Bryan

Indeed. Having a founder who rapes and murders does make for a somewhat dirty ideology.

Absolutely. Professional people you want to keep are never allowed to have their contracts run out, in any field. Resigning in the middle of a contract is absolutely the norm. It strikes of you being mean spirited for making such outlandish claims. edit: original wording was perhaps too strong, removed with apologies.

Of course. There's no contradiction there. The believer is not to take it upon himself, the state does what it does. It's not the Christian's job to seek vengeance, but it very well may be the state's job to do so. The Church and the State are separate. Even within that framework, many Christians will conscientiously object to the actions of the state, if the state is forcing them to participate. The state doing (whatever) is within their purview, that still doesn't mean the individual must take part. There's no hypocrisy about it. They are two completely different things. Not at all. There is nothing remotely remarkable about what I've said here. Virtually all churches, church leaders, pastors, and biblical scholars who consider themselves even remotely following Christ's example would have very similar positions.

If that's what you got from what I posted, then you have literally no understanding.

The Christian church was around for hundreds of years before the Romans invented their own version of it to take advantage of people who couldnt read the bible to be able to know what was or was not in it. Jesus is the only authority. Jesus coming to fulfil the law is a basic tenet of the religion. Literally no one with any knowledge of the bible would tell you that the ancient punishments were applicable anymore once Jesus came around. He paid the FINAL price by laying down his life. He ordered his followers not to kill anyone for any reason. Jesus did. Not me, not the Pope, not Billy Graham. You asked me which Gospel says that its a sin. I gave you one, and I even prefaced what you'll find in it. Did you read it? I just gave it to you. You even quoted it, in Jesus own words I've answered that three times in this thread already. You're just dragging this out further and further off topic. If you want to start a new thread, I suggest doing that.

The authoritative source is the new testament. Jesus came to fulfil the law. Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. The Pope is not an authority on anything. Catholics do whatever they do, they do not speak for Christianity as a whole. A LOT of their teachings are extra-biblical. I would not consider myself an expert, but I have read it cover to cover many times. Unlike you, I actually do know what's in it, and more importantly, I understand the context under which each book was written. The rules themselves might overlap, but context matters. Enforcing biblical prescription in God's name is not for citizens to take upon themselves. That does not in any way affect what laws governments might choose to enact or enforce. Separation of Church and State is definitely a Christian principle. Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. There never were any "Christian" theocracies. The Romans took advantage of the fact that their citizens couldn't read, and led them into all kinds of things by claiming it was God's work. Once the Bible was actually available for the people to read, they couldn't get away with that anymore.

It's the only type of Christianity that there is: Jesus came to fullfil the law. The OT no longer applies as "law" for followers of Christ. All of the Gospels have quite a bit on this really. If you want to save some time, just read Matthew. In multiple instances, he says that marriage is between a man and a woman (only), and that any sexual behaviour of any kind outside of marriage is a sin. Nope, he doesn't get into the gory details, my hetero sin is equally as bad and in need of repentance as the other guy's gay sin. Enforcement of God's laws. Carrying out punishments in God's name. Courts can make their own laws, and yes, we are supposed to follow them.

Only in the broad sense that they are a good guideline by which to live your life. For the most part, they are good guideline for anyone, regardless of their faith (or lack thereof). Nothing pretend about it. Any real Christian would be opposed to homosexuality. They're just not supposed to dish out punishments for it. Love the sinner, hate the sin. Absolutely, Christians believe in the rule of law. The authorities decide upon and carry out the punishments, not the citizens on the street. Millions of them.

For the most part, they do. They differ from mainstream Christianity specifically because what they do is not how Jesus taught his followers to behave. Even if you did include them as an example of the worse that Christianity has to offer, you should actually make the direct comparison: When Christian extremists are called to action, they make a sign. When Islamic extremists are called to action, they kill people.

Basically. The Old Testament is important history for Christians to learn, but for the most part it does not apply to them instructionally. Jesus came to fulfil the old law. He laid down his own life as the final sacrifice for humanity. All of his teaching strictly forbid enforcing the old laws on your own accord. Vengeance is the strict purview of God and God alone, humans are not to carry out ANY form of enforcement.

The quote he posted also does not pertain to Christianity whatsoever. It's possible some fundamentalist Jewish sects might feel that way though, given it's their law he was quoting. Even then, unlikely, because Leviticus is a history lesson about the culture of the Levites, not a religious instruction for future followers.

Entirely different from the Bible. The Bible contains many books from different authors from different times over thousands of years. Some of it is simply an account of history, some of it is allegory, some of it is instruction. The Koran was dictated entirely by Mohammed. The Bible contains many books from different authors from different times over thousands of years. Some of it is simply an account of history, some of it is allegory, some of it is instruction. NONE of it contains any instruction for followers of Christ to act violently towards others. Quite the opposite, Jesus strictly forbade his followers from doing so and he led by example. Yes, the Romans were particularly adept at taking advantage of people who couldn't read and lying to them about what Jesus wanted them to do. I'm still waiting for you to start presenting even one valid point.

The nonsense, as usual, is all yours. Mohammed WROTE the Quran and the Hadith. they are his instructions. He repeatedly ordered the death of unbelievers, and he led by example having murdered at least 45 people. Yes, the Bible contains both history and instruction. Jesus in every way at all times absolutely rejected the use of force and violence. He instructed his followers not to do it, and he led by example. No, there categorically have not. There have been dictatorships that took advantage of the fact that ancient people couldn't read and told them that what they were doing was God's work. There is no aspect of Christianity modern or historical that calls for or allows that kind of behaviour in any way. You should go on, because you have yet to make a coherent point. So are there good Nazis? Good KKK chapters?

There is a huge difference though. People who engage in terror and violence are being disobedient to Jesus. The KKK's actions are in direct opposition to what Christ taught and how he lived. Christians do not have to take any account for the KKK's behaviour, because their behaviour is categorically anti-christian. ISIS, on the other hand, is very directly following both the teachings of Mohammed and how he lived his life. Their behaviour is very directly as Muslim as it gets. People who engage in terror and violence are obeying Mohammed. It's absolutely fair to question why someone would want to "moderately" identify themselves as belonging to that ideology.

Sorry, there was a typo that I've since corrected. Those groups (plural) that we do not give the benefit of the doubt to, even if they never do any of the negative things we might associate with them and steadfastly insist that they are not like the people on the extreme end of the ideology. While I did previously mention the KKK and neo-Nazis, the fact is any group that even remotely identifies as being "white" gets tarred with that same brush. We even saw much of that with the flap over the confederate flag. Almost no one was willing to even consider that anyone who flies that flag would be anything other than a racist -- even when they adamantly insisted that they were not. I also threw in the Hells Angels. Same deal really. The vast majority of their members do not get in trouble with the law. Hardly anyone gives them the benefit of the doubt either. We judge them based on the fact that they chose to join an organization with a history of crime and violence.

Think about it. None of the groups I mentioned are nationalities. None of them are races. They are organizations that you have to decide to join. All of them have the same basic foundation -- identify the enemy and force them out, terrorize them, and inflict force and violence against them. Their founding documents support this, and their founders led by example. In each case, only a small percentage at any given time actually carry out these acts. In each case, the groups have a large number of members who claim that they don't do that kind of stuff. So why is it that when someone is a member of one of those groups we give them the benefit of the doubt that they are not like those others and would never do those things, but the other we do not?

There was an excellent episode of Radiolab about this a few weeks ago ("Staph Retreat"). Antibiotic resistance is not a new thing. Since the first discovery of penicillin, we have always had to develop new antibiotics as the old ones became less effective. One of the reasons it's a bigger issue these days is big pharma isn't finding it profitable to keep up the pace of antibiotic development, the resistance is being allowed to get ahead of the science. One interesting thing is, they are finding that the further back you go to the oldest antibiotics, the more you find those ones actually working again. The "resistance" appears to fade over time. Also, there are really old antimicrobial recipes that are not at all approved for human use (think witch doctor level stuff), and have never gone through trials, that recent testing appears to show killing off otherwise resistant bacterial strains very effectively. http://www.radiolab.org/story/best-medicine/

The writer of the article you linked to sure seems to think it was horde:

I wonder if the people who feign indignation at someone in full Muslim garb being pushed to the ground would be equally offended if someone wearing full KKK regalia was knocked over? Would you be upset if you heard that a neo-Nazi headquarters was burned down? I mean, perhaps that was a moderate Klansman? Moderate Nazis maybe? Not all Hell's Angels get involved in criminal activities you know.

Yes, it's already been well established that many Syrian refugees are using fake passports.

By definition, if they are using false credentials, their claim is not legitimate.

That too.

If that math is correct, it would also appear that each one terrorist that comes in is capable of radicalizing at least 9 more of the locals they hook up with.

Does he know that fake passports are being mass produced and imported with the refugees in bulk?

Ronda's strategy made no sense. No one with any training whatsoever would advocate just chasing an opponent around like an angry drunk.