Cognitive dissonance picturized

I haven't had a chance to submit the template. All out of subs for the day. I don't know if you can look up a user template until it is submitted. But when it gets out, have fun.
imgflip.com/i/1q4pce
imgflip.com/i/1q47re
This is exactly what her and her apologists are doing.

Good meme! So many brainwashed fake libs believe the pro-Islam propaganda. Sad!

Lol good one.

[image deleted]When I found this I thought of you. I call it Logicians Using Logic. I'm gonna us it to point out the fallacious arguments people use on my memes and comments. I haven't had a chance to submit a meme with this template yet, so I don't know if you can look up a user template before a meme has been submitted of it.

You can templates by name, but not by the user who uploaded them (as far as I know).

People also use referee templates to point out logical fallacies, in case that's helpful. :-) Like these, for example:

imgflip.com/memegenerator/46468098/Logical-Fallacy-Referee

imgflip.com/memegenerator/44286476/Ed-Hochuli-Fallacy-Referee

I've seen the referee memes before and used them a few times. I saw this image and thought it would make a fine meme with Socrates holding up the fallacy and the philosophers responding to the terrible logic.

I recommend expanding the image (for example, by inserting into an Ancient Aliens template, and stretching it out).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-carey/slavery-and-the-bible_b_880756.html

You are confusing Islam with militant extremism,. A little fact for you, since 2001, 3,114 American have been killed on American soil by terrorists. This includes all of those killed in the WTC. In the same period, 44,000 Americans have been killed by other Americans. The rest of the world should build a wall around us. Also, more than 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians were killed when we "liberated" them. Any wonder some in the Arab world do not like us?

Islam is the ideology followed by the radical, militant, minority. They are the fundamentalist of Islamic ideology who follow their book and their prophet word by word and action by action. The majority are like liberal Christians who choose not to follow the teachings of the founder of their religion strictly. Strict adherence to the teachings of Muhammad will cause one to be a radical, militant, extremist.

The majority of Islam who are not strict adherents to Muhammad's teachings are just as culpable of terror or this violent murder if they are silent in the face of it.

Americans kill each other and soldiers kill civilians those facts both suck and are red herring arguments to distract from the topic at hand. The topic is the fact that these LGBT people would not have an irrational fear or phobia of Islam if they understood that strict adherence to its teachings means throwing them off of buildings. That would actually be a healthy fear.

Allow me to butt in good sir. If the Quran did indeed teach violence and hatred of other religions, the chill Muslims seem to want to ignore the clearly morally wrong aspects of their religion. They just want guidance to help them be better as people. If they want to follow their religion to no harm, that is fine. But as for the unchill Muslims, the ISIS brand, they are in the wrong, and will use the religion as a way to gain power. They likely would not care about Islam at all if it wasn't useful. Islam is just their tool. But yes, it is still the responsibility of Muslims to make their religion pure again, to fight those who want to corrupt it. It is also the responsibility of us to support their efforts, and just accept them for who they are, so they can feel united with us. The Muslims who don't feel obligated to protect their religion just can't be called true Muslims. Those who do, (and trust me, a lot are) protect their religion and seek to be better people, deserve to be treated as equals.

I wholeheartedly agree. I (unlike the Jihadists) don't dismiss non-radical Muslims as "not true Muslims." I understand that there are various interpretations of Koran like there are of the Bible. I just state that the Jihadists extremists are fundamentalists and interpret Koran literally or literarily. I would be one of the first to stand with peaceful Muslims against extremists, but where are the peaceful Muslims that are speaking out so that I can support them and stand with them. I'm not saying that peaceful Muslims don't exists but are they standing and speaking out against extremists OR are they just dismissing them as "not true Muslims, not part of Islam" and making excuses why radical, militant, extremism can't come from the teachings of Islam in the Koran? The peaceful Muslims that I hear and see speak out against Islam as an ideology are called islamophobes and derided, when they make it clear that not all Muslims are bad.

It's people like you that make me want to come back to Imgflip.

Same can be said about Christians brother.

<<<You are not one of these guys are you? Please explain how following the founder of the Christian religion word for word and action for action can lead to being a radical, militant, extremist. Following the teachings of Jesus Christ word for word leads one to love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them. The liberal Christians are the ones who don't follow Christ's teachings word for word and that causes them to tolerate and accommodate sinful lifestyles. They don't even start hating people and killing people and claim that they are following Jesus' example. Only the Muslims who follow Islam literally to the letter can claim that they are following Mohammad's example.

People can take Jesus's message to far like the way they take Muhammed's. That's what leads to Christians also being violent.

Nice to see a renegade_sith comment again.

Thanks! Stopped by earlier to make this meme and fell back into this meme hell.

You're welcome.
Well, I did hear about someone making a gory Trump comment, but I didn't really look into it, so I kinda just left it alone. ;P

If your examples are hateful people like Terry Jones or the Westboro Baptist Cult I can explain in detail how those people are not taking Jesus' message to far because what they are doing has nothing to do with Jesus' message at all.

Show me one saying of Jesus where He tells His followers to smite their enemies or subjugate anyone or even use hate filled rhetoric to oppress anyone. Those who do such things and name the name of Christ are going in direct opposition to what Jesus actually teaches.

Jesus tells a story of a conquering king coming back to take vengeance on his enemies, but Jesus specifically tells His followers that His kingdom is not of this world therefore they should not fight for Him.

Sam Harris, one of the "new atheists," is no friend of Christianity. In his interview on The Young Terks they were talking about religious violence and he said that strictly following the teachings of the New Testament, Jesus in particular, does not lead to violence.

I could give you more examples, only after you tell me where I said Jesus said something violent.
I'm talking specifically about the people who take the Bible so seriously that they think those who disagree with them are evil and should go to Hell. John Lennon, a peace advocate and well-known lead singer of the Beatles, was murdered by someone who insisted that it was "God's will".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_David_Chapman#Plan_to_murder_John_Lennon

Since you know that Jesus never tells anyone to do anything violent to others you have to find some mentally unstable or downright wicked person who claims to "believe in God" or be a Christian, who does some evil act and attributes his evil to "God's will" and equate that with "taking Jesus' teachings to far."

Do you not see that that is a problem with the person and not the actual Christian system of belief (which condemns such actions)?

I'm wondering if logic is just not your strong point, or if you are so biased against the Christian belief system that you don't recognize or don't care that your argument is so illogical.

Liberals love bashing Christianity. It's "cool" and "trendy" even though Jesus promoted peace and Muhammad was a misogynistic mass murderer who had sex slaves and raped children, but somehow "radicals" are taking his message "too far" and Jesus gets blamed for any random lunatic who claims to be Christian.

Islam is not compatiable with western culture. Every single country Islam invades falls to sharia law and decends into the stone age once Muslims become the majority. Liberals have been using Indonesia as the one shining example that Islam can be modernized. How's that working out? Oh yeah, they now have public sharia court hearings where women are beaten and they have an "anti-gay" police task force. These braindead morons will continue to praise Islam until their sisters and mothers are being raped in front of their eyes.

MyrianWaffleEV started out attacking the system by making a false equivalence of the system to the actions of some professing believers. I figured that she actually had an idea of the Christian position which is why she didn’t bring up the Old Testament civil and ceremonial laws. That would be why she had to make a false equivalence between the actions of individuals and the system as a whole.
You come in and build straw men by misrepresenting my argument and misrepresenting the Christian position. I never said that those mentally unstable or evil behaving individuals were not “true Christians.” However, the biblical Christian position on that issue is that I don’t have to accept someone’s “profession of faith” without reservations. If a good tree produces good fruit, I am to judge a tree (professing believer) by the fruit their lives produce. That is not to say that a true believer cannot produce bad fruit for a season in their life. However, the New Testament is clear that if a person has as the practice of their life a continual, habitual, sinful lifestyle then they will not inherit the kingdom of God therefore were never truly saved. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Galatians 5:19-21
You further straw man the Christian position by misquoting Jesus’ own words in an attempt to make the Old Testament civil and ceremonial laws for the nation of Israel apply to Christians. Jesus said in Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to FULFILL.
Israel had to keep all those laws perfectly to be righteous before God. (Civil law would include honor killings, stonings, and death penalty for homosexuals.) Jesus kept all the law perfectly thus fulfilling and thereby freeing His followers from having to do so. Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believes.

You keep flagging my comment, why? Is a real biblical answer too much for you to bear? Or are you just spiteful?

If this comment stays posted I'll apologize:
If a person claims to believe in God or to be a Christian that is a ‘profession of faith.’ A profession of faith doesn’t mean anything unless it bears good fruit in the person’s life. I only know them by what I see in their life, Jesus said, “Judge not according to appearance but judge with righteous judgment.” John 7:24. Righteous judgment is based on the entirety of God’s word rightly interpreted. I can’t just accept that someone is a Christian because they say so.

When a Christian sins, even by an erroneous understanding of God’s word especially Christ’s teachings (which lead to the hate filled rhetoric and actions of some professing believers), their fellowship with God is out of alignment but not their relationship. Their relationship is secure in Jesus Christ. In order to restore their fellowship they must repent of and forsake (turn away from) that sin.

A Christian can fall into sin or “backslide” for a season, where the line must be drawn between a Christian sinning for a season and someone who was never saved is on the principle of God disciplining His children. When a Christian sins in thought, word, or deed God is going to discipline His child. His discipline has a divinely appointed outcome that must come to pass in the lives of believers. God’s discipline will make us partakers of His holiness and it will yield the peaceable fruit of righteousness in our lives Hebrews 12:10-11. If someone is without that discipline then they are illegitimate children without a Father Hebrews 12:8. They are not going to stay in a lifestyle of habitual, sinful rebellion.

There are three types of laws in the bible: moral, civil, and ceremonial. Moral law is objective and doesn’t change. God dictates to us our required human response to the breaking of His moral law. The moral law against adultery, homosexuality, etc. has not changed, but Jesus being God is able to dictate to us a new response to the breaking of His laws: forgiveness and not casting stones (killing sinners.) Jesus rebuked religious people for keeping minute details of the law (civil and ceremonial) while neglecting the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith (Matthew 23:23); He is more concerned with our hearts being right than our actions. But a right heart leads to right actions.

(part 1 of 2)

I think it's pretty dubious to claim that people who commit violence in the name of Christianity aren't "real Christians." Christianity has violently persecuted and oppressed others since the very beginning of its expansion as a religion. So while many modern Christians tend to be more lenient or even benevolent, I think it's somewhat unfounded and ahistorical to say that the more violent and oppressive religious tradition, which is the very incipient of the religion you practice today, does not count as "real Christianity." Additionally, Christian orthopraxy and the New Testament from which it is derived are not necessarily limited to the explicit teachings and examples of Jesus, but rather are built on faith in those who originally wrote down the life of Jesus and the Gospels. Since it is their word we have to take for the life of Jesus and his teachings, it's not surprising, nor necessarily incorrect, that their prescription is given as much credence as that of Jesus himself. In several places, their teachings proclaim that a women are inferior and subordinate to men and the effective property of their husbands, that homosexuality and extramarital sex are punishably immoral, and that both divorce and remarrying should be forbidden in most circumstances, and that absolute submission to the law is ideal. But perhaps the most negatively influential statement to be found in the New Testament, is that Christian morality and the will of God can, and should, be enforced by law. This was the approach taken by most Christians who lived within several generations of Jesus' own lifetime, and continues to be prevalent in Christian teachings today. As for Jesus himself, even his teachings, though often benevolent, have been interpreted to profess an oppressive ideology. This ideology mainly stems from the interpretation that Jesus supported the much crueler Old Testament law in many of its guises, even if his preaching sometimes intends to supersede it. This interpretation of Jesus' intention, like almost any interpretation of scripture, is legitimized by the fact that, even if it is impossible to prove, it is also essentially impossible to disprove, and so it was easily spread by many of Christianity's early religious authorities. Even literal interpretation of Jesus' Golden Rule, to do to others what you would wish them to do to you, has been used to instigate violence...

(this is part 2 of 2 in my response. I hope imgflip does not scramble the order in the comments section.)

...This was mainly manifested in the once common Christian belief that one should wish to be punished or even killed for various sins, and hence do the same to others. So in short, the New Testament as a whole, even including the preachings of Jesus, can certainly be interpreted to represent a hateful and cruel ideology, as it has been for millennia. In fact, this more destructive ideology was the majority opinion among Christians for many centuries. For many, many generations, the Christian world genuinely believed that such was the message of the Bible and the will of God; it believed, with almost a kind of innocence, that countless killings, tortures, genocides, crusades, and oppressions, along with unconditional surrender to church authority, were the not only justified, but the ideal way for Christianity to be practiced. So while the modern Christian majority tends to be more jovial than it once was, it's certainly a No True Scotsman fallacy to claim that the large majority of people who called themselves Christians throughout history weren't actually Christian on the grounds that your interpretation of the Bible must be correct, while theirs is unequivocally false. As I've already mentioned, various interpretations of scripture can certainly be argued for or against, but hardly proven or disproven, since they are not based on analyzing objective facts, but rather on interpreting the intention of an authoritative voice. You have to keep in mind that other peoples' ideas of what constitutes "good fruit" may be very different from yours. And this is not even to mention the fact that for many centuries, most Christians couldn't read the Bible, and had to have it interpreted for them by the clergy. This was because they were mostly illiterate, at least in Greek and Latin, which were the only languages it was legal to write the Bible in. Would you say that they too are not real Christians? Thank you for reading.

For some reason imgflip is not allowing me to respond to A_fellow_meme_farmer below. So I am responding to his response on the renegade_sith post below.

I've been on this site for six months and I have only experienced my comments disappearing when communicating with people who really didn't like what I had to say. Maybe I confused you with the last person to flag my comments and get them removed; for that I also apologize. I really am supposed to give people the benefit of the doubt in doubtful situations (love believes all things 1 Corinthians 13) but no Christian is perfect.

*Continued*

Back to islam. I realize that a lot of defenders of islam say that one must read it all to fully understand. I know how people can take one verse out of the Bible and distort it to fit their narrative. So I began researching the quran with an open mind to find out if it promoted peace or violence. And knowing how people do the Bible, I gave islam the benefit of the doubt. Until I found out what I have so far. I am getting a very bad view of islam. But before I seal my decision on it I am still open minded to those who will use scriptures from the quran to prove it is peaceful. But no one has done that in all my discussions with people. Both real life and online. I have, however, gotten a plethora of verses encouraging violence. One has to try really hard to make Jesus and his teaching out to be as bad as Muhammad and his teaching.

Also when I started my previous comment by saying "Yes", I wasn't conceding to your deal. I was merely acknowledging that there are some unthinkable punishments in the Old Testament. Which, as we said, Jesus changed. It used to be that someone who committed adultery was to be stoned. But when the Pharisees brought Jesus a woman caught in the act of adultery Jesus responded by saying "he without sin may cast the first stone". If he wasn't going to change the old law he would have let them stone her. Instead he forced conviction on them because as another verse said "all have sinned".

Even as bad as some Old Testament laws were they are still not as bad as Islamic law or the way jihads (that's what they are, calling them radicals negates the problem) are today. Regardless, Christians do not go by the Old Testament and Jesus never, directly or indirectly, encouraged violence or hate AGAINST ANYONE! But people will twist their arm off trying to make him out to be as bad as Muhammad and his teaching.

(part 1 of 2)

There are many, many different ways in which one can interpret the Quran; this is because the preachings and practices of Muhammad were, in and of themselves, extremely varied, such that they require much reconciliation in order to not appear at odds with one another. The most common way Muslims do so, is to say that the reason why Muhammad's actions and commands varied so much was because he was acting of his own initiative in very specific circumstances. Hence, they say, Muslims need not perform combative acts which he circumstantially commanded others to do, since those situations no longer exist. There are, however, other places where the Quran does permit violence, or even mandate it; however, such mandates and permissions are still highly conditional and contextual. Yet when and what these conditions exactly were was already being disputed within Muhammad's own generation. Most Muslims would agree violence should only be used to defend Islam against attackers, since Muhammad did preach tolerance of other faiths. He says "There shall be no compulsion in [accepting] the religion [of Islam]; the right path has been made clear from the wrong." (Quran 2:256) and "say to the unbelievers, 'I do not worship what you worship, nor do you worship what I worship; nor shall I worship what you do, nor shall you what I worship; to you your religion, and to me, mine'" (Quran 109:1-6). The Quran also states that peace is preferable to war, and that "If your enemy inclines toward peace, you too shall seek peace, and put your trust in God" (Quran 8:61) and "If they remove themselves from you and do not attack you, but offer you peace, then God offers you no way against them" (Quran 4:90).

(part 2 of 2)

So, what is to be done when war is permitted or mandated? The Quran says, "Fight [the unbelieving enemy] until fitna is no more, and religion is for God [alone]" (Quran 2:193). What exactly this entails has always been debated. Its intention depends in many ways on the interpretation of the word "fitna". It's a word with a very broad definition and many specific meanings, but overall, it essentially means, "strife." Many radicles consider "shirk" (non-monotheism) to be a form of "fitna", and interpret the verse to mean, "Fight [the unbelieving enemy] until shirk is no more, and [all] religion is for God [alone]. However, one meaning of "fitna" is "prosecution" or "oppression", and most Muslims throughout history have understood the verse to mean, "Fight [the unbelieving enemy] until oppression is no more, and the religion [of Islam] is for God [alone] (i.e. Muslims are not being forced to worship pagan gods, as they were in Mecca)". The more moderate interpretation is also supported by several Hadith, in which Umar (one of Muhammad's former companions) is asked why he refuses to take up arms against the enemy in order to end "fitna", to which he would respond, "Do you even know what is meant by "fitna"? May your mother abandon you! Muhammad fought the pagans because a Muslim man would be put to trial for his religion; the pagans would either kill or imprison them. His fighting was not like yours, which is carried out for the sake of ruling." or, "We did it, during the lifetime of God's Apostle when Islam had only a few followers. A Muslim man would be put to trial for his religion; he would either be killed or tortured. But once the Muslims increased in number, there was no more afflictions or oppressions (fitna)." I hope you find this informative or useful in some way.

sincerely yours
A fellow meme farmer

How many Islamic countries are tolerant of gays?

Even if the Bible did command Christians to kill gays (which it doesn't), it would only be hypocritical for Christians to condemn Muslims for killing gays if they themselves were doing the same thing.

Lol dude, your arguments are a f**king joke. We could argue all day about the Bible vs Quran, which is what you want because you know damn well that Christian majority countries aren't persecuting gays anywhere CLOSE to how Muslim majority countries are. 99% of Christians aren't doing anything to gays dude. So it's just your way of deflecting off the REAL WORLD application of those texts which makes your continued attacks on Christianity fall apart. Christians aren't throwing gays off buildings or have an anti-gay police unit like Indonesia. You accuse me of cop-out answers yet you continue to ignore the elephant in the room that's Islam and what happens in their countries.

Christians weren't in the OT. Christians are followers of Jesus CHRIST. CHRISTians, get it? Even if you use the argument that God and Jesus are the same person, if being intolerant of gays is so important to Christianity, why didn't JESUS tell his followers to kill gays? You have a close minded view of the world and only focus on a few people in the US and the "big bad Republicans" when in reality nearly all of the entire Republican National Convention attendees were cheering and applauding Trump saying he would defend gay rights.

Basically what you're doing is worrying about a dripping faucet instead of worrying about the busted water pipe in your house spewing out gallons of water. If you went to any of 30 Islamic countries you would realize how much better you have it in the US or any Christian majority country, Hispanic, Black or anyone, and any other religion besides Islam for that matter.

To answer your question, Northern Cyprus, Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Albania, and Mayotte are all Muslim majority countries in which it is illegal to discriminate against homosexuals. In addition to these, there are another fifteen Muslim majority countries in which homosexuals are guaranteed full citizen rights, including the right to practice their sexuality. And interestingly enough, the majority of Muslim countries that persecute gay men actually permit lesbianism, since the Quran claims only that male homosexuality is sinful, whereas lesbianism is unmentioned. Several also legally recognize people who are transgender. Many of them also draw the line at homosexual intercourse, and thus permit homoromantic relationships so long as penetration never occurs. Additionally, the degrees to which anti-gay laws are enforced vary considerably. In countries like Iran, the law declares that homosexual intercourse can be punishable by death, but it's still possible to find a number of uncloseted homosexuals in rural Muslim communities where few religious police are to be found.

Also, you mention in a later comment that homosexuals are not persecuted by Christians on remotely the scale that they are in Islam. Yes, this does hold true for the secularized countries of Europe and the Americas. However, you neglect the fact that in many Christian-majority African countries, where the church plays a much larger role in government, homosexuality is often considered a crime punishable by torture or death. Homosexuality is also forbidden in several Christian countries in Micronesia, Melanesia, and Oceania, where it is punishable by imprisonment. But the problem isn't just limited to Muslims or Christians; nearly every country that has at least a limited functioning theocracy tends to oppress homosexuality, even in the cases of Hinduism and Buddhism. Any country of any religious majority can become a tolerant and excepting one, so long as it can keep religious orthopraxy out of its constitution, and allow at least some degree of freedom of speech and press. Those that do not, however, regardless of what religion is the majority, have the tendency to slide backwards into corrupt, theocratic shitholes where the LGBT community is at the mercy of religious persecution. If you have taken the time to read my entire response, thank you for listening.

Sincerely yours,
A fellow meme farmer

For some reason imgflip is not allowing me to respond to your response under my last response to Octavia_Melody above, so here is my response to you:
My friend you can believe whatever you want to make yourself complacent in whatever state of belief or unbelief you are in. I challenge you to research the history and transmission of the bible instead of “church history” or the history of Christianity in general. Especially the version taught in secular universities that will make you believe that one group represents the entire system and is where all bible history leads.

The question you have raised is not one of “how can you really dismiss people as not being true Christians,” rather it is one of interpretation of the actual biblical texts. The secular and unbelieving world gets to say, “these people claimed that they were following biblical texts to support their atrocities therefore they are Christians.” But bible believers don’t get to say that Jesus himself says that on judgment day there will be many people who called Him “Lord, Lord,” and did many ‘works’ in His name but He is going to tell them, “Depart from me you workers of lawlessness, I never knew you(Matthew 7:21-23.)” You may dismiss what I say as a ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy but I’m going to go with Jesus who says that many people will claim to have been Christians, do whatever they did in the name of Christ, but He never knew them, meaning they were never born again by His Holy Spirit. A “Christian in name only” has nothing to do with Christ.

You mentioned “killings, tortures, genocides, crusades, and oppressions, along with unconditional surrender to church authority” did you know that many of the victims of these atrocities were Christian people who wanted to translate the bible into the common language of the day and live by the bible alone instead of “church authority”? Read Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. We can discuss this in more detail later if you are interested.

(part 1 of 2)

Let me start by clarifying that I have, in fact, studied the history of the Bible and its transmissions more so than I have studied church history, and would also argue that the both of them are mutually interdependent. Also, I find what you say regarding "one group represents the entire system and is where all bible history leads" somewhat puzzling. Because to me, it seemed like this was the very thing you were trying to do: to say that those who have used the Bible to support oppression are not true parts of the system, hence leaving a smaller more homogenous group as the only one which DOES represent the system. And I, in my response, did not try to claim that one group represented the whole system, or that all Bible history leads to the same place. My point about the No True Scotsman Fallacy was actually intended to claim the opposite; that the Christian world is, and has always been, dizzyingly diverse in it's practices and beliefs. In your argument against my point, you cited Matthew 7:21-23 to state that not all who have faith and call Jesus "Lord" are Christians. Forgive my ignorance, but I fail to see how your citation contradicts my argument as a whole; in Matthew 7:21, Jesus says that not all who call him Lord will enter Heaven, but only those who "perform the will of my Father in Heaven." Who, then, is or is not a real Christian hinges on interpretation of God's will, and hence, the interpretation scriptures. Therefore, in order to avoid the No True Scotsman Fallacy, you have to prove that one approach to interpreting scripture must be correct, while all others are false. I don't believe that this is possible, for two main reasons. The first is that it's essentially impossible to do so by the very nature of literary interpretation itself, namely because it relies on analyzing intention; something which can make little use of objective reasoning without first postulating a subjective opinion or appealing to authority. My second reason has to do with the implications it holds for Christianity in its earliest forms. The very first churches, founded by the Apostles of Jesus themselves, found themselves to be ideologically inconsistent with one another almost as soon as they were consecrated.

(Pleas proceed to part 2)

Each had its own independent oral traditions, fragments of Gospel-type writings or epistles, views of the Old Testament, and versions of the sacred apostolic tradition. Once complete Gospels and the epistles of Paul began to circulate, the divides grew even wider. Most churches only considered a single Gospel to be legitimate, many others only recognized the three Synoptic Gospels, and some recognized anywhere from five to eight Gospels. The legitimacy of Paul's writings were also hotly contested, viewed by some as scripture, and by others as apocryphal, or even heretical. Yet hardly any of them viewed the others as "Christians in name only" (with the exception of those they considered heretics). Such a way of thinking did not become entirely mainstream until the ascension of Papal Catholicism and full realization of the East-West Schism in 1054. So were the first church traditions, founded by Jesus' own Apostles, wrong to recognize each other's Christianhood despite their differences? Additionally, not a single group back then practiced Christianity the way it is today, yet nearly all forms of mainstream Christianity practiced today were evolved from their tradition, mostly through their shared belief in the clergy's right to interpret scripture and dictate the practices of the sacred tradition. In other words, such Christian sects have been evolved in accordance with the beliefs held by the converts of the Apostles. As such, I believe that any argument against denominationalism would also delegitimize the very foundation of Christian practice and the Apostolic tradition, not to mention fail to circumvent the limitations of scriptural interpretation. Thank you for reading another one of my protracted responses.

Thanks! :)

Lol classic false equivalence logical fallacy. A few US states where gays may not have the right to marry is somehow the same to you as Islamic laws that make being gay itself a crime. Keep complaining about gays not getting wedding cakes. Those intolerant cruel bastards!

Octavia
Before I begin I want to say I like you. You make cool memes and I respect how you speak out on what you believe. I do not want what I am about to say to cause any friction between us.
I disagree with some things you are saying.

"I'll make you a deal. I'll concede that Jesus himself didn't directly command violence (ignoring the self-mutilation passages in Matt chp 5, chp 18 and Mark chp 9), if you concede that the Bible itself commands many of the things that radical Muslims are doing today (killing gays, killing adulterers, killing apostates, etc). I can provide Biblical passages to support everything I say, if it helps."

Yes, there was some things in the Old Testament that would be unthinkable today. But Christians do not go by the Old Testament. Things changed once Jesus came. And he never once encouraged violence on another. I see where you mentioned the verse where Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the law. Well you kind of left off the next part where he said "but to fulfil". So he came to fulfil the law, not destroy it.

Now I am no preacher. There is much about the Bible I do not understand. But I know Jesus was not encouraging violence when he said what he did. If you keep reading in Matthew he goes on to name some changes. For example:
Matthew 5:38-39
38 - "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth:"
39 - "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

And Matthew 5:43-44
43 - "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy."
44 - "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;"

He just said to love your enemies! If one is to love their enemies who then is left for anyone to hate?
Also in John 13:34 Jesus says
"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another."

Love one another. That doesn't leave any room for discrimination in my opinion. You mentioned discrimination of gays. Well there are a lot of verses that would say such discrimination is wrong. I can not find a verse where Jesus specifically spoke on how to treat gays, after reading John 13:34 I doubt it would be anything that is hateful. After all Jesus came so that sinners may have a chance for repentance. ...........

If you are going to quote the bible, might I ask that you quote the complete verse and not just part of it. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." He came to fulfill the laws and the prophecies, which would include the atonement for sins. Jesus became our sacrifice so we no longer have to sacrifice animals to pay for our sins. If Jesus believed in punishment by death for sins, why did he stop the people from stoning Mary Magdalene to death for her acts of adultery, which according to OT laws was punished with the death penalty?

"Same can be said about Christians".
Yeah I would like to see you try to make Jesus and his teachings out to be as bad as Muhammad and his teachings. For the past months I have been arguing with people like you who are defending islam. But you people actually don't give any evidence to defend islam. I have literally told them how to properly defend islam and they don't even try! Let me briefly explain. Saying Christianity, or other religions, is just as bad as islam is NOT an argument. Saying western foreign policy or America is just as bad is NOT an argument. You say he is "confusing islam with violent extremism". Well let's focus on that point shall we? I say islam is violent and wrong. And you sound like you are saying it is radicals distorting islam into something it isn't. Well a few months ago I started to do research into the quran to find out if it is violent or peaceful. What I found was not good. In fact it is no wonder where these jihads (the media calls them radicals) gets their thinking. Here is just a few verses:
quran 8:39 - And fight them until there is no more fitna and religion should be only for allah.
(Fitna means unrest or rebellion) https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fitna
quran 9:123 - O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near you and let them find in your hardness.
quran 9:29 - Fight those who believe not in allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by allah and his messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, (even if they are) of the people of the book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Now prove to me with the quran that islam is not the problem and that jihadists do not get their ideas from islam itself. Using the quran is the only way to defend islam. You like to bring up other religions. Well when Christianity is accused being violent Christians don't retort to the childish "they are evil too". No. Christians open their Bible and quote scriptures from Jesus thereby denouncing the actions by so called Christians. If islam is the religion of peace how come no one refutes the accusations of being violent with scriptures? It's always what someone else is doing.