Islam is the Religion of Pinheads!
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
But you spent the whol thread "judging what is in other's hearts":
1) DIXIE: “There is a difference between pointing out unChristian-like behavior, and casting judgement on someone and their faith. Although judgements have to be made in both cases, one is a judgement of fruit, the other is a judgement of soul. We are not supposed to judge a person's soul, that is God's place….I can never speak for what is truly in your heart, or the relationship between you and God.”
2) DIXIE, first post in thread: “I've been doing a little research on the Muslim faith, and I believe I am starting to understand why so many pinheads seem to almost side with the Muslims against the civilized world. It's because Islam is the Religion of Pinheads! Yes, it's true!
Much like the Liberal Left, Muslims will consistently talk out of both sides of their mouth, they will maintain that Islam is a 'religion of peace' and at the same time, call for violence and jihad against those who disagree with them…
It is amazing, when you compare Muslim radicals with Liberal radicals, how much their ideological traits are similar. “
Last edited:
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Jarhead, there are several things I should point out. First, I am not a member of the Religious Right, I support their right to express their political voice, just as I support the right of homosexuals, blacks, women, Hispanics, etc. to have a political voice as a group. Because I might happen to agree with points these groups might make, doesn't mean I am a part of those groups.
Secondly, my pointing out the parallel between Liberalism and Islam, is not intolerance. To be 'intolerant' is to 'not tolerate' something. I have tolerated pinheads for years, when I get the AK-47 out and start popping you idiots in the head, THEN I will have become "intolerant" to pinheads. You should spend a little time at http://www.dictionary.com and see if you can't learn what these big words mean, before you go shooting off your ignorant mouth.
There has never been an abortion clinic bombing that the RR condoned and didn't condemn. A good comparative example would be the KKK and Christianity, the Church never condoned or approved of what the KKK did in their name, and shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of a few.
uscitizen
Villified User
amazing post dix, But there is someting Christians can do about it, not support it. If you support the war and it is a sin, then you sin too.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Prissy, I am sorry, I don't see where I have judged what's in anyone's heart. I made valid observations and have yet to see any counterpoint made. Forming opinions on entire groups of people, might be considered stereotyping, but it's not personal judgement of faith or soul. I honestly believe God has the power to touch the heart of any man, even someone as devoutly anti-God as Arnold, God has the ability to reach. This being the case, it's not for me to judge what is in his heart, or what is in your heart, I simply don't know, that is between you and God, and I make no judgement.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Like I said, it's a double-edge sword, if you don't support removing a tyrant who was murdering innocent people, you are not standing up for the principles of Christ either. You are turning your back on your responsibility as a Christian, to protect innocent life. War isn't a sin, the Bible doesn't say that anywhere, and if you can show me where it does, I'll acknowledge it. In fact, there are several instances, (pointed out in your other thread) where God mandates his followers to wage war and kill everyone, because they are evil.
The sin, is the intentional taking of innocent life, with malice. (like abortion) To my knowledge, that isn't being done in Iraq, and if it has occurred, it is purely an isolated incident and not condoned by the US or myself, and those who are guilty will be punished on earth as well as God, if they do not repent.
uscitizen
Villified User
but we killed many innocent people in removing this tyrant, so are we any better than he was ?
"The sin, is the intentional taking of innocent life, with malice."
Absolutely, wouldnt you say that a 500 lb bomb falling in your house was a bit malicious, since you had done nothing at all to the person responsible for dropping the bomb.
"The sin, is the intentional taking of innocent life, with malice."
Absolutely, wouldnt you say that a 500 lb bomb falling in your house was a bit malicious, since you had done nothing at all to the person responsible for dropping the bomb.
Good point, and Islam never condoned or approved of what Al Queda is doing...EINSTEIN...
You just showed the idiocy of your argument.. Blaiming Islam for what Al Queda does Its the same as blaming Christians for the Behavyor of the KKK.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
You know, I hear this argument made often, and somehow, I just can't picture Jesus condoning abortion on demand, taking 'God' out of the pledge, or marching in the Gay Pride parade. Maybe he would, but I just don't see it. Jesus was tolerant of sinners, he befriended a prostitute, he spent much of his life healing the outcast and accepting the ones society had turned its back on. In that regard, Jesus was liberal, but it was only in regard to his tolerance. Liberals accept these things, not out of tolerance, but out of a willing acceptance of things the Bible speaks out against and sometimes forbids. Jesus never believed it was acceptable to allow people to do as they pleased, and not get involved, just mind his own business and let them do as they wished with no consequence. He was a big proponent of personal responsibility, something totally foreign to most liberals.
One of the great misconceptions liberals have in this argument, is through attempting to apply worldly political attributes to Jesus, the Son of God. This was a perfect man, a human without sin, he wasn't a liberal, conservative, libertarian, or anything other than the Son of God. If anything, Jesus would have condemned labeling each other with preordained ideology, and establishing our beliefs on that basis. He would have most likely said, forsake your political affiliations and follow the word of God always, that is the only true guide in life.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
This is why I agreed with you before, and said you were somewhat right. If all that was happening in Iraq, was the intentional bombing of innocent people, I would not condone this war in any respect. That simply isn't the case, and you have to realize this. We are not there to kill innocent Iraqis with malice, in fact, the collateral damage of this war is one of the lowest of any war ever fought. We've gone to great lengths, at the risk of our own soldiers lives, I might add, to avoid the unintentional killing of innocent people in Iraq. Subsequently, the insurgents have no regard for innocent life, and are the ones who continue to kill innocent Iraqis, we are there to prevent that.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I believe you have misquoted me. Sorry, I don't respond to misquotes. If you would like to edit your post, or repost with the actual content of my original words, then I will be happy to have a discussion with you on the matter. Otherwise, piss off!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Excuse me, I need to see the actual quote, so I can see what context it was presented. I think you've misconstrued something I said, as usual. Jesus never spoke out against the punishment ordained by God in the Old Testament, to stone people to death, if they were guilty of murder. I'm not trying to "get out of" anything, I just need to see what you're talking about before I can comment fully on it.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I agree with that statement, you didn't "own" me.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Okay, I searched through my posts and found the quote you are talking about:
There are exceptions made for people guilty of killing innocent life, they are condemned to death by stoning, and this is apparently acceptable to God, Jesus never spoke out against it, and it's found throughout the Bible.
Now, to counter my statement, you presented the quote from Jesus in the book of John: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."
The "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" incident is one of the most well-known lessons of the Bible. A woman, who had been caught in the act of adultery was brought to Jesus Christ by the scribes (Lawyers) and Pharisees as a test to see if the Messiah was a liberal in matters of the Law of God. In response to their deceitful query, He didn't condemn the woman, not because He was a liberal, not because He condoned her sin, but because the men who brought the woman to Him were Hypocrites. He was the only person there that day who was free of sin, the only one who had the right to "cast the first stone." He didn't stone her (or her accusers), but instead forgave her and told her to "sin no more." Otherwise, the day is coming when she, if she didn't thereafter repent, won't be stoned, but will be burned - along with the hypocrites who brought her to Him that day, if they didn't thereafter repent of their sin:
"Blessed are they that do His Commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie." (Revelation 22:14-15 KJV)
The reference you are using is taken out of context, if you are applying it to the punishment of stoning people to death who are guilty of murder.
There are exceptions made for people guilty of killing innocent life, they are condemned to death by stoning, and this is apparently acceptable to God, Jesus never spoke out against it, and it's found throughout the Bible.
Now, to counter my statement, you presented the quote from Jesus in the book of John: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."
The "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" incident is one of the most well-known lessons of the Bible. A woman, who had been caught in the act of adultery was brought to Jesus Christ by the scribes (Lawyers) and Pharisees as a test to see if the Messiah was a liberal in matters of the Law of God. In response to their deceitful query, He didn't condemn the woman, not because He was a liberal, not because He condoned her sin, but because the men who brought the woman to Him were Hypocrites. He was the only person there that day who was free of sin, the only one who had the right to "cast the first stone." He didn't stone her (or her accusers), but instead forgave her and told her to "sin no more." Otherwise, the day is coming when she, if she didn't thereafter repent, won't be stoned, but will be burned - along with the hypocrites who brought her to Him that day, if they didn't thereafter repent of their sin:
"Blessed are they that do His Commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie." (Revelation 22:14-15 KJV)
The reference you are using is taken out of context, if you are applying it to the punishment of stoning people to death who are guilty of murder.
uscitizen
Villified User
yeah and Jesus would not support pedophiles either, so what has that got to do with what I said ?