Creepy Condescending Wonka

Creepy Condescending Wonka Meme | SO YOU'RE ANGRY AT "EXTREMIST CHRISTIANS" FIND A CHRISTIAN TERRORIST GROUP, THEN WE CAN TALK | image tagged in memes,creepy condescending wonka | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
10,995 views, 87 upvotes, Made by anonymous 29 months ago memescreepy condescending wonka
Creepy Condescending Wonka memeRe-caption this meme
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
19 ups, 2 replies
Dr Evil Laser Meme | THE CRUSADES AND THE INQUISITION | image tagged in memes,dr evil laser | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
9 ups, 5 replies
1) The crusades and inquisition ended, the Muslim terrorists groups continue to grow.

2) The crusades were a "pushback" by the religious right in response to Islamic terror.

3) The inquisition was was Roman Catholic, not Christian. Big difference.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
The definition of Christianity is that Jesus Christ (from whence the name Christianity is derived) is believed to be the son of God, and he gave his life so that humankind might enter Heaven. The last time I checked, both Protestants and Catholics believed this. Ergo, both are Christian religions. Also Christian religions: Mormans, Quakers, Menonites, The Amish.
reply
3 ups, 3 replies
Yes! They are Christian religions. However, true Christianity is not a religion. The Ku Klux Klan claim to be a Christian religions. You can claim anything, but true Christianity is not a religion.
reply
10 ups, 1 reply
PEOPLE | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
0 ups
First World Problems Meme | MAKE THE POLITICAL MEMES STOP | image tagged in memes,first world problems | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Um...no. The KKK claims to be an organization that has Christian values. It does NOT claim to be a religion. Also, Christianity is one of the 5 major religions of the world. The other 4 are: Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism. There are two SECTS found within the Christian religion. One of those sects is Catholicism. The other is Protestantism (which actually includes several sects that fall under this all-encompassing title including Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, etc.) I'm not sure who taught you that Christianity is not a religion, but they were wrong, and perhaps you should use the internet for more than making memes.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Just wanted to correct a few errors in your post.
-Judaism is smaller than some other religions, including Sikhism, iirc.
-there are three major branches of Christianity: Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox (Greek orthodox, Russian, etc). (I'm sure Coptic Christians would fall under the orthodox category)
-the Protestant branch includes dozens, if not hundreds of denominations

Sorry to nitpick. It's what I do.
reply
1 up
I didn't say that there any larger religions. I was just providing the 5 religions most commonly taught as major religions. (I found some sites that talked about 7 major religions, but I simplified for ease of understanding. Same goes for Christian branches. Also, I didn't name all of the Protestant branches, just a few so he would get the gist. I try not to be too academic when dealing with people who have major spelling and grammar issues.
reply
1 up
So if Christianity is not 'true' than what type of Christianity is true
reply
1 up
Catholics aren't Christians?? That's dumb, even for you Spurs!
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Ibn Khaldun, one of Islam's most respected philosophers, understood that "the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force", many other Muslims are either unaware or willfully ignorant of the Quran's near absence of verses that preach universal non-violence. Their understanding of Islam comes from what they are taught by others. In the West, it is typical for believers to think that their religion must be like Christianity - preaching the New Testament virtues of peace, love, and tolerance - because Muslims are taught that Islam is supposed to be superior in every way. They are somewhat surprised and embarrassed to find that this is contradicted by the Quran and the bloody history of Islam's genesis.

Others simply accept the violence. In 1991, a Palestinian couple in America was convicted of stabbing their daughter to death for being too Westernized. A family friend came to their defense, excoriating the jury for not understanding the "culture", claiming that the father was merely following "the religion" and saying that the couple had to "discipline their daughter or lose respect." (source). In 2011, unrepentant Palestinian terrorists, responsible for the brutal murders of civilians, women and children explicitly in the name of Allah were treated to a luxurious "holy pilgrimage" to Mecca by the Saudi king - without a single Muslim voice raised in protest.

The most prestigious Islamic university in the world today is Cairo's al-Azhar. While the university is very quick to condemn secular Muslims who critique the religion, it has never condemned ISIS as a group of infidels despite horrific carnage in the name of Allah. When asked why, the university's Grand Imam, Ahmed al-Tayeb explained: " Al Azhar cannot accuse any [Muslim] of being a kafir [infidel], as long as he believes in Allah and the Last Day—even if he commits every atrocity."

For their part, Western liberals would do well not to sacrifice critical thinking to the god of political correctness, or look for reasons to bring other religion down to the level of Islam merely to avoid the existential truth that this it is both different and dangerous.

There are just too many Muslims who take the Quran literally... and too many others who couldn't care less about the violence done in the name of Islam.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Who told you this, this argument is to bias, the Ottomans took in the Christians and Jews when The Spanish Kingdom banished them from their lands, gave them their own land, court. Two Muslim women created the world's first university in Morocco in 859 AD, they created the first hospital for mentally-ill people, the reason you have soap and shampoo to clean yourself you can thank the Muslims, i am not saying that all the Muslims in the world are perfect but what you are doing is just pointing out a few individuals. There are bad people in every religion, country or culture but your statements are just pure prejudice and your judgment is blinded by what the media is saying and the corrupt politicians who control them.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
A religion that dictates that I wipe my a$$ with a bare left hand is the reason I'm clean today? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! And it's founder screwed a third grade child (9 years old) ...
reply
0 ups
What the heck...?
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
The Bible says you can't wear two different types of cloth. Or you should be killed.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
How many people have been killed in the last 5000 years based on that verse ... compared to the millions slaughtered in the name of Islam? Perspective Rob. Get some.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
Point is "holy" books are bullshit written by men for their intentions.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Trashing one doesn't make the other legitimate. C'mon, trash the other one with me. They're all just fairy tales anyway. One just is much more consistently physically violent than another.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
That's what I said....HOLY BOOKS are bullshit. ALL of them. I'll trash em all. I'm fine with that.
[deleted]
0 ups
Holy books are outdated, that's for sure. That being said, it's sad society still needs 2000 year old books to keep in line. I would be fine if they were all destroyed.
reply
1 up, 3 replies
>Catholics are not Christians
Bull f**king shit! As a former Catholic turned agnostic, this just steams me. It is just a cheap COP-OUT used mainly by Protestants as an EXCUSE to distance themselves from such things and such! True, there are differences, but most of them are minor. they are still at the core abrahamic in nature.
reply
11 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups, 3 replies
Yes I am Particularly by the Elders of Zion, a secret order of Jeiwh/Isrealite men that are 300 in number. Nearly all Jews when faced with the protocols will SCREAM "FAKE! FORGERY! ANTI-SEMITIC HOAX OF HATE OY VEY!" This is not true. Either they are legitimately unknowing as they are average Jews, or they are LYING THROUGH THERE F**KING TEETH!!
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
reply
0 ups
The Jews did not in fact, "invent", Christianity. Nobody did. Nobody "invented" Islam. Through the teachings of Jesus Christ and Muhhamad, people decided that they would follow them, and more people made that decision.

But good meme though lol
reply
0 ups
They did invent Christianity! They are prolific liars, not just when it comes to the Talmud, but in many other areas as well!
>Conspired to murrder him
Another piece of fraud and fiction, like all the major Biblical and Koranic characters/figures. Like I said, they are quite the clever liars! Examples: every single leader of the ADL, and David Dukeawitz, who knowingly conceals the fact that he is a kike from his mother's side.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I thought Vivian was a woman
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
Unisex. Butbi have seen more male Vivians and more female Vivienes/Viviennes

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivian_(given_name)
0 ups
Oh I just meant this particular one. I didn't know Vivian was a male given name.
reply
1 up
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
Apparently you aren't a Christian or you don't understand the Bible. Christianity is not even remotely the same. Roman Catholics are even further from Christianity than Catholics in general. That's what's sad about Hollywood. They lump it all together and have no idea and people believe it.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
Yeah right, you damn fool and clod! Catholicism and most of Protestantism still agree on core mainstream Christian doctrines such as Jesus being God in the flesh, having a real physical presence on the crucifixion, and the stolen garbage doctrine of the trinity. Yes, Protestants do not recognize any of the bullshit crap claims to that scumbag the Pope's so called "infallibility" along with many catholic saints, but its still mostly the same at the core.
reply
11 ups, 1 reply
Damn fool and clod? Okay, I think we're done now.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
His problem is being frustrated over your logic that is completely ignorant of facts. You're just quoting the regular response of defensive "Christian" people who split off from the original Christian Sect. I was raised Roman Catholic but now I am more of a spiritual follower of Christ's teachings rather than a proponent of a religion. Religions have and will always be a tool to manipulate and control people through their weakness by mental persuasion or violence. Religion is why the world will end.
reply
10 ups, 2 replies
I never said I followed a religion. I am a Christian. True Christianity is not a religion, but a fellowship and relationship with God the father, God the son and God the holy spirit; something most Catholics do not believe in. And I, as a Christian, do not pray through Mary. The Bible says clearly we are to pray directly to Jesus.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 1 reply
Most Catholics don't believe in the Trinity? Catholics were the initiator of the concept. You are a bit lost on the Catholic religion and being you are a "Christian" I understand why. You were taught by people with the same mentality so there is no way for you to know. You are getting your information from ignorant people. Doesn't matter who you "pray" to. Catholics merely ask Mary, Saint's, Angels etc to pray for them to the father being they are closer to God. Catholics are not asking them to do the actual task. They are just a messenger. "one or more gathered in my name" does not imply just living people. You pray to Jesus for forgiveness of sins. The others are messengers of other prayers such as helping your child which you would ask Mary to pray for you to God. You're very lost and brain washed on what Catholicism is about as are most "Christians".
reply
6 ups, 2 replies
Your idea that you must pray to Mary and saints just proves my point. Whether they don't do the task of answering prayer or not. It isn't biblical. God tells us in the Bible we are to pray to Him and not to anyone else, be it through saints and angels or anyone else. That is Catholicism, not Christianity.
[deleted]
1 up
You're wrong but that's your right. It's no different than asking your fellow members to get together to pray for you in the temple or church. It absolutely is biblical but you were taught that it wasn't by someone who is ignorant of the Catholic religion. Your thoughts fall into the same category as others that decide on what is and what is not "Christianity". You're just being judgmental on what is right or wrong which is completely against Christianity. The books are merely guidelines as to how a human should live in harmony. You are far from being a "true Christian" by condemning others interpretation of the Torah and Bible. For all we know everyone can be wrong in the true meaning for it is all opinion or there could be no God at all. No one knows the truth until death but it's better to believe and find nothing but decay then not believe and find God exists and be condemned to Gods word. By the way, if you ever say God as "He or Him" you are wrong. God never said it was a "He". Chauvinistic man put that meaning to the term because women were subservient and of course anything with power had to be a man. God said "I am what I am". There is no explanation of God because humans can't understand nor will ever have the capability until death.
reply
4 ups
you sound like a lovely person. Let me guess what religion you follow :)
reply
[deleted]
0 ups
Like Catholicism and Protestantism are almost Identical. I don't expect you to have any idea why reformation happened.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 2 replies
3) Catholics were the first Christians and continue to be so. I don't understand how people like you can think that they are not. The first Pope was an Apostle.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
Catholics were not the first Christians. That's just the popular view.
Before they were called Christians, they were referred to as keepers of the 'the way'.
The early followers of Jesus, were know as those who kept "The Way" or walked in "The Way."
The first mention of Christians in scripture is in Acts 11:19-26.
Catholocism did NOT start with Matthew 16:18. The 'rock' Jesus refers to is Peter's testimony of Christ, not Peter himself. Jesus is our high priest, our rock.

The Roman Emperor Constantine established himself as the head of the church around 313 A.D., which made this new "Christianity" the official religion of the Roman Empire. The first actual Pope in Rome was probably Leo I (440-461 A.D.), although some claim that Gregory I was the first (590-604 A.D.).
Not everyone went along with this, the Waldensens and the Anabaptists who would not conform to the Roman system.

Peace out, friend.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups
I guess you could say they weren't the first "Christians" because as you stated the term wasn't used. Christianity became the widely used term that eventually encompassed the plethora of tales from people spreading the "word" of God and texts written over hundreds of years. Catholicism is the gathering of those texts and then canonizing the texts deemed verifiable. Many were not included. Peter was used as a symbol of the first Pope being his word (which eventually became Peter himself) as the "rock" as you mentioned. Peter was not literally the first Pope because obviously the position did not exist nor did Catholicism. Every person who became a recognized leader in spreading the Gospels became a symbolized Pope by the religious leaders of Catholicism. Catholicism is the first organized Christian religion. The term "Catholic" means "Universal" which is the agreed upon word of God from many. There were no "Christians" until Catholicism. There was no other organized religion that used verified sources.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Except there is not enough legitimate evidence proving that the Catholics were the first ever Christians! Unless of course if you believe in the pope's bullshit, as well as the in many cases mildly plausible in term of historical accuracy garbage "tradition" set by the church.

Also, Here is a quote from a Jewish/Israelite extremist on Arabs

"One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail"

Along with Quotes from the Talmud: Hilkoth Axum X1: Show no mercy to the Goyim

Simeon Haddarson 56D: When the Messiah comes, every Jew/Israelite will have 2800 SLAVES(EACH OF THESE SLAVES WILL BE GENTILES!

Exact book unknown: May his name and memory be BLOTTED OUT.

The Talmud, Torah, New Testament, and Koran NEVER ONCE make a prohibition against nor even a discouragement against **pe, nor adults(in this case usually men) having sex with pre-pubescent girls! In fact the Talmud states that its permissible for a Jewish man to sexually abuse, but not marry, girls 3 and under, preferably if they are slaves! Some rabbis, including in Israel, even say that its okay if a gentile is murdered for the purpose of stealing organs(example, heart, kidneys, liver) if a fellow Jew/Israelite needs it.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
The first pope was an Apostle of Jesus so.....that blows your first comment out of the water. As for the rest of your post it is correct and there is much more.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
>Muh BIBLE!
Bullshit. Citing the bible ain't enough. There are no legitimate records that even mention Peter having a presence in Rome, outside of the arguably moderately questionable "Church tradition" just as there is no written or archaeological evidence of Thomas ever having been ANYWHERE near India!!
reply
[deleted]
0 ups
He was considered the first Pope by Catholics but whether he was in Rome or not is irrelevant. He is deemed the first leader of the movement although he really had no superiority over any of the other apostles Peter's words seemed to stick over time. I understand your ire over the Catholic religion because I shared the same attitude and left the church. I wasn't fully satisfied with wandering but still fascinated with religion so I minored in Theology/World Religions. It gave the insight to see all religions whether Monotheistic, Pagan or just spirituality like Buddhism. I have come to just shake my head at religious zealots and Nay Sayers like you. The people who blindly follow one specific religion without question are nothing but sheep being led to slaughter. They are all the same in believing theirs is the one true religion and there is nothing proving or disputing their claim for each has there own document to "prove" them right. I can go into how modern religions stole many tales from the Egyptian "Book of the Dead" which was around a thousand years before the Torah and infused them with there own "holy people" with a twist but that would start another debate where I'm sure you are not prepared. Do some research and you will see.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
lol I think he means in the 21st century! But, funny :)
reply
14 ups, 3 replies
The "Christianphobic" liberals would always refer to the middle ages when defending Islamic terrorism
reply
8 ups
reply
6 ups
exactly!
reply
2 ups
I apologize for my last comment. I hadn't realized you were being sarcastic.
reply
[deleted]
9 ups, 2 replies
reply
3 ups
reply
1 up
reply
14 ups, 4 replies
There are literally hundreds of Christian terrorist groups. Some of the more prominent ones include the Ku Klux Klan, the Lord’s Resistance Army, Antibalaka, Catholic Reaction Force, the Orange Volunteers, the Aryan Nations, and the Christian Identity Movement.
reply
8 ups, 1 reply
None of which are actually Christian groups.
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
That's a textbook No True Scotsman fallacy, my friend. Textbook.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
Except that SpursFanFromAround is correct. There are not literally hundreds (nor a handful) of christian terrorist groups. Another thing, this always gets me, just because someone's response fits into a pre-defined box established by debate theory, doesn't negate the facts of the argument. People throw that out all the time "it's such and such falacy, blah blah blah."
reply
0 ups
I said that he made a No True Scotsman Fallacy because he took all those groups listed and with one sweeping motion said that all of them aren't Christian groups, even the ones that are clearly have Christian in their name, simply because they don't fit into his definition of what a Christian group is. NTS fallacies are often used to distance your group from other groups which are in fact related to your group but which do things you condemn or which make your group look bad. There may not be hundreds of Christian terrorist groups, but I certainly believe there are more than a handful.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups
Unless of course you were agreeing with SpursFanFromAround, in which case you have my apology.
reply
[deleted]
8 ups, 3 replies
reply
[deleted]
6 ups
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Oh well, since the terrorists aren't practicing TRUE Islam, then I guess those guys aren't TRUE Christians either.
reply
5 ups, 1 reply
They are actually the few that are actually practicing true Islam.
reply
1 up
True!
reply
0 ups
the "Lord's" Resistance Army has committed terrorism such as kidnapping, and attacks on non-christians, though that is only in Sub-Saharan Africa.
reply
2 ups
if the orange volunteers are prominent, then the argument is over. they declared a cease-fire around 2000. i'd say the Tennessee Volunteers girls' basketball team is more dangerous than the Orange Volunteers at this point.
reply
0 ups
Don't forget the Army of God, affiliated with radical, violent anti-abortionists who have committed murder in the name of Christianity
reply
7 ups, 1 reply
reply
2 ups
* imaginary
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
reply
[deleted]
1 up
[image deleted]
reply
5 ups
MFW the comments
reply
5 ups
reply
5 ups
reply
9 ups, 1 reply
reply
8 ups, 2 replies
Just for a little perspective, ISIS and Islamic terrorist groups around the world average more killings per week than the KKK did in 100 years. The KKK is basically defunct but the stated purpose of Islamic terrorist groups is ... the spread of radical Islam. The KKK wasn't about spreading Christianity.
reply
6 ups
the kkk burned crosses....
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
LOL. Riiiiiight. Here's a list of Islamic attacks in JUST THE LAST 30 DAYS: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/attacks.aspx?Yr=Last30
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 2 replies
reply
[deleted]
6 ups, 2 replies
Actually Hitler wasn't Christian. All Nazis were atheists, though they pretended to be Protestant because the vast majority of Germans at the time were Protestant.
reply
4 ups
reply
[deleted]
5 ups, 1 reply
reply
[deleted]
4 ups, 2 replies
ISIS is Islamic, that's the very thing they're fighting to spread. They just follow the Koran fanatically.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
They actually follow it more thoroughly than the "peaceful" Muslims.
reply
1 up
the term muslim extremist is an intentional misnomer used by apologists. the correct term should be muslim literalists.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 2 replies
reply
[deleted]
4 ups, 3 replies
But their killing is justified in their eyes, because of jihad. That verse is irrelevant to them.
[deleted]
1 up
Those are completely unrelated. Wars that have nothing to do with terrorism don't end a flamewar about terrorism (or whatever this has deteriorated into).
1 up
That is why they are not Muslims well proper ones any way if you read the whole Quran you will find the religion is far from what ISIS is doing 'inh the name of Allah'
0 ups
Using the Quran as an authority in an argument is like referring to Go Fish's rules to play Chess.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority"

Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home).Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward " This passage criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is this Arabic word (mujahiduna) used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad, which would not make sense if it meant an internal struggle).

Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?

Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"
2 ups
The Muslim law of abrogation says that the older Koranic verses are subjugated to the younger and if there's a discrepancy, the youngest verse takes precedence. The New Testament says we're no longer under the old Mosaic Law which you quote but under a new Covenant, one that says turn the other cheek. Under Islam (which means SUBMISSION), the most violent verses are the newest because when Mohammed was creating his new religion based on the moon god he worshiped and renamed Allah, he got very little support. Everything he wrote was peace, love, sunshine, and sprinkles! Once he established his own new religion and gathered an army, then that's when he turned violent. The truth sucks.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
Hitler was not a Christian. He was also not right wing conservative like some left wing nuts would like you to believe. He was a socialist atheist who believed in evolution, not creation.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
3 ups
reply
6 ups
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
reply
0 ups
That wasn't exactly my point. Example One religion says no premarital sex. The next religion says you can just use a condom.
reply
4 ups
Westboro Baptist Church, founded by Fred Phelps.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
1. The Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church Shooting
2. The Campaign of Terror Against Abortion Doctors
3. The 1995 Oklahoma City Bombings

4. The Ku Klux Klan
5. The Massacre At Zion Emmanuel AME Church in Charleston, S.C.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 2 replies
Those aren't groups.
And the KKK were white supremacists who claimed to be Christian. They burned crosses, and their cult was run by 'master wizards'. That's not a Christian group.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
[deleted]
0 ups
reply
0 ups
When the KKK burns crosses, to them it is a respectful ritual. They burn it to illuminate it, or some stupid shit like that. Also, they are a Christian group. You can't join if you're not a Protestant.
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
thats a small group fussing over abortion. the worst they do is terrorize abortion doctors.
they do not have the size and scale of terrorist groups in the middle east. which cut off heads and burn bodies of men, women, and children for not having the same faith.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
It's a terrorist group which calls for murder because of their Christian religious beliefs... and has many murderers and terrorist bombers among it's ranks... so, yeah, it's a Christian terrorist group.
Some members:
Michael Bray
Paul Jennings Hill
Scott Roeder
Eric Robert Rudolph
James Charles Kopp
Shelley Shannon
Donald Spitz
Clayton Waagner
Fritz Springmeier
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
for a second there i thought i read michael bay xD
what part of christian belief did jesus say "kill the sinner"?
reply
3 ups, 2 replies
reply
6 ups
that was copper age foreign policy.
and what you are referring to in the bible is documentation of the past, not just religious teaching.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
That wasn't terrorism.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Killing women and young children and babies in Canaan and Ai doesn't qualify as terrorism? You do know that's the same line of thinking Muslim terrorists use, don't you?
reply
2 ups, 2 replies
First off, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram and other terrorist groups are nothing more than fanatical, religiously motivated militia groups that are using violence on civilian noncombatants to inflict fear to get what they want, while Israel was an organized NATION with a fully functional military that was obeying what their God told them to do: drive out the Canaanites and inflict judgment on them for their fully depraved culture. And after that, Israel was (and still is) subject to the same levels of divine judgment if they degenerate to the same levels that the Canaanites did; this happened multiple times in their history, and is why there was no country named "Israel" for almost 2000 years after the Jews were expelled by the Romans in 70AD. Those terrorist groups are going around destroying significant historical locations and archaeological excavations that have serious value to historians, beheading hostages on camera (sometimes live!), raping women and children while believing that they're not subject to the same thing. Israel on the other hand operated purely militarily; they didn't do any of that. Also, it's extremely important to realize that the culture of the ancient middle east was radically different than what it is now... Nations regularly recognized a deity's help in military victories, and there was no such thing as atheism. When a nation went to war, they were doing it with a god in some form or another. Knowing history is CRUCIAL to understanding what Israel did and why, otherwise we sink into scenarios like this whole comment section.

Here's a great article that explains how what Israel's conquest of Canaan is not at all the same thing as what ISIS is doing: https://www.probe.org/yahweh-war-and-the-conquest-of-canaan/
Yes, it's long, but it goes into significantly more detail than I did.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 3 replies
do your research many historians can confirm the existance of the kingdoms mentioned in the biblical text. Kings is a good example of a historical text inside the bible collection itself.

you have to stop thinking of the bible as one book when its actually a collection of many books of both religious and historical value. some gruesome things that are mentioned in the old testament are merely events that happened in hebrew history and in now way reflect how we should conduct ourselves today.
and to further prove the historical significance it is taught by professors nowadays how Jesus the primary religious figure is acknowledged to exist by Arabs, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists. and every religious group among those mentioned revere him with at least a near divine reference. (except Jews who think of him as a false prophet)

but this is mostly just me showing you how the bible essentially is pretty historically accurate. the context of the origins (aka genesis) aside. nobody knows who exactly wrote the origin story so vaguely but we do know that it was done so because nobody could possibly understand the true nature of physics and astronomy during the bible's creation; so it was either a "dumbed down" way of speaking or the writer had a hard time explaining it himself for he didn't understand it much either.

checkmate athiests that argument has long been solved.
1 up
Thanks for chiming in on this... I've about had enough of people questioning my (and others') beliefs and then calling me (and God) the nastiest names in the book when presented with legitimate and historical facts to back up my position. It's obviously clear that they don't want to know the truth, or else they wouldn't rage and call people names when they're shown it.
1 up
@Diskatopia

as for the children and babies it was obvious god gave the pharaoh every chance in the world to repent but the pharaoh refused even when told that first born would die including his own son. he put himself in that position by not thinking about his people and being an arrogant prick to his hebrew slaves.

plus the pharoah and his father before him are both responsible for killing thousands of babies and children of hebrew slaves in almost a single day. casting their bodies to be fed to crocodiles.

divine karma is one hell of a b**ch.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Functioning military or not, killing toddlers and children is not acceptable in warfare.

"...obeying what their God told them to do" First of all, so is ISIS. Second of all, that doesn't help your argument anyway. Any group could commit an act of war or violence and say that their God told them to do it. There's literally no way to disprove that claim. I could kill some random person and say that God told me to do it, and you couldn't prove me wrong.

"...inflict judgment on them..." Again, ISIS would say the exact same thing regarding their actions.

Israel didn't **pe women and children? Please read Numbers chapter 31.
reply
0 ups, 4 replies
there's a difference between doing things in gods name and doing it because god says so. god did not say to **pe/kill women and children. and those isrealis did not seem to claim they did it in his name either. so those guys were just history's assholes.
0 ups
You might want to go read the Old Testament, it honestly seems like you never have.
PS-- blaming the victim is hilarious.. yeah, it's Pharoah's fault that the "omnipotent" God in the Bible killed babies and children, sure, run with those scissors lol
0 ups
Here's a challenge for you.. when you read the Old testament, replace the words "God", "Lord", et alia, with "Cthulhu".

It is very enlightening.
0 ups
@diskatopia

you apparantly ignored the fact that the pharoah and his father enslaved the hebrews and killed many of their slave's firstborn. victims? hardly.
like i said, there was irony in what happened. sweet irony.
0 ups
@diskatopia

all hail lord cthulhu xD
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Everyone is talking about the second part of this meme but I want to start by addressing the first part: who is angry at "extremist christians"? I've never been angry specifically at extremists from one particular religious belief. I disagree with each of the major monotheistic religions, and I'm generally annoyed by and sometimes angry at every form of extremism. In equal measures. Also: terrorism is not the only possible harmful effect of extremism. People can be annoyed, angered or even outraged by any of the other effects. And rightly so.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
Liberal Christianaphobes.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
You say that like "liberal" is the important bit. It's not even part of it. An actual liberal can be a christianophobe, but a conservative is far more likely to be one, unless he/she is a christian him-/herself.

Christianophobes (in the proper sense of people who discriminate against christians, sometimes violently) are not "angry" at "extremist christians" either, by the way. They are generally people of another majority faith who feel threatened or frightened by something they don't quite understand. Much like a lot of non-muslims feel about muslims for example. Of course the aggressive christianophobes tend to not even really care, they are like hooligans at a football match: they don't give a damn about the thing they're using as an excuse, they just want to be violent and destructive.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups
Well, in the US the liberal part is more prominent. In prominently Islamic countries, there are indeed conservative Islamic christianophobes.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups
Sorry I'm late. Here are 8.

http://aattp.org/here-are-8-christian-terrorist-organizations-that-equal-isis/
reply
1 up, 1 reply
The IRA, the KKK, and Westboro Baptist Church. Are three enough, or should I get into research mode and find all of them for you?
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up
Do you even know what the IRA is? Definitely a terrorist group. Ask the Brits. Also, using fear and/or violence to further an ideology is terrorism. These don't fall under that definition? Perhaps Westboro hasn't killed anyone, yet, but the other two have many, many times. They've also set bombs. What exactly does a hate group have to do before you will call them a terrorist group?
reply
6 ups, 2 replies
the KKK
dumb ass
reply
[deleted]
7 ups, 1 reply
The KKK were white supremacists. They fit more into the 'extreme racist' category than "extremist Christian"
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Extreme Islamist: Beheads and burns alive the non believer.

Extreme Christian: Pickets funerals shouting, "God hates f*ggs."

I laugh when people say extreme Christians.
reply
0 ups
add this to the end of Extreme Christian: ... and bombs abortion clinics.
reply
6 ups, 1 reply
it's true that the KKK professes to uphold christian values, but every denomination of christianity in the US officially denounced the KKK. compare that with the slim minority of imams and mosques that denounce islamic terror groups.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 2 replies
you are literally relying on the one islamic terrorist group that is murdering other islamic terrorist groups as your example?!?! what a joke. what about the other hundred or so other islamic terrorist groups that are supported by muslims throughout the world?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/opinion-polls.aspx
reply
1 up
Are you mining my Facebook page for links? :) facts don't matter to the apologists, so I don't bother posting them here.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 2 replies
reply
3 ups
I love you conspiracy nuts. Facts and science be damned.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
reply
3 ups
you really have to starting tin foil hat meming your replies.
reply
1 up, 2 replies
They keep bringing up the KKK, West bourough, aryan nation....Just how many people have all 3 of those groups killed this year? Any beheadings? Suicide bombings? Now, how many were killed by Islamist terrorists? Sheesh, how dumb do you think we are?
reply
[deleted]
2 ups
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Why only this year? Why do the 8000 murders the KKK has committed over the last 86 years not count? Why don't the 3700 the IRA killed over 30 years not count? Is your rationality that because they weren't committed within the month and a half that is "this year" they can't be called terrorist acts? Sheesh, how dumb do you think we are?
reply
1 up
if you included them all they wouldn't come close, much less exceed the numbers of killings by the so called "peaceful religion. But, in answer to your question, I try to live in the present. you might need to get your head out of the dark ages!
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Is there video of Christians chanting from the Bible before cutting someone's head off? Are there global networks of anti-socials vocally praising Jesus, Moses, or Buddha as they commit horrible atrocities with the approval of about 1 out of 3 'peaceful' co-religionists? Do other religions have some sort of "sex-for-murder" clause that promises 72 virgins to entice disciples into killing themselves while killing others?

When you hear a news story about religious fundamentalists blowing up innocent people in the name of God, how often does it not involve Islam? This is a very different sort of religion - one that not only inspires violence, but the apathy that sustains it.

Beginning with Muhammad, Muslims have killed a great many people over the years to explicitly distinguish their religion from others. It is not fair to the victims that their own religion be demeaned merely because some skeptics see value in trying to pretend that all religion is equally bad or good. Islam is the only religion accountable for the crimes of Islam.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
There isn't, but mostly because videocameras weren't around when christian executions were common. I'd like to know where you got the "1 out of 3 muslims agree with the horrible atrocities committed in the name of Allah" statistic, do you have a reference you can link me to? Anyway, islam actually doesn't have that clause either, it's a scandalous warping of martyrdom. Martyrdom in itself is a ridiculous concept if you ask me, but by its (ridiculous) definition it is impossible to become a martyr if the actual goal of your actions is simply to become a martyr. Also, "virgins" are promised to all muslims in the afterlife, not just to martyrs. This makes perfect sense for a religion: you want to convince as many people as possible to convert, so better make the advantages tasty.

Beginning with Jesus, who was most likely the leader of an armed militia fighting the Romans, christians have also killed a great many people over the years. I will maintain that this is a disease of all religions, being misused as a means of (military) recruitment or false justification of (horrible) misdeeds. Christianity, too, is the only religion accountable for the crimes of christianity.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
There weren't video cameras but there are no eye-witness accounts either. Only radical Islamists recruit by burning people in cages, cutting off the heads of Christians, and blowing up innocent people in marketplaces. Try educating yourself www.thereligionofpeace.com

I can't help your delusion that Jesus was the leader of an armed militia ... that's *almost* the most ridiculous thing on this entire thread.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
I thought you might respond like that. But at least I tried. I'll just add that there are a great deal of eye-witness accounts, that these cover even just a small portion of crimes committed because of the prosecution of those opposing the Church and that it's annoying that you've fixated on the Jesus thing. It makes no difference at all if that's true or not, though I should have said he _could_ have been the leader of an armed militia (it's a hypothesis that makes a fair amount of sense, but I concede it's not the prevalent one). The point remains that christians have killed a massive number of people throughout the centuries. To deny this is as ridiculous and despicable as denying the Holocaust.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Two wrongs don't make a right. Islam has done far more violence in the name of religion than we can fathom. The whole reason "Crusaders" went to the Middle East was to defend their brothers and sisters "in the faith" from Islamic warriors. Then THAT defensive campaign is used as an argument against the West. You see, under Islam, they can do anything they want because they're not allowed to "speak against brothers in the faith."

Given Islam's violent history and the unfavorable contrast that its oppressive practices have against 21st century values, Muslims are hard-pressed to repackage their faith in the modern age. Some of its leading apologists have come to rely on tricks involving semantics and half-truths that are, in turn, repeated verbatim by novices and those outside the faith.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
What two wrongs? Your first sentence makes absolutely no sense at all to me. Neither does the rest of that paragraph, I'm afraid. The Crusades being a defensive campaign is a very feeble, even laughable suggestion, you can't seriously mean that. I don't understand the need people feel to deny the fact our ancestors have made terrible decisions, done horrible things and killed a great many innocent people, all under the guise of doing it in the name of a god. Your ancestors' actions don't have to define you. You could be a direct descendant of John Wilkes Booth and be the most patriottic U.S. citizen alive today.

Your second paragraph is interestingly ironic, since this has steadily become an ever more perfect description of christianity since the rise of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was not a global thing, it was very much European and a consequence of historical circumstances. And it was violent and, in the end, only the instigator of a slow process towards a.o. equality that is still going on. Contrary to the literal notion of a revolution, it did not create an immediate turnaround in the minds of every living European.

If only from a biological, neurological point of view, it's unrealistic to expect such a turnaround in countries that did not go through an Enlightenment Age. We were lucky that no-one really came to bother us while we were going through it, the (historical) circumstances for "non-Enlightenment" countries and cultures are very, very different today. So the process will be different as well, and it's worth thinking about the role we're currently playing in it, and what role we should be playing. This is a tough question and I don't have the answer, but it should be clear that "denouncing/banning islam" will not work. Islam, islamic cultures and muslims individually do indeed have some work to do to understand themselves and their place in the modern, chaotic world. But we should allow them and help them do so, in any non-violent way possible, without having to relinquish some core values and human rights we can objectively agree to be inalienable.
reply
0 ups
For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity—and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion—has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.

With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.
reply
0 ups
Mark 12: 30-31.

Not feeling a lot of love here, folks.
reply
0 ups
https://www.google.co.za/search?q=christian+terrorist+group&oq=christian+terrorist+group&aqs=chrome..69i57.9393j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Lets have a chat now.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
KKK
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
The KKK are white supremacists, not extremist Christians. They burnt crosses and were led by master wizards, that's certainly not Christian.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Ok so the KKK didn't originate as a protestant organisation in the aftermath of the American War of Independence? Tell me more....
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 3 replies
No, it didn't. Check your facts.
The KKK were founded after the Civil War, they were basically a Confederate terrorist group. They killed because they thought the blacks were racially inferior, not because they wanted to spread Christianity.
reply
0 ups
yes you're right I meant the Civil War. Anyway I think its pretty naive to think they weren't hiding behind Christian moral values in a way not dissimilar to extremist Islamic groups like ISIS. Put it this way, I don't think you'd find many non Christian, non white KKK members. And it is Christianity by the way which allowed white human beings the excuse to enslave black human beings in the first place and to continue to do so until the abolition of the slave trade. Go figure.
reply
0 ups
Furthermore, they claimed Jesus was the first Klansman!!!
reply
0 ups
What do you think the ritual lighting of the crucifix is all about?
reply
0 ups
Military...police.
reply
0 ups
I hate to burst your bubble, but look up the "army of god". Thank you.
reply
0 ups
Wesboro?
reply
2 ups
I think it's important that the Christians on here realize that they don't find Christian terror groups terrifying because they don't target you straight white Christians. You may find that you felt differently if you were gay or brown or Jewish. (Adversely Isis kills other Muslims all the time)
reply
0 ups
reply
2 ups
westboro is not terrorist, they are just bigots protesting funerals. they teach so much directly contradicting core christian values.
KKK burned crosses, and have "grand wizards" as their leader. i hardly see anything christian about it truly.
Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio fans, now your just generalizing the public. shameful, and not as well researched. but of course i expect you to do last minute google cherry-picking to counter my argument after i just called you out. not 100% sure you are but hey, it happens often enough.
Flip Settings
Creepy Condescending Wonka memeRe-caption this meme

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

Show embed codes
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
SO YOU'RE ANGRY AT "EXTREMIST CHRISTIANS"; FIND A CHRISTIAN TERRORIST GROUP, THEN WE CAN TALK
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back