GOP Candidate Endorses Death Penalty For Rebellious Children

Originally posted by pyramid head
That is not what is at disscusion though

But it is, because your main point to differentiate these extremists is one kills and the other doesn't.

But, the one who hasn't killed, is advocating for the right too be able to kill.

What you used to illustrate your point was a irrational comparison. The idiot who made those comments is an just that, an idiot, but there is no rational comparison between said idiot and the taliban.

No rational comparison? Both use their holy books to justify their perceived right to kill. Regardless of how twisted and corrupted their interpretations may be, those are in fact their interpretation. They are both extremists with very dangerous views. Both believe their interpretation of their holy book should be established as the law for the entire world, with out question.

Again the only real difference, is Fugua and like minded dominionists have to deal with our legal system, while the Taliban has already established itself as the law in their regions.

Should we start persecuting people based on speach, or associate said speach with actions that have not occured.

First no, we shouldn't censor any speech.

But it's interesting that you say "associate speech with actions that have not occurred", because this guy is advocating legal change, so that his speech can stop being just speech, and become action.

You could throw around free speech all you want, he is free to say what he wants, but we also have the right to be critical of anyone who advocates changing our laws in such a way. I believe both Christians and non Christians should have solidarity in their obligation to back these crazies down.

If he was a world leader you might have an argument, but he is not,

Are you aware of dominionists and New Apostolic Reformation? Earlier in this thread we had a self proclaimed christian fundamentalists (Okiedokie) discuss the dangers of their philosophies. Fugua isn't the only person with these beliefs. There is a movement behind it, with an objective of infiltrating our government.

Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman. Rick Santorum and Sarah Palin all have official connections to NAR. They where all candidates for the highest positions in politics.

They have a real agenda, it's not just one man on his own saying crazy things.

What is at argument is your association between Christians and the taliban. The morality of his statement is not in question, just the association between Christians and the taliban, I have not once supported anything he has said, in fact just refered to him by "idiot".

You are going to have to take my word that I don't believe all christians are equal to taliban, I don't know what else I can say. I do not believe it to be the case. I have many christian friends and family, i'd never say they are equal to taliban, I know better, I cleared that up long in this thread long before you made any challenge to me.

There is some christian extremists though, and if they had their way it would resemble the Taliban in more way than one.

reply to post by mahatche


Okay, I'll try this, Taliban: Actual, not theoretical, beheadings, torture, suicide bombings, stoning, sanctioned rape, this supported by a large theocratic population.

Idiot: Words

This is not an equal comparison.

Again, I am not defending the mans words but the fact that you lumped him in with Christianity then said "equivalent " to the taliban . You said it yourself one kills, and one does not. That is the difference. Again, your statement "If anyone had any doubt that a Christian equivalent to the Taliban is out there, read this" He is not a Christian equivalent to the taliban.

A Christian equivalent to the taliban would be an organization or government that kills people, using religion has its justification, with a large support from the population. Here you have an idiots words and a conspiracy theory. By lumping him in with Christianity you ARE saying that somewhere in Christianity taliban type behavior is supported. The taliban is an organization or group and you said "Christian equivalent". What am I missing?

You did not compare him to a religious zealot, such as: Idiot uses Christianity to promote.... like religious zealot(name). What you are doing is comparing two organizations. Read your statement, that is what it says, " Christian equivalent to the Taliban ". The taliban is not a single person, using it in the way that you are is dishonest, and when put in your context links it with Christianity not the man.

"There is some christian extremists though, and if they had their way it would resemble the Taliban in more way than one" Here lies your true beliefs. This last statement is no different from your first. This is complete make believe and why I called you out on your post. This statement represents your intent and the reason for your post. There is no way you could logically back that up. Name one, just one, christian theocracy in current practice that commits the same atrocities as the taliban. There is none.

reply to post by pyramid head


I've lost interest in going back and forth with you. You live in a fantasy land where people want laws that they won't ever ever ever use. You don't acknowledge dominionists and New Apostolic Reformation are organizations with an agenda to infiltrate our government, and instead insist this is the single person with such views.

It's like you have no concept of the word "Philosophical" You are more interested in pretending of the earths billions of Christians there is only one crazy saying stuff.

The fact that you think Taliban has large support from the community says it all. Most recent numbers show 9% support. Yep, huge!

Let's agree to disagree, i don't care to repeat myself anymore. If you'd rather use Ad hominem to dismiss me as a christian hater, cool, think what you want.

reply to post by mahatche


Organizations with similar views when democratically elected in these countries choose taliban type regimes, hamas and the muslim brotherhood are pretty easy examples. 9% is irrelevent because our troops are there, take away our troops and you will have them elected. My previous examples reaffirm that. You have no comparison, and cannot make your argument because there is no equivalent. You could not provide a similar example. That was my point. You can deny all you want but your words say different, and you cannot defend or spin them different to say so.

Originally posted by pyramid head
reply to post by mahatche

 

Organizations with similar views when democratically elected in these countries choose taliban type regimes, hamas and the muslim brotherhood are pretty easy examples. 9% is irrelevent because our troops are there, take away our troops and you will have them elected. My previous examples reaffirm that. You have no comparison, and cannot make your argument because there is no equivalent. You could not provide a similar example. That was my point. You can deny all you want but your words say different, and you cannot defend or spin them different to say so.

There is nothing I could say to someone in complete denial. You already said you don't believe people would use the laws that they advocate changing, so what can I say? you see what you want to see. 9% is large support, organizations that exist with agendas to infiltrate our government, get no acknowledgement. I say I don't hate Christians, you say I do. I say "some", you read "all".

Let me guess, the american Christians who wen't to Uganda and encouraged the kill the gays bill don't exist either? and they didn't use their interpretation of the bible to justify it? cause that wouldn't fit into the world of rose colored glasses.

What can I say?

I think I can predict your response to this, but I'll let you give it so I don't rely on assumptions.

This is only the trailer, but the entire series is up on youtube, I'll link to it below...what's your opinion of this?


1-5
www.youtube.com...
2-5
www.youtube.com...
3-5
www.youtube.com...
4-5
www.youtube.com...
5-5
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by mahatche

Originally posted by pyramid head
reply to post by mahatche

 

Organizations with similar views when democratically elected in these countries choose taliban type regimes, hamas and the muslim brotherhood are pretty easy examples. 9% is irrelevent because our troops are there, take away our troops and you will have them elected. My previous examples reaffirm that. You have no comparison, and cannot make your argument because there is no equivalent. You could not provide a similar example. That was my point. You can deny all you want but your words say different, and you cannot defend or spin them different to say so.

There is nothing I could say to someone in complete denial. You already said you don't believe people would use the laws that they advocate changing, so what can I say? you see what you want to see. 9% is large support, organizations that exist with agendas to infiltrate our government, get no acknowledgement. I say I don't hate Christians, you say I do. I say "some", you read "all".




You don’t see the difference between something that is in current practice, and something that is an assumption? Do you really believe that that one moron can pass such a law? Then said law be enacted? That is complete nonsense. Again, unless he is a dictator, it is just a statement. Any politician can propose a law, a senator can propose that he wants all first born dead, and because HE SAYS he’s doing is under the guise of Christianity, you want to associate Christianity with this nonsense? That is illogical and why you cannot defend the argument. Your statement implies that somewhere there are Christian elements of the taliban. The amount is irrelevant; you are associating the religion with the taliban. You keep avoiding this.


The youtube video might make sense if the region did not already have a history of this. This is not a foreign practice to them or something new, the african tribes in southern africa, WITHOUT Christianity, do the same thing, and worse to albinos. Christianity is not the mitigating factor in this case; it is cultural and not religious. This practice was there long before Christianity and will be there long after.

edit on 12-10-2012 by pyramid head because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by pyramid head
You dont see the difference between something that is in current practice, and something that is an asumption?

It's a philosophical equivalency. One has nothing standing in their way, they are free to kill, the other is asking those that stand in their way to move, so that they too can be free kill.

What makes each group want to kill in the first place? That would be their philosophical beliefs. I repeat, it's a philosophical equivalency.

Do you really believe that that one moron can pass such a law? Then said law be enacted? That is complete nonsense. Again, unless he is a dictator, it is just a statement.

You are correct one man could never change a law on his own, but this is also why your failure to acknowledge the existence of dominionists and the New Apostic Reformation is so problematic for the progress of this discussion.

You don't seem to interested in the fact that these movements have an agenda to infiltrate our government, and they already have connections to several major candidates. Fuqua is only one easily replaced piece of their puzzle. As I keep saying and you keep ignoring, he isn't the only one with extreme beliefs.

Any politician can propose a law, a senator can propose that he wants all first born dead, and because HE SAYS hes doing is under the guise of Christianity, you want to associate Christianity with this nonsense? That is illogical and why you cannot defend the argument. Your statement implies that somewhere there is Christian elements of the taliban. The amount is irrelevent, you are associating the religion with the taliban. You keep avoiding this.

I haven't avoided anything, you are asking me to defend a stance I never took.

I repeat, I do no believe that christanity as a whole is equal to the Taliban.

What I believe is there is some extremist groups with an interpretation that shares a philosophical equivalency.

An extreme anarchist may hold the philosophical belief that he can do what ever he wants, but if he doesn't live in an extreme anarchist society, he will have to decide if the prospect of prison time should be dismissed for the sake of acting on his philosophies. In the mean time he can work to get the laws changed to allow it.

I'll answer your response to the video in a new post

The youtube video might make sense if the region did not already have a history of this. This is not a foreign practice to them or something new, the african tribes in southern africa, WITHOUT Christianity, do the same thing, and worse to albinos. Christianity is not the mitigating factor in this case, it is cultural and not religious. This practice was there long before Christianity and will be there long after.

I could give this, honestly my predicted response to it was wrong lol I admit it. These people are using christianity to justify something they already did, that fair. but It's funny, because the region that gives us the Taliban also had these cultural behaviors before any interpretation of the quran was used to justify them. Muslims in Bosnia are less likely to see things the way the Pashtun's do.

I do wonder how much easier they ways could be challenged if they didn't have that interpretation to lean back on though.

So in context of this the original discussion, wouldn't you say it's more alarming for Americans who don't come from a culture that already endorses it, to start endorsing it? I don't mean witch hunts just so we are clear.

reply to post by mahatche


"So in context of this the original discussion, wouldn't you say it's more alarming for Americans who don't come from a culture that already endorses it, to start endorsing it? I don't mean witch hunts just so we are clear. "

You are absolutely correct in your analysis in the last paragraph, again you seem like a very reasonable person, but the argument at hand has to do with the comparison between Christianity and the taliban. Your opening statement associates the two. The statement may not say "all" but it links the two. There lies the disagreement. I will not and cannot defend statements said by the idiot, I only have one objection, and that is the association between Christianity and the taliban. There is none. The taliban is a very definable group and easily comparable to many other organizations, just not Christianity. There is a large cultural difference, not just religious between the taliban and Christianity that has spanned over a thousand years. Where one religion has evolved, one has not.

As for your last statement, it is one moron proposing a moronic idea that has zero chance of getting passed or acknowledged by anyone relevant. If such a law was passed, there might be a "slight" amount of chaos in the US. He has no reflection, or association with Christianity other than his word. If you do not agree with his statements that is good, I am with you, BUT, where I have the problem is the association with Christianity and the taliban. If there was a large Christian authority, that had any clout, any relevance(not conspiratiorial) in US affairs, that supported said idiots statements, we would have a legitimate worry. We do not though. The taliban is something one cannot mistake, if it was here you would know it, there would be no argument.

Originally posted by pyramid head


As for your last statement, it is one moron proposing a moronic idea that has zero chance of getting passed or acknowledged by anyone relevant. If such a law was passed, there might be a "slight" amount of chaos in the US. He has no reflection, or association with Christianity other than his word. If you do not agree with his statements that is good, I am with you, BUT, where I have the problem is the association with Christianity and the taliban. If there was a large Christian authority, that had any clout, any relevance(not conspiratiorial) in US affairs, that supported said idiots statements, we would have a legitimate worry. We do not though. The taliban is something one cannot mistake, if it was here you would know it, there would be no argument.

edit on 13-10-2012 by pyramid head because: (no reason given)

I now his law to kill kids would have never realistically passed, that wasn't the point though, the point was some out there have a philosophical equivalency.

I don't get how you say he has no association with Christianity. Do they have to be a Vatican official before they counts as a christian?

Dominonists are a christian group whether you like it or not. You may not agree with their interpretation but the sole motivation in their beliefs is their view of Christianity. Nothing else. They have no previous cultural belief, there is nothing but their belief in Christianity.

I know the average christian belief is focused on the new testament, but this is not the case for dominionists.

Read this, then explain how dominionists aren't Christians.

This is part of their doctrine, straight from their website.
apprising.org...

The OT Law is our rule of life for today. Although DT teaches that keeping of the Law is not a condition for salvation, it is a condition for sanctification. In addition, the OT Law is to govern over society as well. Since we are called to subdue the earth (Gen 1:28), God’s Law should rule (or dominate) all aspects of society. This view is known as theonomy (or God’s law), and is described by Greg Bahnsen as, “The Christian is obligated to keep the whole law of God as a pattern for sanctification and that this law is to be enforced by the civil magistrate” (Theonomy p34). This would mean that Christians would be obligated to keep the whole OT Law except in a case in which the NT explicitly cancels a command, such as the sacrificial system.

DT teaches a high level of social and political activism. If the Kingdom of God is to gradually take dominion over the earth, it only makes sense that Christians should be attempting to change society through the changing of laws and through social action.

later on the page it says

For Christ to be pleased with Christians they must become political and social activists.

It's a real group with a real movement, with real connections to several politicians, including people who where candidates for president and vice president.

Remember Rick Perry's prayer rally in texas stadium, that according to it's organizers was "designed to convert non-Christians and serve as a launching point for a new reformation." ?

Those organizers where the same Dominionists who basically told Perry he is on a mission from god.

New reformation as in New Apostic Reformation... the same NAR I've been mentioning this entire discussion.