Extremist Christians except the book they use to reference.

              If you consider any of the above hate speech, it's because you hate Muslims so much that you being compared to them is violently offensive.

              As far as a belief in hell for all eternity being part of the radical Christian's belief system, it is equivalent to the 70 virgins thing... so yes there are parallels there. The problem is that neither of those beliefs are the sole property of the extremists of either faith. Those beliefs filter through the moderates as well.

            2. PhoenixV profile image79
              PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              The OP's claim lacks merit - "Christians with beliefs" does not equal "ruthless terrorist organizations". It is not a rational legitimate claim. It is not an actual criticism. Only in atheist lala land does it have merit. Defend against my strawman! Defend against my non sequiturs! Oh the hypocrisy!

              Meanwhile in North Korea:


              Like Marxism-Leninism, Juche ideology espouses state atheism. There are numerous reports of people sent to prison camps and subjected to torture and inhuman treatment because of their faith. It is estimated that 50,000–70,000 Christians are held in North Korean prison camps.There are reports of public executions of Christians.
              It is estimated that between 150,000 and 200,000 political prisoners are detained in concentration camps, where they perform forced labour and risk summary beatings, torture and execution

            3. oceansnsunsets profile image88
              oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              That seems a bit ridiculous to say, if you have even just been barely glancing in here the last several days. 

              I have non stop had to go back for the atheists sake, TO the OP, to remind what it is we are all responding to, answering, and discussing.  So I disagree with you that is not factual, for those reasons at least.

        2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
          oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          You have been answered on this numerous times.  You may have missed though, where two of us were compared to ISIS four times since then, and I have been labeled a fundy.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Yeah, I was.  Unfortunately not a single answer had anything to do with the OP, just that Christians were being attacked in general.  The all important qualifier of radical somehow gets ignored, just as you do here.

            1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
              oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              You are not admitting the obvious, Wilderness.  That is, she focuses particularly, and only, on Christians, when we all know full well there are multiple groups with radicals in them.   She also gave a free pass to secular groups, which I am sure she happens to be a part of, but I don't know for sure.   It seems obvious though. 

              No one here made a thread, nor could they, about ISIS and any other group.  Radical or not.  You are pressing hard to make the crux of this whole debate, something that it is not, to reflect the focus off where you all don't want it to be.  And blaming Christians like me in the process for not just "getting it."  No.... I get it.  Why didn't Pam compare ISIS to an atheist sponsored state, and choose Christians instead, or why  not Jews, why not other groups? We all know why, and its the same stuff over and over here.

              I think its much more fair and reasonable to go appeal to the problem the targeter created, than the targeted in this particular case.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Again, you are using criticism to deflect criticism. Appeal to hypocrisy. Please try again.

                1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  If you care to point out what I said there exactly, that is illogical, then you will be perhaps believable.  What you have done instead, is just accuse again, and avoided every point and question I made or asked.   You maybe don't understand that in these situation, it takes showing HOW, what a person has said, is wrong, to rebut it.  Not just keep saying they are wrong. 

                  A kind warning also, because I get the feeling this may never end.... If you keep this line of lack of reasoning up, I will just simply stop speaking with you again. I had done that for months if not years, until this one fair post I saw from you that I only read because I was in such disbelief of Pam's post, that I was reading all replies.

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    "Why didn't Pam compare ISIS to an atheist sponsored state, and choose Christians instead, or why  not Jews, why not other groups? We all know why, and its the same stuff over and over here."

                    Appeal to hypocrisy - Why not atheism, why not Jews. Criticizing with criticism. If the OP had compared ISIS to Atheism, I wouldn't be talking about Christianity or Judaism, I'd be discussing Atheism.

                  2. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    "No one here made a thread, nor could they, about ISIS and any other group.  Radical or not."

                    How odd.  I was sure I saw ISIS in both the title and the OP.

                    Wait.  I DID see it in both places.  Even that horrible Wilderness guy referenced both the radical groups of Islam (ISIS) and Christianity, while commenting that Christianity in general has grown and developed faster than Islam, making the radical end much smaller than ISIS.  http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126627#post2672827

                    Maybe it's the the Christians with a chip on their shoulder, looking for offense where none is offered?

            2. PhoenixV profile image79
              PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Comparing Christians, based upon their beliefs as a ruthless terrorist organization is a smear.  Pedophiles take advantage of the trusting nature of children. Do you know anyone that takes advantage of the trust of another person? Would you think its okay to make a comparison like that?

              1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Now to address the good point that was almost missed.....

                That is absolutely true, that comparing Christians based on their beliefs, (hell in particular as she designated), to a terrorist organization IS a smear.  To those being smeared, it is trying to be turned around onto them, over and over and over.  By so many, I have lost count now.

  21. MelissaBarrett profile image60
    MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago

    Is there a "I know you are but what am I?" fallacy?

  22. oceansnsunsets profile image88
    oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago

    Radman, the next fallacy you charge with is, "False Analogy Fallacy - in this fallacy you've assumed the belief in God is similar to the non-belief in God. For you to overcome the existence of this fallacy, they must show that atheism is a religion, but the very definition of atheism circumvents any such attempt. Unless there is some secret atheist bible from which Stalin drew inspiration for his crimes, there is absolutely no reason to suggest that his lack of belief in a supernatural deity had anything to do with his messianic and maniacal behaviour."

    This one strikes me as a little bit funny, because I do recall just last night, I was responding to you in a comment where you yourself alluded almost outright, that atheism is a religion.  Do you recall that?  I don't think it is, and take atheists at their word when they say a lack of beliefs.

    The thing is,  you have to show where anyone assumed the belief in God, is similar to the non belief in God.  Then, show why atheism needs to be shown to be a religion?  Can't atheists atheists act in a positive, negative and neutral fashion, all without a belief in god?  They can, and they do, as we see. This accusation seems without merit, for just posting historical facts.

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Please show me where I said Atheism is a religion?

      I've maintained all along that we can't use ones religion to determine their actions, but that's not what Phoenix has been saying is it? So if you want to maintain that Atheists are dangerous for what ever reason you have to point to the doctrine that makes us that way. In the case of ISIS we can say that they are dangerous because they are following  exactly what the Quran says to do with people like the journalists. Kill them or hold them as ransom. It's right in their holy book. Do you have some way of saying the same about Atheists? If not then you've made another fallacy if you are implying it can be paralleled with another religion.

  23. MelissaBarrett profile image60
    MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago

    Did I just see someone compare Muslims to pedophiles? Boy that sure does sound like hate-speech to me.

  24. oceansnsunsets profile image88
    oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago

    Did I just see someone make something up, just try to distort, and create hate speech that isn't there?  This is making a forced comparison that isn't there.

    No one is making the comparison, that just was made.  This is a high form of petty bickering at the very least.  In fact, this is a deliberate distortion to defame someone. 

    If only you just had points to rebut with, to have a case. You are deliberately trying to create a distortion.  This is probably the most slanderous strawman fallacy employed I ever heard of.

    1. PhoenixV profile image79
      PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      It was the most obvious slanderous distorted strawman I ever saw. They must be desperate to stoop that low.

      1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
        oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I think it would be so much more profound an impact, to make actual cases against those that you disagree with in our discussions here, rather than that.  A strange way to give  confirmation that your opponents are making pretty good points,  but it communicates that all the same. I can't think that anyone would do what we saw, over just making a factual case with reason, logic and facts.  (If facts, reason and logic were on their side in the discussion.)

  25. MelissaBarrett profile image60
    MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago

    If someone is not going to reply to someone then they probably shouldn't reply. smile One should also not say that one has no points after one has made the claim that one is not reading the other's posts. One also knows where the report button is and may push it as often as one sees fit. This one knows this one does smile smile

  26. oceansnsunsets profile image88
    oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago

    This will be my last post to you.  I truly don't read your posts. I received an email from a fellow HP member about it, that also knows I don't read any of your posts.  I literally groaned, because I didn't want to read it, especially if it was so worthy of note.  I looked, and had to go and look at what you were responding to.  Sure enough, it is as I said, deliberate distortion to defame someone, and what goes with that. 

    This behavior is very transparent, and I recall it very well, the glee and so much more.  I knew full well in my responding there is risk you would say just what you did there. 

    This is the last. Now, you do that as many multiple times to anyone else, rather than discuss actual points in the forum.  I would encourage the latter.  Everyone else was at least attempting do to discuss points.   I won't be reading, and therefore won't know to report any possible abuses that might arise.  Its still well worth the benefit, and I am not feeding a situation I think needs to be discouraged, rather than encouraged.  I am not a believer in being run off of HP forums, or the site, because of people that act in this manner.  That isn't fair.  This way, I avoid the behavior and get to post freely.

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
      MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I am ever so glad this will be your last post to me. Am I also to assume that you won't be posting things directed at me but not addressed to me? Cause that would be awesome! I'm also glad that I am such an event that others pass emails about me.

      I was ran off from this site a few months ago by behavior exactly like you have describe and happily participate in.

      I begged to have an actual conversation and was ignored by others in favor of posting one liners and pictures. So when in Rome, I'm doing as the Romans. If the Romans don't like it, maybe they should look at themselves.

      And you aren't reading this like a bear doesn't crap in the woods. smile

  27. oceansnsunsets profile image88
    oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago

    Radman, you shared, "Poisoning the Well Fallacy - When you present adverse information about, or associates unfavourable characters, characteristics or qualities with, a targeted person, or in this case, worldview (atheism), with the intention of undermining it, this is known as poisoning the well.  “Stalin was an atheist, therefore atheism is dangerous.”"

    That would only be a valid criticism, if what you presented in quotes as the argument, WAS the argument being made.  That is not the argument being made.  So your logical fallacy assertion is false, because you falsely presented the argument itself.  No one here made that argument. 

    Stalin was brought up in response as a historical example, to help the OP and others, see its not just that of religion, as was being charged.

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Another logical fallacy, criticizing to defer criticism. It doesn't matter why he brought up Stalin being a dangerous Atheist, because it's a logical fallacy to do so.

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        My problem is it's completely unrelated. The question of the thread was about extremist Muslims and Christians. I have no idea how atheism relates, as it wasn't even suggested in the OP. One would think if the topic was a comparison of extremist Muslims and extremist Christians that those subject would be what was discussed. The random-ness is confusing to me.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          That's why I'm waiting for him to put forth an argument without logical fallacies. I've already done it for him back on page 2. but he seems to think spewing hatred towards an unrelated group makes his point.

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            That's a shame, it could have been an interesting and enlightening conversation without the distraction. It seems wrong that people can derail a thread for their own agendas. It's not conductive to reasonable debate at all. It becomes all about those people and their issues. Frankly no one is interesting enough to warrant this many pages of conversation about their emotional distress.

            It's a shame the forums have come to this. Once they were full of intelligent people having intelligent conversations... now they are cock-fights.

            I think the saddest casualty is Mo. She was one of the pure good ones. It doesn't seem she was confrontational and bitter enough for anyone's tastes.  It's really sad when voices of reason are harassed until they leave by individuals who just want conflict to feel whatever need it is that fills.

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              She turned the other cheek, it got slapped and she left. She had and has a wonderful way of reaching people. It's sad because I can't think of a single atheist who didn't love her.

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                One last post and I'm out of here...

                Christians, like any other group, are cannibalistic. It's human nature that the nastiest and least scrupulous try to eliminate those who highlight their faults in comparison. It is BECAUSE Mo was liked that she was chased off. Jealous and bitter people hate it when others are loved, because they know they are unlovable. Rather than change themselves, they attack their competition. It doesn't make them any more loved, but at least they aren't reminded of their own inadequacies.

                The Christians on these boards aren't any different. The loudest and most aggressive chase away others so they can keep the illusion of superiority. Mo is, and always will be, better than them. Completely. Nothing they can twist will change that.

                I love her deeply and she has all my respect, a very hard thing to earn and something that the so called Christians on this board will never have. Not because she gave the best one-liners, not because she had the biggest swinging e-.... but because she loves like Christ. Even if they win the teddy-bear for one-upsmanship, they still wouldn't be worthy to be wiped off her shoe. I think they know that, and I think her presence was a constant painful reminder of it.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  +1  Can't argue with a thing you've said here.  Mo was special.

              2. PhoenixV profile image79
                PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I feel the same way about Cgenaea and Chris Neal (he may not like me I dont know) but I think he was cool.


                Sad.

                Especially Cgenaea. The way she was treated.  I wish I had free speech on HP. I would love to expound on that.

                1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, Chris Neal is a good guy, from what I have seen.  Also, the patience of a saint with some.  I can't imagine why he was banned. smile

      2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
        oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Your habit of making up what you think or want other people's arguments to be, then criticizing them with supposed logical fallacies, has been shown to be obviously lacking, obviously wrong.  I know you believe you are right, with all of your heart very likely.  Still, so much time and effort has been spent clarifying what I think you are trying to say, that I am convinced that more time and repetition won't help.  I find, that when I have taken a great deal of time, you don't own the errors, OR explain why you think my assessment is wrong on your errors.  You just throw out another supposed logical fallacy, and carry on like you have some upper hand.   

        So what is the point of my speaking with you from a genuine heart and mind that wants to really discuss?  You make it all a futile attempt, Radman.  I have tried with you, to the point that I am convinced it is actually pretty futile, and I have been at this point before.

  28. oceansnsunsets profile image88
    oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago

    Radman, you shared, "Slippery Slope Fallacy - The slippery slope fallacy is a species of the false cause fallacy that seeks to present a conclusion of an argument that is dependent upon an unlikely chain of events. In other words you are saying that the more secular we become the more our society will erode when in fact what we see is the opposite. Would you rather live in Uganda, Saudi Arabia or North America?" 

    Do you have a post where that argument was made?  I think it is looking like you might have drawn some conclusions on your own, and I have shown how and where when I see it as cut and dry.  This may be another.  In case I forgot or missed if Phoenix or I made the point of (or similar to), "that the more secular we become the more our society will erode?" Can you point it out so I can answer with it head on, or clearly?  Thanks.

  29. oceansnsunsets profile image88
    oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago

    Radman, regarding the false analogy fallacy, you said, "I've maintained all along that we can't use ones religion to determine their actions, but that's not what Phoenix has been saying is it? So if you want to maintain that Atheists are dangerous for what ever reason you have to point to the doctrine that makes us that way. In the case of ISIS we can say that they are dangerous because they are following  exactly what the Quran says to do with people like the journalists. Kill them or hold them as ransom. It's right in their holy book. Do you have some way of saying the same about Atheists? If not then you've made another fallacy if you are implying it can be paralleled with another religion."

    I actually don't recall Phoenix saying it was because of the religion of Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin, that we can blame their actions. 

    I have seen you do this with Hitler however, and myself, and Phoenix at least.  Hitler seems to for sure be a Christian in your mind, and you seem to have concluded that we can blame his actions on his Christianity, remember?  (Not verbatim, admittedly, but said in forms many times over.)  Your references to ISIS and the numerous cult references to Phoenix and I, changed to that after you observed our behavior in here, and I am then no longer a real Christian (not verbatim), in your eyes.  And why?  Because of the behavior.  Same with Mo, and her behavior,and her real Christian status in your eyes because of the behavior and your judgment of it, etc.   It seems contradictory.

    You said again here, "So if you want to maintain that Atheists are dangerous for what ever reason..."

    Please stop, that is false.  I don't maintain that, you keep saying it though.  This creates an atmosphere, where we are getting nowhere.  We actually aren't talking about anything really, because of your false assertions, and misunderstandings, which I am having to spend all my time correcting to even begin to talk.  Never mind, that you tend to not read my long posts. I am probably wasting my time.  I have however, now addressed your five supposed logical fallacies.

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
      MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126627? … ost2674736

      http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126627? … ost2674773

      http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126627? … ost2674591

      http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126627? … ost2674387

      http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126627? … ost2674210

      http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126627? … ost2674323

      http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126627? … ost2673916

      And likely others but I'm laughing too hard to type. Must not read Phoenix's posts either. Almost every post he writes has something to do with "mass-murdering atheists" Bias leads to fallacies because bias is by nature irrational. It's obvious to those not flying a specific persons banner because we find him super groovy.

  30. PhoenixV profile image79
    PhoenixVposted 2 years ago

    http://bp0.blogger.com/_Y-DbBvf7R5Y/SC2wboePRLI/AAAAAAAAKuE/JNnKAFRcJl4/s400/jim_jones.jpg

    I’m an atheist. I don’t believe in any loving God. Our people, I would say, are ninety percent atheist..

    1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
      oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Ok, well that was chilling.  It has been an interesting few days for sure in here.  I have learned so much, seen so many quotes that illuminate what I had already learned about the histories in question, and gained in general knowledge.  As usual, the boards are an interesting place to see how people form their opinions and what they base them on, as well as their beliefs.

  31. PhoenixV profile image79
    PhoenixVposted 2 years ago

    http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/39/sad-puppy.JPG

    Especially Cgenaea. The way she was treated.  I wish I had free speech on HP. I would love to expound on that..sad

    1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
      oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, not many could take how she was treated, and remain so strong and not give it back.   She has a good heart, as far as I could see, and the patience of a saint.

      1. PhoenixV profile image79
        PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        http://cutepics.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/sad-puppy.jpg




        + 1111 Everything you've said here, is true and more. Cgenaea had heart and would still be here, except....

        1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
          oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          She doesn't conform, and doesn't stop talking about her relationship with God, and likes to express herself in her own way. (And good for her.)   Her strength is drawn from something much deeper and very real.  Its very obvious, because no one could hardly take what she has taken, and didn't deserve.  One has to ask, what seriously, was so awful about what she was saying, that people felt so free to treat her so ugly.  I mean their behavior....ugly....    I think some of us know.  If you somehow end up seeing this, waving to Genaea! smile   Hope you are doing well.

          1. PhoenixV profile image79
            PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            http://bob.all-saints-church.net/files/2012/05/fallen-warrior.jpg




            No human being could take what Cgenaea took. I couldn't have. And she never gave it back. There was a couple of times Chris Neal came in and I was thinking, thank God here comes the cavalry, I guess he had to be silenced. He spoke his mind or the truth.

            1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
              oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I will look forward to seeing both of them back when they come back.  smile  I don't know him well, or Genaea either, I am going off what I did know in observance.

            2. 0
              Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I have to agree, I like both of those people. I consider Chris a personal friend, we chat often and I warned him he was getting close to a ban. He told someone he was about to call them a jerk and someone push the report button. Just so you guys are aware. He's called me a jerk plenty of times, but I've never pushed the report button, because he may or may not have been right.

              Anyhow, I've done my best to show you two the flaws in your logic. I'm not about to defend atheism here because of your logical fallacies. Start a new forum and perhaps I'll defend a lack of belief without criticizing another group to avoid criticism.

              1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I did respond to each and every one of your logical fallacies that you said were happening in here.  Mostly through using strawmen, and crafting up your own wording of things we never said, you then tried to apply a logical fallacy to those arguments that were never made.  I carefully pointed out how that wasn't the case even with the example that came closest.  I and offered for you to give some actual quotes to show the opposite, which you didn't do.  I think that is because they aren't there.  This seems obvious, besides that fact they were arguments and things I would never say, and that I never saw Phoenix say.  In other words, all your assessments and presmises would have had to be correct, for your arguments to follow.  They were not.

                Improperly applied logical fallacies to the actual reasons the history was brought up, doesn't make you correct.  It was never established that Christianity is like ISIS. History was shown to prove the OP wrong in her assertions/beliefs, mainly the point about ISIS having more in common with one group over others. She was the one that brought up the idea of groups not hesitating to kill if they thought it would serve their purpose.   So ideas were not warranted, simply put.  The histories showed a very simple point, and with her beliefs, she will know what that is.  Your insisted upon emphasis that the argument was as simple as you make it out to be,, doesn't address the greater problem.  She seems to believe, that because of the hell belief of some Christians  they are to fairly compared to what she compared them to.  That position is illogical at best. 

                So the truth of the actual matter, means she doesn't have facts on her side, and is left only with her beliefs which where shown in her smears of another group.  I don't know if she is an atheist, but know she sided with you in what you were saying.  If she is, there is nothing in her atheism that I could appeal to, to suggest she shouldn't create a forum thread like this.  She doesn't seem phased by my appeals from reason, logic or morality either.  It would have been good to see her make a case for her thread, other than that Christians believe in hell and that is really evil. Its just sad, really.

          2. PhoenixV profile image79
            PhoenixVposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            http://s28.postimg.org/jab7pm1gt/mcdonalds.jpg




            I have never seen a human being treated that way on the internet.

            1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
              oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I have said this before, its like she is a whipping boy to some, for lack of better words.  Like seeing the  maltreatment, and rather than even just ignoring it or reporting that treatment of her, some gang up like its ok, and don't stop.  It doesn't make it right, because she comes back and shares her views with people, and is strong.

  32. MelissaBarrett profile image60
    MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago

    Fair enough Beth. How did you read "no possibility of coexistence with Islam"? and what action did you think was being suggested?

    1. Sed-me profile image83
      Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      In the context of 911, I didn't even read the word Islam. TAO was responding to the OP and my brain just kind of replaced ISIS with Islam. However, to be fair, I don't know what kinds of things TAO read. I do know if you read deeply into certain religions, they can get pretty "extreme/dark". Of course, I know some lovely Islam ppl, as many of us do, but I have not researched the religion of Islam deeply, therefore, I will reserve my comments and possibly learn something new through someone else's research.

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I can see that, honest mistake. From my viewpoint, I'm not exactly sure if anything he read could excuse the belief that people can't co-exist with a couple of billion people based on their faith. That's what we are talking about here, a couple of billion PEOPLE. Not ideas, not beliefs, people. Children, women, elderly... men and women... all painted with the same brush.

        Muslim hatred is out of control, and I'm repulsed by the amount of people either covertly or outright suggesting violence against Muslims. Not ISIS, not Al-quada, but Muslims. Just as TAO did. As Christians, we should be defending Muslims right now more than ever. Their beliefs might be different, but they are experiencing REAL persecution. They need help, not hatred.

        /soapbox

  33. oceansnsunsets profile image88
    oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago

    The most recent man that was beheaded by ISIS, does anyone know what his parents believe?  I saw them on the news the other night, making a statement.  He was beheaded just a few days ago, and I heard they didn't have him kneel down like normal, and I don't even know what that means, or how they would and I don't want to know.  The report may have been wrong, but it was on the news. 

    The group was ISIS.  They act in a particular way, as many know.

    I only saw part of it, but what I saw made me wonder what their beliefs are, because they talked of forgiveness, how broken the world was, and looking forward to a time when all things would be made right, or not broken.   That was all I got.

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
      MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The last person decapitated by ISIS was a Muslim. 99.99 percent of those killed by ISIS are. So I would say his parents were likely also Muslims. 900,000 Muslims displaced because they won't join ISIS. At least 100,000 additional Muslims in concentration camps. Twice the casualty numbers of 9-11 monthly. 19 Iraqi journalists.

      5 European or American Journalists and aide workers decapitated, well over a 1,000,000 Muslims, tortured, killed, beaten, displaced, starved and left to die along the roadside because they couldn't keep up during death marches for  standing against ISIS. 

      Edit: Sorry for inaccurate numbers, I was using two month old UNAMI information. The numbers are about double that with their latest report.

      1. Sed-me profile image83
        Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Horrific. Truly, truly a horrific end for anyone, no matter the nationality or religion.
        And this is what Christians were compared to in the OP. I took it personally.
        If we go back to the beginning, I forgot who it was... but he said that a radical Christian is someone who lives out the love of Christ full on. These are the ppl who give their freedom and their very lives as martyrs. The underground church in China... the Christians who run into the mountains and starve to death rather than deny their Father in Heaven.

        It is ISIS who is killing those radical Christians. Those heroes of the faith.

        Those who call themselves Christians and live in opposition to the msg. of Christ should claim another name. It makes no sense to believe that ppl filled with hate are sons of a God who would sacrifice His greatest gift out of love in order to save their souls. I am sorry Pam if you have met ppl filled with hate that claim the name of Christ, but please, don't lump followers of Christ with those who hate their fellow man.

        Oceans: Pam may have been quiet b/c she was banned... which was not my desire. My desire was to see this thread closed. It was in HP's hands. Maybe they acted on it, maybe not. I've no idea.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I love you Beth, I'm going to preface with that...

          In Africa, Christian Militias are hunting down and killing Muslims by the thousands daily. Whole villages gone in much the same way as ISIS is hunting Muslims. We can argue all day about whether they are "real" Christians as I'm sure Muslims can argue whether ISIS are real Muslims. However, the rest of the world largely acknowledges these groups as Christians and from that point of view, the comparison is extremely fitting. That word "radical" changes the meaning and is a very important distinction. Had Pam not differentiated, I would be firmly in your court, but she did and I am forced to agree. The argument really does hang on that word.

          1. Sed-me profile image83
            Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I don't recall her differentiating. Where do you mean?
            Also, Muslims do not claim ISIS... at least the ones I've heard from... Not that I blame them. If I desired to pray and love my children and live a good life, I would despise being compared to ISIS... but then, I guess I know how that feels now.

            (And thank you for your kind words, that meant a lot to me.)

            1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
              oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              If you recall in the OP, Pam's differentiation that she is comparing with, are those that believe in hell, and she asks, "it is evil, isn't it?"

              That was her only point of clarification of what she meant by rad or extreme.  She then asked if they would hesitate to kill if it served their purposes.

              Edit:  Some are coming in late, but if you wanted to know, we have been back and forth over the possible defense of Pam's post, about the rad and extreme in this case.  Her explanation was only that they believe in hell and how evil that is. 

              She had been asked several times to explain it, and never did.  So we are left with her own words.  There is no defending of that OP.

              1. Sed-me profile image83
                Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I believe the Bible is true, so I believe hell is real. I can't take it out b/c I don't like the sound of it.
                I do not however bring up hell here. What I have found is that in sharing the Bible, someone will always say, "Or what? I'll go to hell?" etc etc. I have no desire to see a single soul go to hell and it is not my place to judge. But I will always share the bible as a whole, and I will always answering truthfully to the best of my understanding.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I had a post earlier addressing the problems with adding the hell thing. The thing is that Radical Christianity is an actual distinction, it's a definable thing. The Anti-balaka for example are of the distinction "Radical Christianity." They do believe in hell and it's stated often as their driving force to do the things they do... err, just like Jihadists and the virgins thing. The fact that some moderate Christians also share the viewpoints is a hangup, and it needed to be more clearly defined, but the statement was actually pretty factually accurate.

                2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I hear you Sed-Me.  I don't fault you for that, but the OP does.  That is the point.  I don't believe, that you and millions of others, deserve to be lumped with what was done in the OP, and basically defined as radical and extremist, for something like believing hell is real. 

                  The point is, you believe that, and you don't have anything remotely to do with ISIS, nor sympathize with them, if I am correct that you don't.

            2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Well I wanted you to know that although we disagree, I'm not being spiteful with it. smile

              Her post with bolding:

              Sometimes I think radical  Islam and radical  Christianity have more in common with each other than they do with any of the more moderate or secular belief systems. All this burning in hell for all eternity and everything. It's evil, isn't it?  Not to put too fine a point on it, what's the difference between this and the stuff you hear coming out of Jihad merchants? Would the rad  Christians hesitate to kill people if they thought it might serve their interests? Just asking.

              1. Sed-me profile image83
                Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Im not really angry anymore... I don't hold a grudge for long... I save that for my loved ones.
                So I guess she did not clarify the difference between fundamentalists in the title and radical in the OP... However, that being said. I'm to the point where it's almost funny now.

                "Would the rad  Christians hesitate to kill people if they thought it might serve their interests?"

                Let me answer that... lol... Yeah... I think even Westboro would hesitate to kill ppl if it served their interests. At the very least... cause it's illegal.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Westboro is not even a blip on the radar of radical Christianity. I'm not talking past tense, I'm talking currently. There are some very very nasty groups operating right now. We're kind of sheltered from it by our location, so sometimes we think provincially.

                  1. Sed-me profile image83
                    Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Im like Mary Poppins... everything is sunshine and butterflies in my life. smile

                2. oceansnsunsets profile image88
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  The OP isn't even going for AS extreme as Westboro, is the thing.  We all know Westboro could be considered extreme or rad though, and you are right about what you say there.  The thing is, Hell is her defining point for her OP, for those she lumps in with the greatest terror organization any of us know of.  This point has been stated many times, and she hasn't ever corrected it.

                  1. Sed-me profile image83
                    Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I guess that makes Billy Graham and Bin Laden in the same category... of course Bin Laden wasn't really straight up ISIS... so going by those terms, Billy Graham is worse than Bin Laden. I always thought his lapels were way too wide.

  34. Dragon 40 profile image86
    Dragon 40posted 2 years ago

    Christians, as a general rule, do not threaten to kill any non-Christian they can get their hands on. There is NO moral equivalence with ISIS whatsoever.

    1. oceansnsunsets profile image88
      oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you for your input.  What said goes without saying, and is very obvious to even not the so discerning eye.   

      Edit: ISIS in particular, does their outrageous murders of the innocent, in the most horrifying ways.    I have heard of the crucifixions, the beheadings, the burying of children alive, and the sex slavery, etc. Unless all the reports are false, I don't know why people would assume they are like Christians, even "rad" Christians as the OP says.

  35. MelissaBarrett profile image60
    MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago

    Extremist Christians do...Just as extremist *insert group here* do, so the comparison is apt.

    1. Dragon 40 profile image86
      Dragon 40posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Please document the assertion that Christians "do" what ISIS does. Murder, crucifixion, beheadings, chlorine gassing, firing squads and mass graves, selling women into slavery.

      I'll wait.

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=c … a%20africa

        Pick a story. See, that didn't take long.

        1. Dragon 40 profile image86
          Dragon 40posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Interesting. The Christians in this story were attacked by Muslim extremists, and, as they have done in Syria, defended themselves and fought back. ISIS, on the other hand, attacked, raped, enslaved and murdered Syrian and Iraqi Christians and other "unbelievers" without any provocation whatsoever. Again, no moral equivalence.

          If I were to be attacked, I, too, would defend myself and my family with deadly force.