Different Ideologies

Don't forget this difference: 2q20f4.jpg (click to show)
or this difference: 24c3mw.jpg (click to show)

I mean you can read further on where it says: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor” (1 Timothy 2:8-14). Or a woman “will be saved through childbirth, if she remains in faith and love and sanctification with modesty” (1 Timothy 2:15).

Are you seriously trying to deny the Bible is sexist? Why then does it say: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house, you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male slave, his female slave, his ox, his donkey or anything which belongs to your neighbor” (Exodus 20:17; Deuteronomy 5:21)? Why not you shall not covet your neighbor's husband? Women are clearly property and the audience being spoken to are obviously men.

This passage has been debated as supporting the institution of rape: “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her." (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

I could go on all day, I really could...

The New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant with the coming of Jesus Christ. In any case, the Bible's overall message (including that of the Old Testament) is why you don't see Jews committing violent crimes on a mass scale.

Absolutely not. Slavery should never return to America and should be abolished elsewhere in the world wherever possible.

Jesus did not condone slavery, but merely expressed his view between servant (not necessarily slave) and master: "A servant is not greater than his master" (John 15:20). Slavery is not based on Christianity; it is a pagan holdover.

In ancient times, the word "slave" did not have the negative connotations with cruelty and brutality like it does today. A slave was simply someone who provided services to a landowner in exchange for food and shelter. The reason they were called slaves is because they were dependent on their masters.

One of the foremost duties of Christians is to love one another, and true love cannot be coerced because of servitude; it must be freely chosen. That is why the Church is anti-slavery today and was also anti-slavery before the practice was abolished in America.

XD

Not that pre-Christian times were that far behind in terms of brutality, just less 'fancy'

The Qu'ran also speaks of Jesus as a prophet who was sent to deliver the word of God, albeit, not God himself or the son of God like the New Testament. But practitioners of the Jewish religion see Jesus as just "some guy who went off and started his own religion." That's a direct quote told to me by someone from Israel.

What was the topic of your first point?
You are not that ignorant. You like to play ignorant when you can't answer an argument.
Play dumb and you get this, nothing else from me: 3kwr9n.jpg (click to show)

That's a Jesuit.

Roman Catholic's.... Pretty basic

Yes they are of the same branch of the four. the Romans eventually consolidated power and Catholics popes purged Christians groups or anything that threatened its power or being near broke the many times lol. the Roman Catholic and orthodox separation and the later Protestant separations and many others that followed. Catholics have a great history of loving many versions of Christians lol

Lol unrefined but same game, different leagues, rules and parks. Many religions deal with antinomian concepts through out time. Kinda why Jesus happened or the need of one lol. Anyone following the Jewish guy without being orthodox lol yea don't mind me enjoying the irony lol

That unrefined does you no good lol

No, the one on the left is just as capable of doing a mass shooting as anybody else.

And meanwhile, the Muslims have killed millions over their history and Christian's have killed.... Hmmmm.

But you keep pretending Islam isn't the problem and Christianity is.

They both have done bad things over the years. And today both sides have extremists doing bad things.

Hell, just what Christians killed in the 20th Century alone exceeds them all.

Mind you, Islamic terrorism only became a thing in the 2nd half of that century, and the number is in the thousands - and THAT is on account of 9/11 and what's happened since, otherwise it would be in the hundreds at most.
Compare that to the millions of Muslims Christains have killed in the last century.

Your version of history is skewed.

As opposed to what version?

As was Stalin's (who had spent 5 years in a seminary when he was younger) deal with the Russian Orthodox Church to allow church reopenings, etc, in exchange for support against Hitler? His efforts to stamp out religion previously as part of implementation of Marxist ideology did not make adherrents disappear, nor erase it framing their mentality & culture prior.
The return if the Church's prominence after the collapse of the USSR did not require major gymnastics either despite the 're-education' efforts.

Likewise with Hitler and his attempts to return Germany to its pre-Christian pagan roots. The move was feeble, and the Nazis remained mainly a Protestant people.

Christianity of two sects were their backgrounds, and to people of other religions, that's what they were.
Christian European identity was a backdrop of their political movements regardless of stated aims to depart from it, and they exploited connections to it to garner support for and to further their agenda.

The assertion that Christians had not killed millions while Muslims did is absurdly false.

There's a bit of a difference between (mostly) famine deaths due to Mao's bad policies and Hitler's extermination campaigns plus a world war he ingnited. Compare Mao's more deliberate efforts that lead to deaths to that by Hitler, and there is no comparison.

WWI, WWII, Persian Famine, Bengal Famine - the latter 2 because of the British, and unlike Mao, involved policies designed to cart the food they produced away for the British while forbidding them from acquiring food otherwise, even not allowing American & Canadian donations of food for them to enter their shores.

And that's just the 20th Century.

Well any non-felon can purchase those guns, so yes, any person is "capable" of doing a mass shooting. But capability isn't the important thing.

Another example. The US has nukes. Russia has nukes. Israel has nukes. But have they ever been used, apart from the first two times in WW2? No, we've been smart enough not to use them unless necessary.

Some people, however, lack that common sense or desire for self preservation.

Just NO WHERE near as likely.

With all the talk of a civil aka race war coming from the right...

Capability isn't in question. Willingness is.

That isn’t just due to religion. When your backs against the wall, you have a shitty gov, nothing is getting done and your family is getting killed, any one of us would want to try to do something. We’ve got like 4 million Muslims in America. They’re not all bad. We really need to stop dividing people.

That's the point of the second half of the meme though, what they do if you /leave them alone/.