The New Crusade

Terrorism, for me the image calls up memories of dead marines in Beirut, crashed planes in Scotland, towers falling in NY, Japanese subway systems filling with nerve agent, attacks on trains, buses and subways, of bombed and burning buildings, and of shooters all over the globe attacking public events and infrastructure.  For much of America however, it seems that terrorism is a strictly Muslim problem.  This attitude is expressed from the pulpit, on youtube broadcasts, in the media, from the mouths of politicians, and on the web.


It is a natural thing to react to a terrorist attack.  It is a normal emotional response to feel fear, anger, and distress.   However acting in a feeling is often not the way to proceed in life.  People making big life decisions based purely on emotion rarely wind up satisfied.  Often, there is some unforeseen aspect to the decision they simply failed to grasp, because they were highly emotional.


We Americans reacted this way when Bush declared a “War on Terror”, and we remained silent.  As a Veteran this made as much sense to me as declaring a “war” on rifles, bombs, or bullets.  One declares war on nation states, not on methods of combat.  At the time I saw it as political rhetoric; merely a continuation of the rhetoric from previous administrations with “Wars” on poverty and drugs.


Carried over to the terrorist concept this notion creates grounds for eternal war, not against nation states, but against anyone using the tactic of terror, in any state.  Bush also said, and we let it slide in anger, that any nation who harbors terrorists is themselves terrorist.  So in a very real sense we declared war on the entire world.  It is also declaring war on ourselves because we have had terrorists in own country.  Other countries could easily say, as we have, “Since you cannot catch the terrorists in your country you must be hiding them.”  It is a very dangerous, self-righteous, and egotistical attitude to walk around with.  An attitude based in emotion, not reason.


You can never win a war on terror because terrorism is a combat strategy. Terrorism is most often employed in guerrilla circumstances, where one force is greatly outmatched in a traditional battle scenario.  In order to weaken and demoralize your enemy, or in order to create an emotional reaction in your enemy; you attack the weak tender underbelly of their society.  Such actions cause chaos, fear, and an inevitable emotional response.  Terrorism is a psychological form of warfare in this way; it is a wet Psy-Op.


Make no mistake, Isis wants the American population to react as if it is Christians vs Muslims.  That is part of the message they are attempting to spread.  Christians are Infidels to that sect and if America responds with troops, their following will grow.  Every missile we loose, every bomb we drop, every drone raid which causes the slightest collateral damage is used by them as evidence that “We Americans” are really just Christian conquerors hiding behind a banner of Liberty.


The followers of Isis are like the “Westboro Baptist Church” of Islam, with AK’s and plans to use them.  Most Muslims right now, think Isis is full of shit.  They think Isis misunderstands the meanings of the Muslim faith.  However, Isis believes that anyone who does not follow their version of Islam is an Infidel worthy of death, and they are both armed and ready to kill for this belief.  This is what Syrians, of all types, are running from.  W.B.C will scream at you that you’re going to burn in Hell, but they are not so quick to attempt sending you there.  The American Christian attitude about Syrian refugees coming from pulpits and available online expresses exactly the intent of Isis, and it will be used to draw more Muslims into that fold.  The Syrian Christian attitude comes in two basic camps, loving Christians who want to escape violence, and Christian Militias who feel they are in the New Crusade already.


Christians in America are reacting to these Muslim Terrorists as if they have none of their own.  Yet Christian Terrorists are just as bad as Isis in other parts of the world.  They are, as we speak, committing genocide in Africa.  In America the other day one shot up a medical clinic because they objected to one type of medical procedure. There have been far more terrorist acts here in America by these Christians against other Americans than there have been Islamist related attacks.  Such Christian attacks long predate Muslim acts of terror committed against Americans and are utterly home grown.  These terrorist acts are inspired by Christian Dogma and right wing rhetoric in media.


“Since 1977 in the United States and Canada, there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, 13 wounded, 100 butyric acid attacks, 373 physical invasions, 41 bombings, 655 anthrax threats, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers.”—N.A.F.  This is not including Jonestown, or Waco, or Oklahoma City, all of which were either inspired, driven, or underpinned by Christian Dogma.


Isis is a serious threat, much more to Muslims and Christians in the mid-east than to the USA., but simply being Muslim does not make one a member of Isis any more than being a Christian makes you a follower of W.B.C. or a terrorist shooter of medical clinics.  Isis must be confronted.  The policy of Isis is conform or die, but it is ignorant to think all Muslims are Isis, especially when Isis is killing Muslims left and right.


We Americans support Saudi Arabia in our foreign relations policies.  Saudi Arabia has a horrific human rights issue, mostly as a result of Wahhabism.  Wahhabism is a sect of Islam which arose in the mid 1700’s, and has been violent since its foundation.  After killing Muslims and forcing conversions to Wahhabism for 60 odd years, Wahhabists were militarily vanquished and driven into the desert by the Ottoman Empire.


Wahhabists killed tens of thousands of both Muslims and Christians, and they burned down almost every mosque and church they encountered. Wahhabists see holy buildings as either a graven image or housing graven images, and as such they require destruction.  A great many Muslim holy sites were destroyed by Wahhabists.  If you ever wondered why some Muslims will demolish museums or historic sites, wonder no further.


Wahhabism was adopted and edited by the Saudis at the founding of that nation.  In Wahhabism there is to be a type of “King of Islam” and it was this the Saudi’s adopted, making the Saudi King a default “King of Islam” in Saudi Arabia.  It is from this version of Wahhabism that we get such notorious human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia.


Both Al-Queda and Isis, and many other smaller splinter groups, embrace the original ideas of Wahhabism but reject the Saudi interpretation.  Instead they returned to the fundamentals of Wahhabism which are bloody indeed.  This is the reason why many of the terrorists of 9-11 were of Saudi origin.


It was in Saudi Arabia that many first learned of these ideas.  Thus in Mosques in Saudi Imams teach Wahhabism, and outside in the market another Muslim quietly speaks that this is watered wine, and introduces the believer to Isis.  Such Muslims simply switched denominations of Islam.  We Americans are ignoring this elephant in the room.


The Saudis have a large military and could make a significant impact against Isis, if they wanted to take action.  Yet Saudis take no action and instead ask the USA to take action.  This is because a great many Saudis support Isis to some extent, because they believe the underlying Wahhabist philosophy.  This allows Wahhabists among them to think they can make the Saudi model of Islam global, through Isis, with plausible deniability.  It also makes any attempt by the King of Saudi to fight against Isis a form of political suicide.  I think just the notion of directly fighting against Isis raises the specter of Civil war in Saudi Arabia.


Bush and Trump have strong business ties with the Saudis, so do many corporations.  Saudi oil is a commodity they all require, or that same oil provides them with other lucrative business opportunities by its existence.  The Saudis use these relations as levers against changes in their society and as leverage to involve Americans while keeping their hands clean.   This makes any president elected who is a billionaire with Saudi connections or holds a long tradition of corporate sponsorship very unlikely to address these Saudi issues.


Our Mideast policies are unsound. Many are held on a principle of tradition and religion.  A lot of our support for Israel is a direct result of Christianity; as many Christian sects feel that the Jews are Gods chosen people and to not support them would be sinful.  The global guilt over the holocaust also plays into this support.  All of this is used by Muslim groups like Hamas; who see such support as Christians supporting the enemy Jew who kills their children.   Since “the friend of my enemy is my enemy”, our support of Israel undermines attempts at diplomacy from the outset.  Christians themselves amplify and reinforce this notion by falsely claiming America a “Christian Nation” publicly.


The six day war was 48 years ago, and yet we still give billions in military aid to Israel which they use to lob missiles at Muslims in other lands.  Is it not apparent we are not helping the situation in this fashion?  Israeli aid should be contingent upon how they use it.


All of this reeks of religion.  We Americans are quick to say, this is not a religious war, but it is very easy to see how religion is inspiring those on all sides.  Trump, who has never been a very religious man to my knowledge, has gained a veneer of Christianity because of his anti-Muslim stance.  He is repeating what Christians hear from the pulpits and online.  A rather large segment of Christians are assuming Trump believes as they do.


Trump is not only riding a wave of fear preached from Christian pulpits, but increasing the size and power of that wave through media attention.  Unless you do a little legwork yourself online, you will not see the extent of this new Christian war footing.  Combat Christian Militias exist in Syria fighting Isis and a segment of the American Christian population supports and endorses this.  Some seek to emulate these modern Christian Crusaders.  These Christians do not see Christian Syrians as people attempting to survive, but rather new Christian Militias carrying the cross against the devil Islamist.   They hope Donald Trump will lead this new Crusade.  They make open reference to the previous crusades and the words and interpretations of the Bible used during those times.


Now fundamentalist Christians are following Trump, a billionaire with no strong history of faith.  In standard Christian terms, “He’s Lukewarm”, by his own admission.  “Trump reminded us of his resurgent religious sensibilities, if in an oddly offhanded sort of way. When the moderator asked him if he had ever sought the Lord’s pardon for anything, Trump replied: “I am not sure I have. I just go on and try to do a better job from there. I don’t think so. I don’t bring God into that picture.”


Trump added that, as a Presbyterian, he does take communion, which he construed as tantamount to petitioning the Godhead for absolution:  “When I drink my little wine — which is about the only wine I drink — and have my little cracker, I guess that is a form of asking for forgiveness, and I do that as often as possible because I feel cleansed. I think in terms of ‘let’s go on and let’s make it right.’”


Despite this lukewarm faith, fundamentalists and evangelicals seem to resoundingly agree with his crusade approach to the problem of Islamic terrorism, while simultaneously denying the very existence of Christian Terrorism.  In my mind the Presbyterian leaders ought to step up on this, because now it looks very much like the Presbyterians support a new crusade too.  Christians need to wake up to this reality and confront it if they want to retain the loving faith they claim to actually follow.


If you are a loving  Christian person you owe it to yourself to take a look here.


They have a selection of articles, such as,  “Destroy Islam Or Islam Will Destroy US – Here Is The Proof” which illustrates this Christian vs Muslim war footing mentality.   “Time For A Wakeup Call: The War Scenario Between Russia And Turkey In Syria Is The Prelude To The War Of Gog And Magog” which shows these ideologies are also tied into the end times beliefs in fundamentalism.  Articles on the new crusade like “Christian Militias On The Rise; A New Crusade Coming” only support my earlier assertions.


The author of this site, Walid Shoebat, is a self-declared former Muslim Jihadist, who converted to Christianity, and now writes about his experiences in light of his conversion.  In this way he seems never to have stopped Jihad, but to have switched “teams” in a holy war he still believes in.  This is but one Christian voice in a chorus online.


If our American policy is “any nation who harbors terrorists is themselves terrorist”, then the Saudi Issue is a slap in the face to that notion. Saudi Arabia is home front of Wahhabism, an ideology from which Al Qaeda and Isis spawned.  If our American policy is “any nation who harbors terrorists is themselves terrorist” then we ourselves are guilty for inspiring terror with our political and religious rhetoric, like the recent medical clinic shooting.


Robert Dear, the shooter at a recent Christian Terrorist attack on a medical clinic said, “I am a warrior for the Babies”.  It is clear to me that Mr. Dear considered himself a “Warrior of God” “for the babies”.  Considering this type of thing is preached about and broadcast on major media, how are Christians able to think they bear no responsibility?  In precisely the same fashion that Muslims, even Wahhabists, feel they bear no responsibility for Isis.  Both groups are quick to use the “No True Scotsman” Fallacy to attempt to distance themselves from others of their faith they feel do not represent them, to claim Isis is not a “real” example of Islam or that Mr. Dean is not a “real” Christian.


Christians and Muslim both need to accept the reality that their own religions can, and often do, spawn aberrant believers willing to do violence for their beliefs.  They need to understand and accept that this too is a part of their faith, instead of seeing it as another faith entirely.  Both religions need to begin policing themselves much more strictly by confronting radicalism in their ranks.  A failure to do so might actually be risking a new religious war and not just a war with strong religious underpinnings.


Christians need to understand that Mr. Dean is a creation of the Christian faith.  A creation made by belief in certain Christian dogmatic understandings.  Beliefs which allow him to see murder as justified. Beliefs which allow men to violate God’s commandments violently, in the name of Christ.


American Christians need to understand that Mr. Dean grew out of religion in the same fashion as Osama Bin Laden.   Christians need to be thankful that Mr. Dean took matters into his own hands, killing only a few; instead of creating a group of like mind; an American-Christian Al-Qaeda or Isis.  How long until the rhetoric from pulpits and media spawns exactly that?


Muslims need to confront their own dangerous rhetoric when they encounter it, and not give it a pass.  In the Mid-east they need to defend themselves and families from actual sectarian violence as well.  It is only by Christians and Muslims policing their own religions against violent ideologies that they can hope to avoid future tragedies and terrorist acts.  The people of faith who see their God as Love and their faith as peaceful need to confront these realities and face down the hateful segments of their own faiths.


The rest of us, who hold no affiliation with either group, need to consistently remind both groups of these realities.  Both Christians and Muslims are in glass houses throwing stones.  It is very easy for them to fail to see this, to reflexively use the “No True Scotsman” defense.  It is to our own detriment that we fail to make them see this, as bullets and bombs do not discriminate.


We Americans need to stop thinking with our emotions and start using our reason.  We need to be aware that if moderates confront extremists, violent conflict can arise.  Protestants and Catholics killed each other in Ireland for 1000 years.  Sectarian violence can be deadly, but to fail to confront extremism is to allow it to spread.


If you never understood why Emperor Constantine forcefully gathered all the Christian leaders and their texts and created by council the modern Bible, you do now.  It was from a miasma of denominations, which struggled against each other that he strove to create stability in the faith. From a myriad of Christian ideas he formed by council what is today Christianity.  Constantine’s reason was twofold, to ensure taxation and to reduce the issue of extremism and sectarian conflicts.


Hating or fearing all Muslims makes just as much sense as hating or fearing all Christians.  It makes no sense at all.  We can ill afford to keep operating on emotions as Mr. Trump would have us do.  We need to put our heads together and think, review all existing policies in the light of how they affect terror, and act accordingly.  We do not need to blame the believers, but believers need to confront the extremists inside their own faiths.  I do not mean just their sect or denomination; their Church or Mosque; but in all of Islam and in all of Christianity, in the entirety of faith.


If you are a moderate believer and you hear a message of fear or hate from your fellow Christian or Muslim, you need to stand up and call that out.  People have a herd instinct, and unless you speak out people are actually likely to believe that hate filled message.  Research shows however that a single person standing up and saying “NO, you’re wrong about that” reduces this instant following effect by 80%, just because it forces your fellow believers to think.


America needs to confront Isis, not with arms, but with policy.  We need to support moderate Muslims in defense of their homelands against Isis.  We need to be fearless in our protection of the innocent.  We should take in refugees, and provide aid to those battling extremism, and we could do this safely with but a little forethought.  Failure to aid the Muslims fleeing Isis is to prove Isis’s assertions true to the greater Muslim world.  Such a policy failure is likely to cause Isis to grow.  The last thing we need is a new crusade, or a more bigotry inspired by fear; that would be letting the extremists win.





18 thoughts on “The New Crusade

  1. The “everybody does it” argument was used nearly 20 years ago to great effect to cover then President Clinton’s sexual harassment of intern Monica Lewinsky.

    And even though Barack Obama has been in office 7 years, President Bush is still somehow to blame for the resurgence of the Jihad, Islam’s crusade against the rest of mankind.

    The “everybody does it” argument and blaming someone long gone for catastrophic policy failure is a deadly recipe for further disaster.


    1. I agree. Evil is more cunning than just being the “outliar” of every group.

      As a Christian I’m aware that anyone can call themselves whatever they want too (Mormons say they are Christian, etc.); saying people called this and this both do it is utterly useless as much as a true scott arguement against them.

      I’d also ask that if all this policy and conflict is religious, then isn’t the secular ideal that religion can be sidestepped as a reason to fight inherently ignoring it’s own complaint? It just becomes another party to the conflict, and one that strips all of their tribal identity.

      For my part, us Christians will die to preach Jesus, be kind to all, and will even help a wounded Jihadist Muslims as we fight the Devil, not humans.

      But for us all that’s not of Christ is demonic, so we see Heritics, Catholics, Secularist, and Muslims all killing each other, as much as druggies overdosing and thugs shooting each other.


      1. “But for us all that’s not of Christ is demonic”
        I think this is a big part of the problem. As a person of faith you reside in a place mentally where you are convinced of your position, but you cannot prove it. Hence YOU decide others like myself are demonic based upon an assertion you cannot prove, but nonetheless believe.
        This is the very definition of prejudice, to judge before you know a person, based upon a belief you cannot prove. Since each sect does this to the other NONE can be certain they are correct, none can prove their correctness, yet all insist upon it.


      2. Lol. I think a sect that doesn’t even want to say it’s right is worse than the dumbest ideologue.

        Your assertion that “none can prove” is an absolute proof, and that for your position. You are claiming absolute proof yourself. So, you’re just as guilty and cannot exterpate yourself from the need to have some stance.

        And I said the judgement as regarding groups, applying it to an individual level is misunderstanding hyperbole and your own problem…

        Yet, your an example of how secularism works, be an ideology but say you aren’t.
        YOU want say NONE has proof becaus thats your ideal, and you can only see peace by us accepting your OWN view. I fail to see you as any different, especially as you bomb the Muslims and they in turn attack you… both seem pretty willing to kill…

        And you obviously don’t understand what demonic means, half of what Christians do is. If you want a “demonic” free zone you have to just kill everyone. It’s not an us/them dichotomy. It’s an us as we are versus what we can be dichotomy, not the write of of prejudice.

        But call me prejudice all you want.

        But I have piece with them if they are right, or if they are wrong. If I am right, or wrong. I may have a black and white view, but I can see coexistence without them accepting my ideals.

        You cannot. And that is the root of the demonic.


      3. “You are claiming absolute proof yourself.” No sir I am not. My position on the existence or non existence of God is agnostic That is A-Gnostic, or lacking knowledge, this is a claim of ignorance as I have no evidence for any Gods, you are also in this position because you can show me no proof of your assertion that God is real. These are knowledge claims as Gnosis is knowledge.
        I do not believe in any Gods due to your, and every other person of faiths failure to present valid evidence for such a thing. I do not claim “There is no God” for to make such a claim requires knowledge I do not possess. You are claiming there is a God, with o evidence of it, that is disingenuous.


      4. So your a classic cynic.

        But you’re not out of the weeds. “No one can know for sure” is a universal that everyone can be sure of, and indeed becomes a marked aspect of divinity and ambiguity becomes a basis for theological knowledge. A spin on ineffibility. But you seem to go further, and claim “none can no in part” as that would allow one part to be measured against another and would negate your claim that all are equal.

        So my original holds, you claim the objective knowledge that “none can know in whole or part.” And it’s a wobbly position that pretty much only one who knows exactly who God is can make. You have the ruler in your hand to measure and reject all others.

        Otherwise, if you did not have this type of axiom your expressed position that no one has evidence and your choice to say your theocynical isn’t justified.

        Honestly, don’t know why having to make a decision on things to the exclusion of other options bothers you. All mortals pretty much have to. Besides, I doubt the rest of your epistemology is cynical so it’s a bit sideways to be one on only one thing.

        To me it just seems you just don’t find the God you want.

        Cause I don’t know why we are staying on this topic verse the thread topic.


      5. I made no such claim sir. I certainly did not claim “none can know in whole or part.”
        I said believers have never proven their case for God, if they had God would be a shareable knowledge, just like we can agree by knowledge that we each using some electronic device to communicate.
        I have no solid claim on that issue, God has never been proven, and it is not possible to disprove an etheric God Idea with less that universal knowledge, so its pointless.
        If you HAD actual evidence the you would simply prove God.
        “Honestly, don’t know why having to make a decision on things to the exclusion of other options bothers you”
        Because I want to make true and valid decisions in life, to make decisions on one thing which excludes another with no evidence to support the assertion is to write a check you cannot cash and think it a valid instrument.


      6. They co-exist now, the issue is peaceful co-existence.
        You seem to be a member of the church of “Meism”, that is you have interpreted the book as you see fit, assume you are right with no evidence to show you are, and blame all the problems of the world on Demonic activity.
        That fails. If these things are the result of Demonic activity, then God must either allow or endorse that in his perfect plan, which makes God malicious or manipulative, and your belief has disabled your definition of god. (IF your using the standard Christian definition)
        If there was actual evidence of your belief, it would cease to be a belief and become actual knowledge.


      7. Ho… fun! First, I didn’t post any belief claim, more a cultural claim as my cultural narrative is Christian.

        Now, I will allow that anyone can slap “Christian” onto any belief in the world they are free to do so; yet to say institutional Christian theological views do not have any form of “standard” interpretation ignores our historical trend of dogmatics. Even widely divergent strands have wide base points of convergence thanks to Nicea, Chalcedon, etc. And as my position, Protestant, is derivative of Catholicism it can’t be claimed to have come out of a vacuum like you seem to want to. Most agree at least 90% in the “orthodox” camps.

        But I fail to see your people peacefully coexisting with Islam either. We crusaded 1000 years ago, but for your tanks, guns, and drones you seem to be having the same luck. Yet your insistence that you hold the answer shows you haven’t learned our lesson yet.

        And as Christians are majority Africa and Asia, are mostly the persecuted… you can blame the victim for violence I guess… but I say we have peace for our part and you all just drag us into your need to kill each other.

        But again, your just railing on one party as if you’re not involved, and that in a way that tries to make it confess it isn’t sure.

        Proving my point that your gospel is just no one being sure, and two sure religions coexisting would be against your beliefs.


      8. “Yet your insistence that you hold the answer” never my claim, I jsy think these are things we need to discuss with reason, not with faith, as both faiths command killing in non believer, and there are those claiming this is good.
        Nor do I think your beliefs came out of a vacuum, as your very text is the result of human committees.
        Nor am I railing on one party, BOTH are committing genocide right now, as an expression of the faith, in Africa.
        I have no gospel. I am simply pointing out that Christian hands are just as bloody as Muslim ones when it comes to terror as a means of shoring up the faith.
        “two sure religions coexisting would be against your beliefs.” This is not against my beliefs, but against the text supporting your own. Either way one is right and the other wrong, either Jesus was real and God (Christianity)or he was just another prophet and offers no salvation (Islam)
        People can and do choose to live and let live, religions are often no so flexible, and the more extreme the dogma of any given sect the less flexible it is to others.
        I am not the one who thinks this is a new crusade, that is Christian rhetoric and Jihadist belief. If you do not think that way, they why do you not confront the Christians who are spreading that message of hate?


      9. I get part of your thinking now. You think Christians are all blood thirsty if serious about it.

        You do realize that the church which launched the Crusade is no more, I mean I’ll take some guilt as to it was done with a Christian label; if you think protestants who reject indulgences have much to do with the indulgence based crusades you simply don’t understand 500 years of Protestantism… which was plenty persecuted to break from Catholicism. We’ve died to say it was wrong (I’m a yank so on Slavery too) so if a cross won’t appease you regarding our guilt than good thing your ideal of a God isn’t to be found.

        I’m not saying we coexist as confirming one another or synthesizing. I say we can violently disagree without being violent. I’d hire a Muslim, be friends with one, etc. for to me all sin is sin so he/she is no different from an Atheist friend, a buddhist one.

        Normally, they have a problem with us! Or others that aren’t the right kind. Our religion rest on the miraculous; in the Quran they are counted as wasted because people don’t believe them and thus they use the sword. But how that impeaches Christians I do not know.

        Like I said, anyone can lay hold to any title… so your arguement is anyone can be violent; somehow your view gets exclusion. Is disagreeing with secularism the road to sin? And if it delivers us from said bloodshed and ushers in a “kingdom of peace” that’s a gospel.

        I don’t mean it as an affront. The western narrative is influenced by the Christian one. Thus socialism frees us from oligarchy to make the world better, communism from greed. All western systems have some key sin and then a deliverer (even Atheist and religion “imagine no religion… a promised land.”

        It’s a powerful story, probably why your not just willing to take your claims to extremes even. I’m tempted to be smart and say for folks without evidence we sure get copied allot (Even Islam can’t kick Jesus to the curb).

        As for your “I never said.” Ok, you didn’t… but what does that give you but room for? I really don’t know. Your position seems to boil down to what I said. I see no evidence… means I hold noone has evidence. Kinda entails the statement I know what evidence would look like… means I know something about the divine and how it would evidence itself. And the rest goes in turn.


      10. “I get part of your thinking now. You think Christians are all blood thirsty if serious about it.”
        NO, I do not think in such a fashion.
        “You do realize that the church which launched the Crusade is no more,” Actually the Catholic church still exists, it has changed its dogma but the Pope still sits.
        Protestantism is simply a dogmatic break with the Doctrine imposed by The Roman Catholics, and yes there was a lot of struggle there. However all that Protestantism is, in total, is ANOTHER human interpretation of the same underlying texts, which have bee in question longer than you or I have lived.
        I am certainly Glad you do not support Slavery, but the underlying text certainly does. Slavery was preached both for and against by Christian on both sides of Abolition..
        ” I say we can violently disagree without being violent” and I agree.
        You seem to fail to see how disparaging this mode of thought represents “or to me all sin is sin so he/she is no different from an Atheist friend” this implies you can be nice and disagree, but really we are sinful (and therefore lesser than you), you do not see this not so subtle putdown?
        Islam DOES kick Jesus to the curb, he is not Christ, but a lesser Prophet. They just plagiarized some of Christian religious thought in the same way Christian plagiarized the Hebrew faith, who had plagiarized both Sumerian and Canaanite sources.
        I am sure we could discuss what would constitute evidence, but I think that diverges from where we are.
        I am an A-Gnostic A-theist, I do not claim some special Gnosis(knowledge) and I do not believe the tales.
        I see no evidence to support supernatural intangible beings in reality, and what claim as evidence either fails to meet the Standards of evidence or is human interpretation of data or events, or personal accounts.
        Which brings us back to the Story itself, which fails on moral and ethical grounds. It fails to keep a solid definition of God, so much so that there are over 1000 denominations which all to claim to know the “Gospel”, all based on books of uncertain authorship with very dubious scholastic issues.
        How is that to convince a reasonable person that human blood sacrifice cause vicarious redemption of Sin? How can blood wash a person clean? Why would a loving God need Blood as a magic balm to soothe his anger.
        Theology has 2000 years of human rationale as to why this makes sense, but these do not make sense, they only create more problems.


      11. I don’t think this answer meshes with your earlier post. I’m not pedantic enough to sit and nit pick on it.

        Still think all your I statements of “I’m just an observer” don’t do a thing to refute me. A bit of Heisenberg, and common sense. Can an onserver who is ignorant see evidence… and make a conclusion or must the observer be trained. You may be an M.D., so this may not apply, but for myself a cough is a cough; a dr. hears a cold, pertussis, pnemonia. If your fully a-gnostic you just don’t see and hear. But an expert sees nothing and hears silence.

        Anyways, on the blood thing. Someone may say they have morals, good so do we all. But I am a person who is pretty lowely so I sell out for minor things at a decent price. Some folks are pretty firm till it’s life or death they fold; still beter people don’t fold at all. They take the bullet. That cost them blood.

        Jesus’ blood is his faith (and the “faith” in the Catholic/protestant thing p.s. crusade Catholic is before the “counter-reformation”) and shows it counts to God all the things we sellout on. It’s a finer point thing, but Jesus is willing to love us even when we are murderous and it cost him.

        That’s the religious thing with blood… we tend to like it in us. And the Jewish sacrifice system is handled in Hebrews and is a complex thing. This is nowhere a full handeling of what is an interesting issue; the reason blood is involved is the same reason Gold, Silver, etc. isn’t. If God gives life and ownes everything, giving a gift back or at least a serious exchange is going to be extreme.

        Now, I agree Islam is a counterfeit, but is also an Eastern monistic reinterpretation. But your thinking on Sin is pretty dumb.

        God scribes sin. So why care if he ascribes it if he’s not there. I mean Islam calls me wrong, stupid, damned, and I pray for them. Why do you need to justify yourself infront of who you claim are just men? Are you so petty you need to be blessed by those you say don’t know God? And when I say everyone sins… I mean why would that offend you? I said unrepentant… that doesn’t imply I’ve not done things to repent of… and you’ve had the chance to come to where I am and said no. So sorry dude, but thats YOUR choice.

        Maybe I don’t understand. I’m again not the best person sometimes, and like being called out because otherwise I never see it. You may not need that or ever even done anything to repent of. So unrepentance is a positive. I mean Saints don’t ask forgiveness, only bad saints like me.

        Or dude, do you want a memeber card? As I said anyine can say they are Christian and “repented” so you cab get the members bonus right now.


      12. “All your I statements of “I’m just an observer” don’t do a thing to refute me.” There is no need to refute an unproven assertion.
        “counter-reformation” a sweet term for humans re-thinking their religious idea and making up new ones.
        WOW, do you even realize HOW twisted this thinking is? “If God gives life and ownes everything, giving a gift back ” YOU just waved a wand and turned MURDER into a “Gift to God” based strictly upon your religious understanding.
        “I agree Islam is a counterfeit” and Islam thinks the very same thing as you, with their very own rationales and the same amount of evidence, that is none. You have no problem determining their religion is false , that Catholics are false, and so on, but do not realize you yourself are in the same boat to them, and that ALL of you are in the same types of leaky boats, each claiming the others boats leak but not your own, to me.
        “God scribes sin.” I do not see God here telling me what Sin is. I see men claiming they KNOW what God sees as sin, most often from an interpretation of a book. That is not “God says so” It;s I Believe . . .
        “And when I say everyone sins… I mean why would that offend you? ” Because it is a base assertion based upon YOUR understanding of sin, so it either implies original sin or implies people are so fucked up they CANNOT know what is right from wrong WITHOUT your particular religion to tell them. Sin, in its most simple definition is disobedience to God, how the hell does ANYONE disobey what cannot be shown to be real?
        “and you’ve had the chance to come to where I am and said no. So sorry dude, but thats YOUR choice.”
        Actually NO. The concept of hell alone turns Jesus into an extortionist. ON the one hand he is saying “I love you, if you love me back and obey me, I will stop the gun I created to shoot you in the face from shooting. If you do not love and obey me BOOM (hell), that is NOT a rescue, its extortion. It is certainly not a “free choice” but a choice made under the WORST kind of duress, the face of eternal torment.
        Jeffery Dhamer is in heaven with God according to the Dogma and belief of many protestant churches. Kidnapper, lobotomizer, rapist, murder, and cannibal 17 times over, but after arrest he found Jesus and got saved, so he is in heaven. BUT his 17 victims, whose lives were cut short because he ATE them, never got any such chance to “repent”, and never shall. This is NOT justice,and it is MERCY to the cannibal but NO MERCY for the victims, all based simply on the interpretations of a book written by men and interpreted by men to SUIT those men.
        If I , a simple man, can forgive people WITHOUT the need for BLOOD being shed, but God cannot do this, then I am elevated above the God concept as I have superior moral to such a God, and POP goes the God notion, not much of a God if it REQUIRES blood to forgive. Software has requirements, the idea of God is a being so vast it could create the Cosmos from nothing, but NEEDS blood? Reduction to absurdity.
        If anyone can say it, then what is its value? If they get the members bonus for just saying it with their mouth, then there is no need of faith, no need to believe, and no difference between you and a Catholic.


      13. Hm, you’re getting a bit hard to converse with as your swing this time peppered almost every topic at once, so if I miss something please let me know.

        Last I checked, there is no sacrificial system in Christianity other than one that already happened, wasn’t per say “permanent,” and was God allowing it to happen to himself. Nice touch trying to flip it to a murder commandant! To much of a hyperbole though. What I said last time fits still. Humanity thought it was moral, religious, etc. Jesus cares enough to come down and show them that they aren’t even to allowing them to “righteously” kill him. And what does he do then, says if they see that they can get free of being all the bad things they’ve become.

        Original sin is a good convenient pedantic against Pellagious, but not really “needed” to hold such assertions as depravity.

        Let’s see, a personal versus grouo guilt. I don’t think group guilt enters your thinking. But if a nation like Nazi Germany does evil, when it’s punished by bombs there’s bound to be one libritarian pacifist dude that helped smuggle Jews out that also gets blown up. This may suck, but it’s no different than good things like the sun shining on good and evil people. So to go on about personal innocence isn’t very impressive, it’s like morals that allow “just war” but insist your own finger never touch the trigger. There’s no such isolated human existence and the Captain gets punished for what those under his command do even when it’s against orders.

        Now, you may say that’s not justice… but retributive justice isn’t something I want for myself or others and I’d say doesn’t work. Restorative Justice seems a higher path even in human things. So as Catholics, Muslims, etc. insist on the first, I feel pretty comfortable in the path that follows the latter.

        I’m not really big on ethics, I think you can have the most moral and unimpeachable life ever and still not live the best life. So this sin tells you right or wrong thing just misses the mark. Not all sin is an ethical violation anyways, some is just being inauthentic to ones call, being too ethical to lower yourself to have mercy, etc.

        Hell is a fun one, with multiple “ok” views. I’d hope you’d trust me to say little pointy demons with pitch forks roasting people isn’t one. All agree it is mainly separation from God; since you don’t like him, you might not mind it. It would only be “bad” to those that want to be near him. It’s not extortion to say, “i’m gonna give you what you want” and the gun isn’t in Jesus’s hand, it’s in ours and to our own hand. If we want our choices to count, pulling that trigger is gonna be lived with.
        And I still insist you’ve been told the Christian message, and don’t like it. So not being by the Christian God is what you want. Don’t blame God if he sends you to hell when you’ve done the judging for him. That’s the line in Acts, “you’ve judged yourselves unworthy for eternal life.”

        And if you die and God’s there, you’ll even confess the same yourself and maybe find mercy (I’m just a lot more proactive in that case). Or you can fight it out with him and leave agreeing to disagree… no force used.

        I can’t speak to Dhamer or any persons final destiny for them. That’s across the board. I’m not God, and won’t pretend to play him. I hope it’s true, as I want all my enemies to be forgiven everything. I also love them enough to point out their B.S. And maybe a bit pragmatic, but if the above is true, then resurrection is true so murder and death aren’t the worse thing that can happen and gets undone. And if recreation is also true, personal history of pain can also be undone so psycholigical sin and its effects are also not eternal. This may not appeal to you anymore than the rest of it; I think it beats giving the power of eternity to all the evil thats been done in the world.

        I’d like at this point to address one thing in your thinking that sticks out. Muslims hold the Quran came from Gabriel and their religion flows from it. Christianity/ Judaism is different in that the religion preceeds the writings. There is thus a core there deeper than various interpretations, and if that core was lacking no one would have written or interpreted. This is a fine but prudent distinction. Christianity has the Scripture; it is not the Scripture. The Catholic/Protestant debate was more if the Christian can have a spirit different than that in scripture. Protestantism said “no.” It did not make it a new Quran though (I confess many view it this way, as Islam seems very pious).

        I’d also like to say that there are plenty of evidences as to why one should pick on or the other. Islam is priority monist (cause and effect), that position is empirically impossible (change) and this also marks the religion as none-Abrahamic. Judism and Christianity are priority pluralist (change) but also monotheistic (cause and effect), allowing all empirical data as we see it. Now one must confess this kind if thinking hard to resolve; it’s resolution would allow the grand unified theory (quantum mechanics are pluralist, relativity monist in broad brush strokes). But the datasets are at least handled right in these two religions and I can’t say that for the rest.

        Probably even you feel this way, most Atheist are really A-(Christian)theist and dismiss other religions out of hand. So you guys testify I’m on the best track yourselves. Why then do they fault me for it, idk. Maybe it’s because they admit it’s a threat.

        Some of it I know is an issue with negative statements turning positive. That is nothing means nothing still is.
        Yet, I don’t think saying my thinking is muddled is justified by those that attempt to pierce the logic of the faith. That very action confesses it has logic.


      14. Sir, I am simply responding to what you tell me, so If I am all over the map, it is how you are presenting your case to me and how I view that.
        You say “Last I checked, there is no sacrificial system in Christianity other than one that already happened, wasn’t per say “permanent,” and was God allowing it to happen to himself”
        Which means God allowed God to sacrifice himself to himself temporarily, but see this as a single God? PLUS it means MAN KILLED GOD, but AFTER God died he resurrected himself from the dead, thereby eliminating the sacrifice NEEDED to fix the problem. SO God itself is reduced to a schizophrenic, unable to forgive without blood atonement. WHO, while remaining ONE God, nonetheless indwells a human, becoming flesh, which prays to its heavenly father? SO it prays to itself.
        YOU do not see how belittling this is to the concept of Alpha ad Omega? To an almighty God?
        AND this is supposed to fix SIN, but killing people via execution is MURDER, so a sin to fix a Sin, and now God does not know “two wrongs do not make a right”?
        You miss the point on Dhamer ENTIRELY. If God, by your dogma, will forgive the criminal and torment the innocent victim, because they were not of the correct religion, then God is unjust.
        You reduce and impugn the very notion of God, all based on a long series of “Ifs”, if this is true, if that is true, with NO EVIDENCE it is true at all!!!
        Without the Scripture you would be another religion. The notion OF Christianity comes from that book, which has a slew of issues as well.
        If you somehow think AGE gives it credibility, then why not follow even older faiths, like Hinduism, or the Egyptian or Sumerian narratives, their books are MUCH older.
        “allowing all empirical data as we see it.” BOLD STATEMENT, however there are numerous sects which disagree and see the Bible as literal, allowing only THEIR interpretation. SO they are all apostates because YOU think so? Everyone else is a heretic,BUT YOU?
        I dismiss the other religion because I studied them too, and they have the same types of rationales you do, which amount to special pleading with no evidence.
        I write about Christians because Christians are doing a lot of nasty things in my society, for love of Jesus.
        “So you guys testify I’m on the best track yourselves.” NOPE, your right up there with Osama and Pat Robertson, you condemn the entire planet, if they do not concede to YOUR understanding, which is religious fascism. You condemn people in your beliefs, but smile to their face, its dishonest and disingenuous.
        If faith had actual logic there would be little issue, but it is the antithesis of a logical system as you have illustrated here today.


      15. Musta stuck a few nerves. You do realize this whole religion discussion and talk on how Christianity works is a massive side track that I’ve really just been indulging. Somethings I may have been clearer on; I honestly doubt no ones clarrified it to you before.

        My point was that you litterally can’t stand any religion being sure if itself or see them being peaceful if they are.

        You say you don’t believe in God, but find religious views on him belittling. So saying he doesn’t exist and all who look for him are fools is a compilment?

        And this whole time you’ve really just been pushing that your 100% right and saying you can’t coexist with me, or I with you. You see me as a demonic “lying,” disengenious, murderous, and I like Satan condemn the whole planet. Which really just proves my earlier point that you have a God, a gospel, a “sin,” a devil in my person, and that you really can’t see “salvation” for us nonbelievers unless we come to your side.

        But it’s not wrong for you to do it, only religious folks.

        I never said age gives creedability in any form, so that’s just a reach.

        And my “ifs” are for your sake. I’ve evidence for my God, you just can’t take it as evidence for yours. Which goes back to the start.

        You know who God is, and know noone has evidence of the God you know. And if I had to guess, he probably fits all your ideals.

        Mine doesn’t, and doesn’t work the way he should with blood sacrifice and whatnot… so he’s not God by your standards. And as he doesn’t fit your standards, he’s not part of coexistence but something to be stomped out like an infidel so yours may come in and save us.

        What a mess. But, I still am peaceable towards you. And still don’t even condemn. I think you do it to yourself; maybe I’m s bit patronizing in that I pitty you.

        Now as the Word becoming flesh, that’s not something light enough to slam under a bad notion of God. The nultiplicity of persons is also just not gonna be anything but a tripping point to you.

        And that’s really ok. It’s not something to lament to know that Chritianity simply isn’t for you; you seem hellbound (haha) to refuse any notion that it would make you an unrepentant sinner. Even when I’ve indicated it makes you really just the same as everyone else.

        And I mean the point on religion and condemnation is just dumb. If God condemns you for not being a Christian when I’ve and probably others spent time on it with you, well that’s on you. But everyone in Jail is innocent, I’m sure hell is full of the righteous. Like I said, ethics (by proxy righteousness) don’t figure to me as much.

        What really grinds your gears I’m guessing her is mercy. God can’t be God unless he judges Dhamer like you would. He has to punish sin as you would lay it out to him to do. And if he is merciful to the wrong folks than it belittles him. Funny, never thought mercy was given to the right folks.

        So really, you won’t be a sinner given mercy, you won’t be a repentant sinner given grace, I’m not even sure you’d take being 100% righteous if he gives it to you; you can’t see or stand a view of God that ascribes him such. So it’s a war in a pocket you’ve got going on.

        Being his enemy you want proofs. You want to dissect and judge him by whom you won’t be judged. Well, Lucifer keep climbing for the throne.

        And say I’m bad, say I’m wrong, and impeach this miserable Job all you want. I’m not gonna hate you or judge you. Heck, I have tried to lay out all I have to share it.

        I’ve beat the dead horse that labels like Christian don’t mean much. But you really cling to them and busy yourself with what this or that sect does. I’m not gonna really tred that path because Christ saves Muslims, Atheist, etc. and some Christians he doesn’t, it’s a large part of the conflict you want us religious to have and I won’t abide it. Yet, maybe you should check out the “church invisible” along side the Trinity and incarnation and all the other mysteries you reject if only to make your rejection more full.

        You also misstep if you think I’m batting to have you in or out. I’m really just trying to give your out or in a fullness. As such my conscious is clear, and your choice informed. But don’t begrudge me that I assign your choices weight.

        If I didn’t respect you I’d ignore them or soften things. I haven’t done that.

        You know the gospel and hate it. You know Christ but choose another. Your Antichrist welcomes you to their church. Just don’t try and tell me to come on Sunday to visit.

        And when do I smile to people’s face? I tell them what I tell you. The thing you seem unable to understand is that I’ll still be nice even to enemies of my God and me. But that’s your own hang up. My God gives sun to good and evil. I’ll give help, advice, and what’s in my power to give to both too. Now, maybe not out of 100% pure altruism but at the very least to prove my difference from evil folks. Even the evil help friends. So don’t begrudge me helping my enemies only because you wouldn’t let me.

        I’m cool with you being your God; I’m not letting you be mine.


      16. “My point was that you litterally can’t stand any religion being sure if itself or see them being peaceful if they are”
        and that is also patently untrue, in fact my piece points that out clearly. You are free to believe whatever you want and feel assured in your belief if you want, but you cannot prove it, because it is based upon belief and nothing more. You have no evidence. Being sure of yourself with no evidence to show you are correct is the mindset of a man walking out a window who is sure by faith he can fly.
        YOU are far worse than this, by your own words, YOU seem to feel entitles to look down upon others of diverse faiths or no faith at all as less than yourself, reminds me of your book
        “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”
        “You say you don’t believe in God, but find religious views on him belittling” Absolutely CORRECT, I do. That is a LARGE part of why I am unable to believe your tale, you do not keep it consistent, you say A, and then tell me A is B, and then B is C, when it comes to the definition of the God you say you believe in.
        I doubt you do at all, you seem more like a troll with no life and nothing better to do than waste my time.
        NO SIR, you Painted YOURSELF with this brush by professing your own beliefs “You see me as a demonic “lying,” disengenious, murderous, and I like Satan condemn the whole planet.”
        I am simply sharing with you why I am unable to believe, because to believe that tale you ADOPT those positions as a consequence of accepting that tale.
        ??? I know no God at all, I am working with your definitions OF GOD “You know who God is, and know noone has evidence of the God you know.” PATENTLY FALSE, NO ONE HAS EVER PROVIDED EVIDENCE OF GOD IN ALL OF HISTORY, and people, who all call themselves differently, believe different things OF the Same God, they fail to even define it in the same way.
        I am not forcing you to converse. I am merely saying why I cannot believe the tale. If that makes you feel you cannot believe anymore that is not me, but you yourself questioning your faith.
        Yes actually you did “I never said age gives creedability in any form, so that’s just a reach.” You said something about the ancient traditions, implying its the age of the book which makes it so very valid, when I know that Hebrews did not the damn alphabet until the babylonian captivity, which makes anything Moses allegedly wrote VERY dubious, it would have been pre alphabet, cuneiform, good for counting and little else, However at the very same time in the Captivity in Babylon, the Hebrews also learned all the Babylonian tales, Like Gen 1 for instance, or the flood and much else as well, so when they fled Babylon they fled with their first Torahs on scrolls in the new alphabet they had made based upon the Phoenicians (Canaanite) one.
        God is not something to “Be stomped out” THAT assumes his existing to begin with. If the model of God I am using does not match yours define God, because I have been using a common Christian definition.
        Stop painting me into your religion please “I do not have any God” you say “I’ve evidence for my God, you just can’t take it as evidence for yours.” You have things you consider evidence, but I seriously doubt they meet the standard OF evidence, or you would have proven Your Idea of God, and faith would be no more as we would have upgraded to actual knowledge.
        Please feel free to share your proof.
        If you pity me understand that is mutual, I do not think you even understand what you actually believe.
        “The nultiplicity of persons ” A tripping point?, ROFLMAO It makes your God idea suffer from mental illness LITERALLY
        THIS is a large part of my problem with your faith (and most faiths) “Even when I’ve indicated it makes you really just the same as everyone else.” This is PAINTING another person into a belief you CHOSE, in your belief EVERYONE is broken and guilty and an sinner, by birth. I do not see any reason to believe all of humanity is SHIT, which can ONLY be fixed by your particular religion (and most act exactly the same way as you do.)
        THIS “If God condemns you for not being a Christian when I’ve and probably others spent time on it with you, well that’s on you IS RELIGO_FASCISM it is believe as I do, or you burn (in your belief lol), and thats on YOU, except the all knowing perfect timeless mind MADE the rigged system didn’t it? That makes it on God again
        Can you not go five seconds without diminishing your own notion of God? Does consistency mean nothing to you?
        “What really grinds your gears” A Peter Griffin Fan troll hmmm
        I am certainly not attempting to tell A God I do not believce in how to administer justice, I AM telling you your Idea of Justice and Mercy is twisted by your faith, but then you never were good at ethics tight?
        If I rob a bank and get busted, and you volunteer to serve my time for me, is it moral and ethical to allow you to cheat the justice system to do that?
        Would I be a moral or ethical person in doing this, or would I be compounding my crime by allowing an innocent to take the fall?
        Most people will say the latter of course EXCEPT when they think about Jesus, because the extortion of eternal punishment makes then reason “well its ok this time”, except it is unethical, so believing in this idea of God gives me an unethical and immoral God model, why worship an immoral God which has not been proven to exist to begin with?
        “Funny, never thought mercy was given to the right folks.” If you give mercy to the murderer AND torture the victim, you are NOT MORAL, you are then malevolent It is not Mercy I have such issue with, it is the use of Mercy combined with an immoral justice.. 17 decent, non murderous people burn in hellfire under the standard Christian notion, and the killer sits with God, that is fucked up.
        DO you live in a B&W world? “Being his enemy you want proofs.” I CANNOT be the enemy of something I do not believe in. There is NOTHING there to call enemy, but because I do not BELIEVE YOU you feel forced to paint me into your religion again by declaring me an enemy of God himself.
        Frankly is not God able himself to tell me that? Who appointed you judge for God?
        Again, your FAITH gets in the way of grasping SIMPLE things. “You want to dissect and judge him by whom you won’t be judged. ”
        I cannot DISSECT a God I cannot find, I am dissecting your CLAIM ABOUT GOD to see if it is true or not. NOT the same thing, because you believe in something does not make it real by default, you need to prove that or admit its empty faith.
        “I’m not gonna hate you or judge you” what do you think you do by painting your religion onto me? You allow yourself to believe I hate God, I want God’s throne, and that I will suffer in hell for it, when I do not believe in any of the above and you fail to prove them.
        “because Christ saves Muslims, Atheist, etc. a” UH, in order for that to happen such people would BECOME Christian, so again, salvation is ONLY for the select, it is therefore elitist, you need to be born in the right place ect, and its all in God plan right, so there is no real free will under that Idea.
        Another Falsehood “You know the gospel and hate it” I do not hate the gospel, I find it impossible to believe. It paints a very ugly picture of God, it makes the God Model inept and malicious. It demands you set aside morality to embrace scapegoating. I think it is repugnant, but I do not hate it. It would have to be proven REAL for me to hate it.
        AGAIN you are painting me INTO your Faith “Your Antichrist welcomes you to their church” BUT I DID NOT JOIN IT because you cannot show it is anymore real then the Blair Witch, which ALSO claims itself true.
        “The thing you seem unable to understand is ” that if you act nicely to people you secretly believe are evil and vile and ANTI CHRIST no less, then you are being hypocritical, you are failing to be honest about what you think tom to maintain an air of superiority, which looks like hypocrisy. because you are smiling while you secretly detest. It is the position of your TEXT on such issues that others NOT like you will burn, for the amusement of a LOVE GOD.
        “My God gives sun to good and evil.” which makes HIM not pure good, but MIXED, in Isaiah it says he “created evil”, also not good
        This is the result you get when you take tribal polythesists, who then embrace one of those Gods (Yahweh) as the Elohim or MOST HIGH GOD (admitting there is MORE tan one God, which is NOT monotheism) and then modify that more when you get actual language, and even more when Christians come on the scene and pervert your holy text to make it part of their own, then Christians do this to themselves 1000 or so times, and you call the result of this TRUTH, with no evidence.
        “So don’t begrudge me helping my enemies only because you wouldn’t let me.” First I cannot stop you, and second I have no desire to. I would like you to confront those Christians who think it is ok to be nasty to others and shoot them dead for God and Jesus, but those are enemies are they?
        “I’m cool with you being your God; I’m not letting you be mine.” LOL I am not my own God, I see NO GODS AT ALL, and I have zero interest in being your God.
        I do feel pity for you, because to my way of thinking YOU are a victim. You have been duped by one of the world longest running scams, like selling ocean front property in Arizona.
        Prove your God, if you have figured out how you define it yet, then you will be able to convince others who THINK.
        “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence” C.H.
        Your dismissed, have a nice day.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s