|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted August 27, 2009 09:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Please, PLEASE don't use the word prove in that way, would you? Making a statement is not proving anything. But anyway, let's stay on-topic.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the words "proof" and "prove." I quoted the relevant Bible verses that proved my statements and disproved the false claim.
Quote:
I understand the point that you want to make is that according to the script you should not kill. That's fine. But you cannot argue that anyone who kills thus is not a christian. That's simply an ivalid statement.
I'm sorry, but the Bible defines who is a Christian and who is not. The Bible specifically says that a person who hates or murders is not a Christian. Therefore I have proved my case.
Here, I'll quote a couple of the verses again so you don't have to look back.
Quote:
1Jn 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
1Jn 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
Quote:
Writing off these people as "atheist" is plain nonsense.
I'm sorry, but the Bible does clearly say that a person who murders is not a Christian. A person who hates and says he knows God is a liar. On the other hand, all those mass murderers who defined themselves as atheists certainly were.
Quote:
Religion is an institution, and Christianity (Catholicism) is an institution based in the Vatican under the pope, and saying that all these people are not christian (or better even: Atheists) just because they did something you don't like is naďve at best.
I'm sorry but quite simply don't know what you are talking about. Christianity is based on the Bible, not based on the Vatican or any of the writings of the Vatican.
The Bible defines who a Christian is, not the Vatican. Jesus says he was going to build his church. He did not say that he was going to build the Vatican. The word pope is not even in the Bible and I do not recognize any papacy.
Jesus did warn of false prophets and wolves in sheep's clothing.
Jesus said a person that is not living according to his teachings is not his sheep.
Quote:
Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
Quote:
Luk 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
Quote:
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Mat 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
Mat 7:27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted August 28, 2009 06:46 AM |
|
|
Right, so we do agree that the pope and all the leaders of the crusades and inquisitions were in fact not christians at all?
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted August 28, 2009 06:49 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm sorry, but the Bible defines who is a Christian and who is not.
The people who fom the oxford dictionary do that. The bible has no authority on the english language. Anyone who claims otherwise is subject to the no true scotsman-fallacy.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 28, 2009 08:50 AM |
|
|
The question is how the illiterate people in those dark times should have known that the crusasades are wrong? That it's wrong to try and keep society from the devil and his minions corrupting the eternal soul by destroying his agents and so on.
How would they know?
Even Martin Luther war convinced there war magic and witchcraft and that the church had to do something against it. Luther was in favor of the inquisition procedure - although he obviously wasn't in favor of him and his followers and students being branded as heretics. It's not all that clear and simple, and humans err most often when they try their best to do things exceptionally right.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted August 28, 2009 09:45 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Right, so we do agree that the pope and all the leaders of the crusades and inquisitions were in fact not christians at all?
Alci has a point. A Christian is someone who has been baptised and hasn't turned town his faith, I think - going by the dictionaries.
This doesn't stop him from being false if he goes around killing people, ofc.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 28, 2009 01:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Right, so we do agree that the pope and all the leaders of the crusades and inquisitions were in fact not christians at all?
I'm not a Catholic and would not say the Catholic church has done everything correctly. However, the crusades were a murder rampage.
You seem to be ignorant of the fact that the first crusades were to drive back the invading Mormons and rescue Christians who were being persecuted.
Pope Urban II gave the following reaons for starting the First Crusade in his speech at the Council of Clermont:
The Turks were severely persecuting the Christians in the Middle East, even murdering them.
The Turks had taken over territory previously belonging to Christians, including Jerusalem and sites which were considered holy
Christ commanded it
The most emphasis seems to have been on the second point, that Jerusalem was in the hands of nonbelievers. While Fulcher of Chartres records Urban as saying, "Christ commands it," there is no record that the pope received a direct command from God (one would expect that a vision or other sign would have been prominently featured in the pope's speech), so presumably he meant the crusade was in line with Christ's commands and teachings in the Bible. During his speech, the audience spontaneously broke into a cry of "It is the will of God!", which was taken by the pope and others to be a sign that it was in fact God's will. While this could have been a genuine response of people to the Holy Spirit, another possibility is that it was of human origin (c.f. Ac 19:28-34).
Later crusades
Pope Eugene III called for a second crusade for largely the same reasons as the first. The Christian city of Edessa had been captured by the Turks, and the pope called upon people to rescue the Christians who had been taken captive and free the city from pagan influence. However, the actual crusade didn't restrict itself to Edessa, but rather became a general campaign to capture lands held by nonbelievers; the crusaders fought in Lisbon, Damascus and other cities far from Edessa. (See The Second Crusade by E. L. Skip Knox.)
The Third and Fourth Crusades purported to reclaim Jerusalem from the Turks, though neither crusade actually fought in Jerusalem. The Fifth and later crusades focused on Egypt, with the intent of weakening the Muslim position in order to capture Jerusalem. Emperor Frederick II of Germany and King Louis IX of France each led crusades because they'd vowed to go on a crusade.
Quote:
The people who fom the oxford dictionary do that.
That is quite simply ludicrous. The Oxford dictionary has nothing to do with Christian theology. The word Christian first occured in writin in the book of Acts long before the Oxford dictionary. The Bible defines who is a Christian and who is not. The Bible says no murderer is a Christian and no one who hates is a Christian.
So no matter how much atheists want to paint them to be Christians, they; are not, and most of those people are most likely atheists. For a person to murder another person they think they will not be held accountalbe by God for doing so which means they are most likely an atheist.
Quote:
The question is how the illiterate people in those dark times should have known that the crusasades are wrong? That it's wrong to try and keep society from the devil and his minions corrupting the eternal soul by destroying his agents and so on.
1) Conscience.
2) The Spirit of God
3) Everybody was not illiterate.
4) Which crusade do you say was wrong and why? It is hard to say from this distant date what all was going on but it seems the crusades were primarily due to Islamic aggression.
Clicky
I shall list the various reasons for the crusades...
1. 613 Persians capture Damascus and Antioch
2. 614 Persians sack Jerusalem
3. 633 Muslims conquer Syria and Iraq
4. 635 Muslims begin the conquest of Persia and Syria
5. 635 Arab Muslims capture the city of Damascus
6. 636-637 Arab domination of Syria
7. 637 Arabs occupy Ctesiphon
8. 637 Jerusalem falls to Muslim forces
9. 638 Caliph Umar I enters Jerusalem
10. 639 Muslims conquer Egypt and Persia
11. 641 Islam spreads into Egypt
12. 641 Muslims conquer Alexandria
13. 649 Muawiya I leads raid against Cyprus sacking the capital Salamis-Constantia
14. 652 Sicily is attacked by Muslims
15. 653 Muawiya I leads raid against Rhodes
16. 654 Muawiya I conquers Cyprus
17. 655 Battle of the Masts
18. 661-680 Mu�awiya moves capital from Mecca to Damascus
19. 662 Egypt falls to the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates
20. 667 Sicily is attacked by Muslims
21. 668 First siege of Constantinople
22. 669 Muslim conquest reaches Morocco
23. 672 Muslims capture the island of Rhodes
24. 674 Arab conquest reaches Indus River
25. 698 Muslims capture Carthage
26. 700 Muslims raid Island of Sicily
27. 711 Muslims conquest of Sindh in Afghanistan
28. 711 Battle of Guadalate
29. 712 Conquest of Andulusia
30. 715 Muslim conquest of Spain
31. 716 Muslims captured Lisbon
32. 717 Cordova becomes capital of Andalusia (Spain)
33. 719 Muslims attack Septimania in Southern France
34. 721 Muslims cross the Pyrenees
35. 722 Battle of Covadonga First defeat of Muslims by Christians
36. 724 Muslims raid southern France and capture Carcassone and Nimes
37. 725 Muslim forces occupy Nimes, France
38. 730 Muslim forces occupy Narbonne and Avignon
39. 732 Battle of Tours (Christian Victory)
40. 735 Muslim invaders capture Arles
41. 750 Abbasids move capital to Baghdad
42. 756 The Emirate of Cordova is established
43. 759 Pippin III ends Muslim incursions in France
44. 792 Hisham I calls for a Jihad Thousands heed his call to cross the Pyrenees to subjugate France. Many cities are destroyed
45. 813 Muslims attack the Civi Vecchia near Rome
46. 816 The Moors support the Basques against the Franks
47. 827 Sicily is invaded by Muslims
48. 831 Muslims capture Palermo and make it their capital
49. 838 Muslim raiders sack Marseille
50. 841 Muslim forces capture Bari (in Italy)
51. 846 Muslim raiders attack areas near Ostia and Rome. Some enter Rome and damage the Churches of St. Peter and St. Paul. The Leonine Wall is built to discourage further Attacks.
52. 849 Battle of Ostia (Christian Victory)
53. 850 Perfectus, a Christian priest in Muslim Cordova is executed � one of the first of Many
54. 85111 young Christians are executed for insulting the Prophet Muhammed
55. 858 Muslim raiders attack Constantinople
56. 859 Muslim invaders capture Castrogiovanni slaughtering several thousand
57. 869 Arabs capture the island of Malta
58. 870 Muslim invaders capture Syracuse
59. 876 Muslims pillage Campagna in Italy
60. 879 The Seljuk Empire unites Mesapotamia and a large portion of Persia
61. 884 Muslims invading Italy burn the monastery of Monte Cassino to the ground
62. 900 The Fatimid Dynasty assumes control of Egypt
63. 902 The Muslim conquest of Sicily is completed when the Christian city of Toorminia is captured
64. 909 Sicily comes under control of the Fatimids
65. 909 The fatimid Dynasty assumes control of Egypt
66. 909 Muslims control all the passes in the Alps between France and Italy � cutting off passage between the two countries
67. 920 Muslim forces cross the Pyrenees, enter Gascony and reach as far as the gates of Toulouse
68. 972 The Fatimids of Egypt conquer North Africa
69. 981 Ramiro III, king of Leon, is defeated at Rueda
70. 985 Al-Mansur Ibn Abi Aamir sacks Barcelona
71. 994 The monastery of Monte Cassino is destrpyed a second time by Arabs
72. 997 Under the leadership of Almanzar, Muslim forces march out of the city of Cordova and head north to capture Christian lands.
73. 997 Muslim forces burn Compostela to the ground
74. 1004 Arab raiders sack the Italian city of Pisa
75. 1009 The Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem is destroyed by Muslim armies
76. 1009 Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah orders the the Holy Sepulcher and all Christian buildings in Jerusalem be destroyed
77. 1012 Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah orders the destruction of all Christian and Jewish houses of worship in his lands
78. 1012 Berber forces capture Cordova and order that half the population be executed
79. 1015 Arab Muslim forces conquer Sardinia
80. 1064 The Seljuk Turks conquer Christian Armenia
81. 1070 Seljuk Turks capture Jerusalem and begin persecuting Christian Pilgrims
82. 1071-1085 Seljuk Turks conquer most of Syria and Palestine
83. 1071 Battle of Manzikert
84. 1073 Seljuk Turks conquer Ankara
85. 1078 Seljuk Turks capture Nicaea
86. 1084 Seljuk Turks conquer Antioch
67. 1086 Battle of Zallaca
68. 1088 Patzinak Turks begin forming settlements between the Danube and the Balkans
69. 1090 Granada captured by Yusuf Ibn Tashfin
70. 1091 Cordova is captured by the Almoravids
http://looklex.com/e.o/crusades.htm
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted August 28, 2009 01:59 PM |
|
Edited by Shyranis at 13:59, 28 Aug 2009.
|
The fourth crusade was a farce. The city of Constaninople was Christian and was not even near the battle lines with the Turks, but it was attacked anyway and sacked by fellow Christians. It was committed by corrupt leaders and used unquestioning soldiers.
It's proven fact that people were actually much more uneducated back then. Schools didn't exist, only people with wealth or in the clergy had access to the resources needed to be literate. Now people have no excuse to be illiterate unless they have a brain dysfunction. So people generally make their moral choices with a lot more consideration. I doubt there were any conscientious decenters back then. They would have been burned alive. Honestly, back then nearly every nation was full of uneducated people, but it was much worse in Europe at the time compared to most of the rest of the world. (Europe would make up for it in later centuries though.)
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
xlnt
Known Hero
|
|
posted August 28, 2009 02:25 PM |
|
|
What god? I create many gods, the Oh, god of hangovers mostly recently : )
There probably is no god, now enjoy your life 
The story is too made up to be anywhere near considerable - you easily understand it when you're 5 years old and your brain is free from dogmas and teachings - remember?
Religions will eventually die out, or humanity will - either way - it doesn't matter really.
The core problem is our concern with death and the idea of afterlife, which mostly prevents living : ) i find it sad, no one tries to reject the 6 000 years old dogmas of the old Egyptians. The 3 abrachamic cults must end soon or i fear humanity will. Down with all religion!
It's mind blowing how messed up society is in the age of information. War, poverty, religion, politics, money, countries, borders, separation... i'm ashamed
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted August 28, 2009 02:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm not a Catholic and would not say the Catholic church has done everything correctly. However, the crusades were a murder rampage.
You seem to be ignorant of the fact that the first crusades were to drive back the invading Mormons and rescue Christians who were being persecuted.
That's sort of besides the point. You say that people who kill can't be christian because it says in whatever script that "christians don't kill".
My point was that well, during history, some christians have killed, for good or not-so-good reasons. Does that mean they are not christians? Not by my definition, by my definition if you accept the faith and believe in the christian god, then you're a christian. You may not be a good christian in the sense that you abide to all the demands in the script, but you're a christian none-the-less. And they certainly aren't atheists, because an atheist is one who believes there is no god at all, which clearly did not apply to those guys, whatever their acts were.
And in the end, isn't the bible filled with a host of more or less nonsense (by modern day standards) demands on what you must and what you must not do? I think taking a book that was written 1600 years ago literally is perhaps taking your faith a bit too far, but hey, whatever rocks your boat.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 28, 2009 02:44 PM |
|
|
No, I said Christians can't murder, not that they can't kill.
No, it isn't. Actually the New Testment was written more like 2000 years ago. Pars of the Bible ar literal, parts are metaphor, allegory, poetry, proverbs, parables, and other figures of speech and ways of expressing ideas.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 28, 2009 03:09 PM |
|
|
That is nonsense - of course they can. And if they truly repent they won't burn for it.
So quit this useless twisting - alci hit it with his last post. Things are not always clear, assessment of things is most of the time open to interpretation, and what is murder for one is just killing for another one.
In the end the Bible doesn't define these things because it doesn't cater for circumstances and situations.
There are, as I said, enough Christians who think that the Iraq war is unjust; others find it just. There are other easy examples.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Elodin, I'm not sure whether it is your intention to claim now that the crusades were a just and holy war with the aim to save Christianity from the muslims and everyone died in them was killed and not murdered? Or what is your intention with that longish post?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted August 28, 2009 05:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Does that mean they are not christians? Not by my definition, by my definition if you accept the faith and believe in the christian god, then you're a christian. You may not be a good christian in the sense that you abide to all the demands in the script, but you're a christian none-the-less.
By my definition an atheist is one who doesn't believe in God. Stalin didn't believe in God, therefore he was an atheist. Stalin murdered many people. Therefore, atheists murdered many people. Therefore atheists are murderers.
Awesome logic.
I have a question, do you call someone who says he's a Christian but is actually a satanist also a Christian, just because he says that? Wonderful then! Any idiot can say anything and we get to paint that group and even "ban" it, in case of for example video games -- like someone claiming that video game X made him do something. (even if video game X has nothing to do with it).
How's "Playing Mario made me kill my sister"? I guess this mario game turns people into murderers it seems. I mean, what matters is what people claim after all.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted August 28, 2009 05:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
nly people with wealth or in the clergy had access to the resources needed to be literate.
and even then only certain monks, people in service to the king assigned for this (like people from rich trader families) and some bored noblemen could read. That' about it. Remember when I said that they preserved all that we knew? Yeah, that's because there was a point in history where only monks could read and write. Charlemagne was illiterate for example.
and, death, could you explain your post for stupid people? I don't get how that is relevant to alcibiades' post. He did not use that logic as far as I can see.
Quote:
first crusades were to drive back the invading Mormons and rescue Christians who were being persecuted had political reasons only. The pope needed to expand his influence, since, as a ruler in a feudal society, that is his goal. he would also have an advantage over the orthodox curch if he could surround it by several of his followers and of course many crusading armies detroyed many byzantine cities, which were following christians. the ones they were trying to "aid". You seem to have not such a great idea on how medieval politics work.
Corrected it for you.
Quote:
The Turks were severely persecuting the Christians in the Middle East, even murdering them.
We did the exact same thing... Though, I doubt there was a lot of prosecuting going on.
Though, some people believe that the Muslims were far kinder to prisoners than the westerners, like Saladin who kept knights well-fed and such.
Also, really? The muslim expansion along the northern coast of Africa was reason to start the crusades? What kind of sick and twisted logic is that?
Quote:
792 Hisham I calls for a Jihad Thousands heed his call to cross the Pyrenees to subjugate France. Many cities are destroyed
How many?
Quote:
In 785, his men captured Gerona permanently and extended Frankish control into the Catalan littoral for the duration of Charlemagne's reign (and much longer, it remained nominally Frankish until the Treaty of Corbeil in 1258). The Muslim chiefs in the northeast of Islamic Spain were constantly revolting against Córdoban authority and they often turned to the Franks for help. The Frankish border was slowly extended until 795,
Guess Charlemagne must've been a very good christian since he helped muslims that apparently destroyed countless of his cities, while he also got to expand hs own border... One of us is not entirely right on history... Of course french history is like the thing all belgian students get to learn around their third year when they start medieval history.
Anyway, been reading and I pretty much see this trend going on:
Islam advances, islam advances more, islam lays claim to poorly defended states (which catholics would do as well, mind), Islam advances, Islam commits war crimes (while christian soldiers are all immaculate sheep, mind). Anyway, islam pretty much does exactly what the christians do, expand borders, try to weaken their enemies that threaten them, because they do not know them very well, but here comes the crux of the matter: all of these things are border occurences.
What this tell me is that you think as follows: "Muslims are pretty much hiveminds and the way to kill these TERRORISTS is to hit them hard were they'll feel it instead of negotiating with neighbouring tribes or subduing... You know, the neighbouring tribes. We shouldn't help the spanish with the reconquista, no, no. Neither should we do the christian thing and work this out with one of those crusading armies as a bargaining chip, no, no. I mean, if one commits a crime, all of them are accountable and thus the slaughters in jerusalem would be justified if only one border tribe attacked us. I'm a genius!"
not exactly the bigger man, are we?
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted August 28, 2009 05:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
and, death, could you explain your post for stupid people? I don't get how that is relevant to alcibiades' post. He did not use that logic as far as I can see.
he used his definition for christian. To me that's like everyone using their own definition of "digital" or "analog". Can you say that a computer is both digital and analog, depending on the people you ask? If you find this ridiculous, so do I find the christian definition
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted August 28, 2009 06:00 PM |
|
|
Thing is that you may find your own definition better, but the people who form the dictionary are people whose entire purpose in life is to define life (this is an argument ebcause that makes them more qualified than you) and are also the most neutral source of defining words. Also, yes they are the chief authority on naming things and if elodin can't agree on that, then discussion is impossible because we use words that sound the same and hve the same vague outlining but mean something entirely different. to us, a christian is someone who believes in a monotheistic god and sees Jesus Christ as the messiah, to you guys it's something like a guy that follows all rules in the bible by heart and does not ever dare break them.
I'll get to call you out on that, because that's something like a no true scotsman-fallacy, when the definition according to the dictionary has to make way for a 'truer' definition according to the bible. As much as I respect christianity, but I'll be damned before any document but a university institution gets to determine the semantics of a language. I'm reminded of big brother a bit, where you could not debate with the totalitarian regime, because several words were banned, for instance, bad, which became ungood.
puts it better than I do
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted August 28, 2009 06:11 PM |
|
|
No, Christian means "Follower of Christ". You can believe in Jesus while being satanic -- this doesn't mean you follow Christ, even if you believe in him. What's so hard to get?
And who the hell cares? If Elodin says "Christian", you KNOW what he is referring to (read: not your definition), so why argue over it?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted August 28, 2009 06:39 PM |
|
|
If we assign different meanings to these phonetic symbols, we do not speak the same language, hence discussion is impossible about said subject. I can at least claim that I speak common english, in my defense
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted August 28, 2009 07:13 PM |
|
|
Here a definition which uses the exact arguing and expression we were arguing about:
a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian.
[/argument]
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted August 28, 2009 07:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
staying with the objective definition, after all, some people keep arguing what exactly are christ's teachings
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted August 28, 2009 07:28 PM |
|
|
this is beyond a joke.
Elodin, Back up your claims of "A christain never murders" with something more substantial than a bible quote and a dismissal of...
oh whats the use...
Elodin, you win, ok? You won the big arguement, you've proven that ultimately the path of god is the rightieous one and that atheists will burn in hell for their unbelief, because you're not going to listen to anything else, are you!
You twist and turn words like an eel contorts it's body whilst you decry and verbally assault other posters who do the same. You ignore all facts that don't fit your arguement and when something does, you leap for it like a starved wolf. You play the victim shamelessly and when everyone is half convinced, you're back on your warpath against atheists, homosexuals and (now) muslims.
You are, in my eyes, the worst kind of believer, the ignorant one. The hate filled one's are bad, but at least I can laugh at them. the Ignorant one preaches the text and refuses to back down on any issue people might find at fault, claiming that they're wrong for suggesting it. Those people make me physically Sick!
and you know what you've done? You've won! Congratulations, now we can get off this topic and move onto something else.
If anyone, and I mean, ANYONE! has issue with that I say, then quite frankly, I don't care, I have had enough of this and I'm making a stand against it...
AND FOR HEAVENS SAKE, STOP QUOTING AND NICK PICKING AT PEOPLE!!!!!!! those who has issue with grammar and insignificant little tip bits of information cannot and will not see the whole picture, save it blind thems and throws them from their fantasy world.
congratulations! I'm going back to reality, where there is no gods save Alan Moore, Garth Ennis and Charlie Brooker.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
