Intolerant Republican? or Religious Freak?

This type of 'selective intolerance is the modus operandi of socialists everywhere. Just look at what constitutes racism if you are white versus black or sexism if you are a man versus a woman. The double-standard is so glaring and obvious that they no longer even deny it exists.

The word racism has nearly completely/successfully been redefined in culture and certainly by the media, to mean if you're not against anything establishment, then you're racist. It's the same thing they did to the word nationalist. I refuse to let them do it, and if they want to call me a racist for that, then go right ahead. I don't care because facts prove them wrong

Redefining words is a socialist specialty. When words can mean whatever you want them to at the time, they cease having any meaning at all. I too call them on it whenever possible, but it's so prevalent in the culture now that it makes it hard to stand against the tide.

Funny thing is, it probably won't be long before they attempt to suppress actual reproductive rights in the name of population control, and decide who can and can't reproduce.

Redefining words a la 1984
In what other reality could a facist organization call them selves antifa
Or a group called Black Lives Matter destroy more black lives than what they are supposedly fighting

Calling you a "racist" is also an easy way to avoid arguing a case if you know you have a bad case. If the "politically correct" had to actually argue logically why Middle Eastern culture is as good as Western culture, when all you have to do is point out the West has created successful and modern societies and the Middle East has created hellhole after hellhole, then the debate would be over if two seconds flat.

You are correct, they absolutely refuse to discuss or debate most issues based on the facts. To be fair, they don't usually know the facts, so they can't argue about what they don't know.

And don't forget 'Godwin's Law' that hold any argument / discussion that goes on long enough will result in one side or the other (sometimes both, I suppose) being compared to Nazis or Hitler. It's the same concept here, except they start in on it as soon as they can. Even if they don't play that card at first, you know it's coming. They'll get around to calling you a racist, eventually. Even for saying nothing more than all lives matter. I guess Mother Teresa would be cancelled by current standards, and called a racist now too, since she seemed to care about everyone.

You're racist/sexist if you don't employ a double standard

Ahh, yes, excellent point! The double standard is essential to the successful employment of the hypocrisy in the newly defined racist paradigm! I should have included that in my reply to HeresYourSign.

Exactly. It's not even enough to remain silent anymore. You MUST agree/comply or the label goes on.

The meme is about how the left uses identity politics to apply different standards to people depending on group affiliation. Make them defend that. Don't let them change the subject. It's a classic deflection technique.

Too true. Every time I try to debate the hypocrisy of the left and the evils of Islam they always change the subject and start to criticize Christianity. I don't even need to be Christian to realize and spread awareness of how evil Muhammad was.

IT’S IN THE HOLE!!!

Nice, Upvote

So true. One of my favorite (actually worst) fake-news virtue signals is when they report: "Police are still searching for a motive" -after some horrific mass-killing. 9 times out of 10 that automatically translates to: "Islamic jihadists did it."

Kinda dumb. "Islamic terrorism" is a nearly non-existent threat, especially for non-Muslims. FBI has nearly no stats on it because it's so low. Of course you have your Islamist groups like Al-CIAduh and the Israeli State Intelligence Service which failed to maintain their Zionist Caliphate with arms and funding from the US/UK and Gulf Monarchies. Then there is the Muslim Brotherhood which is a likely Freemason organization. Every Islamist group has such dubious political ties and no true religious motivations. I doubt you are dumb enough to believe cokehead Atta flew planes into buildings that collapsed at free fall speed. You even had to make a fictional scenario to set up your lame joke. Do you know how much the millions of people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Palestine, Syria, Libya, Kashmir, and Yemen continue to suffer because of bombings and occupations? Trump admin is dropping over 100 bombs a DAY, set to soon overtake Obama records. But let's not mention their religion.

I think it's safe to say 9/11 and all the other hundreds of yearly Islamic terror attacks aren't "nearly non-existent." Yearly attacks go up around the world especially during Ramadan.

No true religious motivations? The Quran commands ALL Muslims to violently subjugate Jews and Christians and execute anyone who leaves Islam. And since you might just bring up Christianity again, think about this. The founder of Islam commanded these things of all Muslims. Those who don't follow Muhammad are better people than those who do, but worse Muslims. The founder of Christianity didn't command any of the things you criticize about the Old Testament.

It's not a coincidence that Muslims openly commit terror in the name of their religion at a rate that far surpasses all other religions combined

Quote the part of the Quran that says that.

"Quran (9:29): “Fight against Christians and Jews until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.”

If you'd like more examples, I recommend David Wood's YouTube channel Acts17Apologetics.

Horrible translation but yes historically when Islam established itself in the 7th century some of it was done by the sword and some of it was done by preaching. That lasted less than 100 years. After that it was mostly history like happens around the world, kingdoms rise and fall in power, more based on the location and who was in charge. Application of Islam in these cases was always partial and regional, not the driving animus.

I think David Wood might have a better translation. You should check out his channel as he knows a lot more about Islam than I do.

It lasted less than 100 years......so? All that means is that after those 100 years, people stopped following the true teaching of Islam that Muhammad established. That doesn't mean Islam no longer teaches that; after all, it's still in the Quran. People just choose not to follow those parts. It makes them better people, but worse Muslims.

Hooray lets judge Christianity by the Crusades then and all the horrors done in its name over the centuries.

What a weak statement. Usually people like you deride Islam for claiming to be the "Religion of Peace".

True.

Yes, because the Crusades were fought by one side and had nothing to do with Moslems 'spreading' their word with the sword which you suddenly remembered above after denying it was commanded by the koran and trying to fend of their brutal incursion into Christian lands wasn't the reason as anyone can tell by postcards from Constantinople I mean Istanbul and the returning now of the Hagia Sophia back to a mosque from a museum not that it was originally a Church before the sad little Islamic victims of the Crusades took over.

The point absolutely stands and it went over your head as usual. Jesus was never a statesman. The growth and teachings of Islam are a part of history, just like the formal formation of churches, which long held sway over large populations in a political and power sense. So you are saying Jesus was a pacifist like Gandhi? That he didn't believe violence can be used for Justice? Are you saying God sent Moses with Commandments but Jesus said forget all that, just worship me instead?

Jesus wasn't a statesman? Dang, that there woulda been one heckuva a neat trick for a man who never even existed. Lemme guess, that's some secret info you moslems got tucked in the koran?

Unfortunately MohamMad DID exist, although not a statesman either, despite what he may have told his child bride to impress her.

Sadly his wretched blood cult exists as well, although they all just happen to be the poorest nations of their region, from Europe to the Middle East to Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. Must be thuh evil Christians' fault that Moslems the world over are failures, innit?

You need down some to see what I did say and stop lying.

There's one key difference between these two scenarios. Muhammad both preached and practiced violence, and so did his followers for 100 years (and some still do today). Jesus preached love and peace, and some people went against that by unnecessary violence. Now the idea of the Crusades wasn't unnecessary violence because they were only started in response to the initial Muslim violence and takeover of the holy land. Now I won't deny that some of the crusaders were immoral and killed unnecessarily. I will condemn their actions.

Clueless insular narrow minded 21st century perspective of history and the world in general.

Matthew 10:34–39

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."

You realize that sword is figurative right? He uses this example to express how much devotion is needed. Jesus never actually preached violence

Cop-out.

Are you claiming that Jesus preached violence?

The sword Jesus is speaking of is the Word of God. It will tear people apart because some will listen to the Word and some won't.

And "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth" was his cute lil' way of saying hugs for everyone?

Separating the wheat from the chaff. He said He'd separate families. He wasn't some drugged hippie.

Ahh, because sowing dischord within families is so Godly, and not in violation of honor thy mother and thy father, not that that verse was written a century after by a Roman....

It is Godly if it's in Godly pursuits.

They're always Godly pursuits tho. Hare Krishnas, Rev Sun Myung Moon, Jim Jones, David Koresh, and the rest of every cult ever commanded the same exact thing.

You are citing outlying cults. The more you know the less you will succumb to those trains of thought.

I support Christianity but I don't support something like Mormonism, which is a Freemason reconstruction based on a Maroonski, or something.

"You are citing outlying cults. The more you know the less you will succumb to those trains of thought."

Hare Krishna devotees are not a cult, they are a branch of Hinduism.

I suspect you think everything that isn't one of the three main religions is a cult, you sound so...rural.

Read the Gospel. Nowhere does he promote violence. He knew peace wouldn't come in a lot of cases because some would follow His commands and some would hate it

Matthew 10:34 - 39?
It's right above, you may have seen it, or do you require a copypaste?

You said something about a Gentile woman in a market. We already talked about Matthew 10 and I responded to it. I thought you were claiming that this Gentile woman was an example of Jesus promoting violence. Is that what you're saying?

You're telling ME to read the Gospel and you don't know those stories?

There are two people on this entire site that apparently ever read the Bible, Octavia and Timber.

He never promotes violence and you know it, so I said you can read the Gospel if you don't believe me

You seem to have trouble reading comments that are right on ths thread.
Try again, and stop wasting my time.

Are all 'believers' nothing but trolls? How the heck you think you're going to recruit people by being mild irritants?

Here is how the thread went:

You quoted Matthew 10: "And "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth" was his cute lil' way of saying hugs for everyone?"

Then I said: "Read the Gospel. Nowhere does he promote violence. He knew peace wouldn't come in a lot of cases because some would follow His commands and some would hate it"

Then you said: "Like in the temple market?
Like when he told that Gentile woman to get the heck out his face?"

So I assumed you meant that as an example of Jesus promoting violence to refute my statement that Jesus never promoted violence. Is that not why you sent that message? And if not, what was even the point of it? I'm not the one who's confused about how this thread went.

I'm not trying to be irritating, I'm just trying to defend the truth and expose the evils of Islam. And I couldn't even attempt to evangelize anyone if I wasn't first prepared to defend the truth when it was challenged.

Like in the temple market?
Like when he told that Gentile woman to get the heck out his face?

When you are referring to, and how was it violent?