Church burning copies of The Quran on 9-11

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

LikesToFightGuy wrote:

Apparently the first threats of retaliation have surfaced. Searching for a link, but someone has threatened to strap up with a bomb and walk into the Church... And away we go...

OH well. I wont be sad they brought it on themselves.

So let me get this straight. These folks propose a legal action and others threaten to kill them and you think the folks acting legally are the problem????????

No, i just think that they are doing something that could invoke violence towards them and they know it. So if that violence happens I dont feel sorry for them. I am not condoning the murder of a bunch of people but they know the risks of their actions. It is simple Cause and effect.

These folks are acting LEGALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!

You think the right moral position is only not to condone their killing? REALLY???????

How about a wholesale condemantion of those whose answer to LEGAL activity is mass murder!!!!!!!!

Your viewpoint is akin to blaming the Central Park Jogger's rape and beating on her since se chose to run in the park at night. She got what she deserved, right?

I am a complicated man.

I said I dont condone it. I think that this is stupid and if you play with fire and you get burned why should I be sad? I am more likely to say your a dumbass for playing with fire.

Also how about those other nut cases who are protesting our soldiers funerals? Its legal. Would you feel bad for them if one of the fathers killed them?

Condemning those acting legally and saying it is your own fault for getting killed because of it? Respectfully I find that a morally reprehensible position. Fire is not a thinking thing. Men are. Firae acts without volition. men don't.

You are blaming the raped for being raped.

No I am saying I wont be sad if the moron thats out there making a huge show of burning the quran causes violence against himself. Its not like this is the 60's and they are burning the American Flag in protest for civil rights or against the Vietnam war. This guy is spewing hate. So if his hate causes hate upon himself then its kinda his own fault.

Remember Marble Hate begets Hate. That is biblical. Maybe the preacher should know that before he decides to burn the holy book of over 1 billion people.

So let me see if I understand this twisted logic, such as it is. We should practice tolerance but not demand it of others?

Are you are making a reference back to our previous discussion about the mosque?

I thought I was asking a very simple question. Should we have a single standard for tolerance or multiple standards based on the risk of violence of the potentially offended?

If we were practicing tolerance everyone would condem him for burning the quran or better yet it would not be happening. Also there is no clear cut solution or standard for any part of life. We are dictated by cause and effect. I could go out and burn a bible publically and nothing would happen to me but you know as well as I do that if you do it to the quran you could be hurt or killed. That is the difference to me. So multiple is the real life answer. The ideal would be to have a world were you could have one standard. Does that make sense?

Not even a little bit. Your solution is to appease the most violent and unpredictable among us at the expense of the tolerant and forbearing. Your way of thinking argues that one shouldn't jog at night, women shouldn't wear skimpy outfits etc because it might incite violence and if it does it is their own fault. That's a horriffic worldview. Conceding freedom to the worst of us.

I think I probably like you Sooner, but that view is despicable.

No you are over simplifying it. I dont think that way at all. I am not saying I want to appease anyone who rapes. My thing is Marble would you let your daughter jog at 4 am in the worst part of town where multiple rapes and murders have happend in the last week. HELL NO. That is the situation right now with Muslims. So is it smart to burn that quran knowing what could happen?

1 word

Hitler

Christian

although some say he was an atheist

ok that was 10 words (15 counting this sentence and not including this quotation)

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Andrew the Raider King wrote:

Quote :

Not even a little bit. Your solution is to appease the most violent and unpredictable among us at the expense of the tolerant and forbearing. Your way of thinking argues that one shouldn't jog at night, women shouldn't wear skimpy outfits etc because it might incite violence and if it does it is their own fault. That's a horriffic worldview. Conceding freedom to the worst of us.

I think I probably like you Sooner, but that view is despicable.

I know what you are saying. If a woman dresses like a whore it doesn't make her a whore. But if I dressed as a policeman and went out in public...I will let you figure the rest out.

LOL, [scratching head] can I get a little help?

LMFAO. Watch this

OH just because im dressed this way.........

hahaha

Birdofthad wrote:

OH just because im dressed this way.........

hahaha

That does not make me a police officer. LOL

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

my point was to link ass holes to religion

i did

LOL, hardly.

Joseph Stalin, Moa Tse Dong (spelling) and Pol Pot were all atheists and they killed how many hundreds of millions?

They were subscribers to philosophy which is just a further perversion of Judeo-Christianity philosophy, in fairness.

Thanks for the assist Sooner.

Wolf? No they were not. They were subscribers to the all natural opiate "What the fuck can I do to stay in power?"

"what can I do to stay in power" is one thing, "what can I do to stay in power as a communist?" is quite another.

Communist don't believe in God. They believe in the ideal. Actually the ideal is really a beautiful concept, but so is Polyamory, just not very realistic.

The thinking that communism derived from was based in Judeo-Christian concepts.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

my point was to link ass holes to religion

i did

LOL, hardly.

Joseph Stalin, Moa Tse Dong (spelling) and Pol Pot were all atheists and they killed how many hundreds of millions?

They were subscribers to philosophy which is just a further perversion of Judeo-Christianity philosophy, in fairness.

Atheism or communism are a perversion of Judeo-Christianity? Really? Have you read Marx and his condemnations of both of those faiths?

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

LikesToFightGuy wrote:

Apparently the first threats of retaliation have surfaced. Searching for a link, but someone has threatened to strap up with a bomb and walk into the Church... And away we go...

OH well. I wont be sad they brought it on themselves.

So let me get this straight. These folks propose a legal action and others threaten to kill them and you think the folks acting legally are the problem????????

No, i just think that they are doing something that could invoke violence towards them and they know it. So if that violence happens I dont feel sorry for them. I am not condoning the murder of a bunch of people but they know the risks of their actions. It is simple Cause and effect.

These folks are acting LEGALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!

You think the right moral position is only not to condone their killing? REALLY???????

How about a wholesale condemantion of those whose answer to LEGAL activity is mass murder!!!!!!!!

Your viewpoint is akin to blaming the Central Park Jogger's rape and beating on her since se chose to run in the park at night. She got what she deserved, right?

I am a complicated man.

I said I dont condone it. I think that this is stupid and if you play with fire and you get burned why should I be sad? I am more likely to say your a dumbass for playing with fire.

Also how about those other nut cases who are protesting our soldiers funerals? Its legal. Would you feel bad for them if one of the fathers killed them?

Condemning those acting legally and saying it is your own fault for getting killed because of it? Respectfully I find that a morally reprehensible position. Fire is not a thinking thing. Men are. Firae acts without volition. men don't.

You are blaming the raped for being raped.

No I am saying I wont be sad if the moron thats out there making a huge show of burning the quran causes violence against himself. Its not like this is the 60's and they are burning the American Flag in protest for civil rights or against the Vietnam war. This guy is spewing hate. So if his hate causes hate upon himself then its kinda his own fault.

Remember Marble Hate begets Hate. That is biblical. Maybe the preacher should know that before he decides to burn the holy book of over 1 billion people.

So let me see if I understand this twisted logic, such as it is. We should practice tolerance but not demand it of others?

Are you are making a reference back to our previous discussion about the mosque?

I thought I was asking a very simple question. Should we have a single standard for tolerance or multiple standards based on the risk of violence of the potentially offended?

If we were practicing tolerance everyone would condem him for burning the quran or better yet it would not be happening. Also there is no clear cut solution or standard for any part of life. We are dictated by cause and effect. I could go out and burn a bible publically and nothing would happen to me but you know as well as I do that if you do it to the quran you could be hurt or killed. That is the difference to me. So multiple is the real life answer. The ideal would be to have a world were you could have one standard. Does that make sense?

Not even a little bit. Your solution is to appease the most violent and unpredictable among us at the expense of the tolerant and forbearing. Your way of thinking argues that one shouldn't jog at night, women shouldn't wear skimpy outfits etc because it might incite violence and if it does it is their own fault. That's a horriffic worldview. Conceding freedom to the worst of us.

I think I probably like you Sooner, but that view is despicable.

No you are over simplifying it. I dont think that way at all. I am not saying I want to appease anyone who rapes. My thing is Marble would you let your daughter jog at 4 am in the worst part of town where multiple rapes and murders have happend in the last week. HELL NO. That is the situation right now with Muslims. So is it smart to burn that quran knowing what could happen?

You continue to confuse WISDOM with MORALITY. The problem a moral person ought to be reckoning with is NOT the UNWISE but legal act of burning a Koran. It should be the IMMMORAL act of responding to that by MURDER.

Andrew the Raider King wrote:

Wolf and Freak. Thank you for being so insightful. While I agree what that church does is wrong, I will never agree to them having their 1st Amendment Rights trampled on, just because I do not agree with them.

As for my POV? I was thinking strategically and tactically. As I was not the President of the United States of America, these things did not come to pass. You think it a disgusting display of Christianity Wolf? Fine. Freak, you have more personal feelings because of your religion and you know I respect that. Fine.

But from a military POV, the correct decision would have been the previously stated one. I think one small, low yield nuclear device directed at the 2nd most important city in that region would have more than covered all the bases, been much less expensive, saved American lives, and have brought a resolution much more quickly than this long, drawn out horseshit we are dealing with today.

The Islamist want to build their thing next to the WTC, where 27 Islamic terrorist murdered 2,700 people? Fine. Can I build a Cathedral in Mecca then? How about Medina? Can I openly pray to my God in the streets of Tehran?

So don't piss down my back and tell me its raining boys.

I think launching nuclear bombs on anyone is wrong. You're blaming the whole middle-east on Osama Bin Laden. Yes, I'm Muslim but I am no fan of Osama Bin Laden or anyone that believes in the killing of innocent people.

To tell you the truth I believe a lot of Arabs use Islam as an excuse for killings and other reasons when they don't even practice it properly. Nowhere does it say that it is acceptable to kill innocent people and suicide is stated as a big sin. Another fact you might not have known is yes it's against our religion to draw Muhammed but it is also against our religion to draw Jesus, Moses, Abraham and the other prophets.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

soonermark890 wrote:

LikesToFightGuy wrote:

Apparently the first threats of retaliation have surfaced. Searching for a link, but someone has threatened to strap up with a bomb and walk into the Church... And away we go...

OH well. I wont be sad they brought it on themselves.

So let me get this straight. These folks propose a legal action and others threaten to kill them and you think the folks acting legally are the problem????????

No, i just think that they are doing something that could invoke violence towards them and they know it. So if that violence happens I dont feel sorry for them. I am not condoning the murder of a bunch of people but they know the risks of their actions. It is simple Cause and effect.

These folks are acting LEGALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!

You think the right moral position is only not to condone their killing? REALLY???????

How about a wholesale condemantion of those whose answer to LEGAL activity is mass murder!!!!!!!!

Your viewpoint is akin to blaming the Central Park Jogger's rape and beating on her since se chose to run in the park at night. She got what she deserved, right?

I am a complicated man.

I said I dont condone it. I think that this is stupid and if you play with fire and you get burned why should I be sad? I am more likely to say your a dumbass for playing with fire.

Also how about those other nut cases who are protesting our soldiers funerals? Its legal. Would you feel bad for them if one of the fathers killed them?

Condemning those acting legally and saying it is your own fault for getting killed because of it? Respectfully I find that a morally reprehensible position. Fire is not a thinking thing. Men are. Firae acts without volition. men don't.

You are blaming the raped for being raped.

No I am saying I wont be sad if the moron thats out there making a huge show of burning the quran causes violence against himself. Its not like this is the 60's and they are burning the American Flag in protest for civil rights or against the Vietnam war. This guy is spewing hate. So if his hate causes hate upon himself then its kinda his own fault.

Remember Marble Hate begets Hate. That is biblical. Maybe the preacher should know that before he decides to burn the holy book of over 1 billion people.

So let me see if I understand this twisted logic, such as it is. We should practice tolerance but not demand it of others?

Are you are making a reference back to our previous discussion about the mosque?

I thought I was asking a very simple question. Should we have a single standard for tolerance or multiple standards based on the risk of violence of the potentially offended?

If we were practicing tolerance everyone would condem him for burning the quran or better yet it would not be happening. Also there is no clear cut solution or standard for any part of life. We are dictated by cause and effect. I could go out and burn a bible publically and nothing would happen to me but you know as well as I do that if you do it to the quran you could be hurt or killed. That is the difference to me. So multiple is the real life answer. The ideal would be to have a world were you could have one standard. Does that make sense?

Not even a little bit. Your solution is to appease the most violent and unpredictable among us at the expense of the tolerant and forbearing. Your way of thinking argues that one shouldn't jog at night, women shouldn't wear skimpy outfits etc because it might incite violence and if it does it is their own fault. That's a horriffic worldview. Conceding freedom to the worst of us.

I think I probably like you Sooner, but that view is despicable.

No you are over simplifying it. I dont think that way at all. I am not saying I want to appease anyone who rapes. My thing is Marble would you let your daughter jog at 4 am in the worst part of town where multiple rapes and murders have happend in the last week. HELL NO. That is the situation right now with Muslims. So is it smart to burn that quran knowing what could happen?

You continue to confuse WISDOM with MORALITY. The problem a moral person ought to be reckoning with is NOT the UNWISE but legal act of burning a Koran. It should be the IMMMORAL act of responding to that by MURDER.

Ok for one a lot of things that are legal is immoral. So to be fair right now you are doing the same as me. It seems you are suggesting that because its legal its moral.

Also do you not think that its immoral to spew hate? I think we are only differing on one thing here. I see that preacher spewing Hate which is immoral in itself. I also see it as immoral for that church to spew hate at the soldiers funeral. Because of that when bad things happen to them because of them spewing hate. I just go by the HATE BEGETS HATE doctorine. I honestly think that we agree on everything else.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

The thinking that communism derived from was based in Judeo-Christian concepts.

Are you high? Communism came out of the thinking of a perfect society that has no religon. So how does that have anything to do with judeo-christian concepts?

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

To tell you the truth I believe a lot of Arabs use Islam as an excuse for killings and other reasons when they don't even practice it properly. Nowhere does it say that it is acceptable to kill innocent people and suicide is stated as a big sin. Another fact you might not have known is yes it's against our religion to draw Muhammed but it is also against our religion to draw Jesus, Moses, Abraham and the other prophets.

I understand. I really do, but for me I look at all the aggressiveness of Japan since we nuked them. they seem to have learned an important fucking lesson. But you are probably nicer than I am.

WOW... I mean, WOW!!! That back and forth of quotes between marble and soonermark is as big and impressive as I've ever seen on these boards. And Wolf, you've criticized me for engaging in nonsensical assbabble with dolts in the past (Not suggesting in this case that either member is a dolt of course)

LikesToFightGuy wrote:

WOW... I mean, WOW!!! That back and forth of quotes between marble and soonermark is as big and impressive as I've ever seen on these boards. And Wolf, you've criticized me for engaging in nonsensical assbabble with dolts in the past (Not suggesting in this case that either member is a dolt of course)

Thanks Its so hard to argue with Marble. He has like 100 years of knowledge on me. I mean the guy knew methuselah and is approaching his age. LOL

soonermark890 wrote:

LikesToFightGuy wrote:

WOW... I mean, WOW!!! That back and forth of quotes between marble and soonermark is as big and impressive as I've ever seen on these boards. And Wolf, you've criticized me for engaging in nonsensical assbabble with dolts in the past (Not suggesting in this case that either member is a dolt of course)

Thanks Its so hard to argue with Marble. He has like 100 years of knowledge on me. I mean the guy knew methuselah and is approaching his age. LOL

LOL... Shit, I have been accused of being present at Jesus' birth. I didn't realize another elder statesmen made their way to the board. I knew there was something that I liked about Marble...

All men are created equal under God.


Understand yet?


You're getting lost in what communism eventually became and are not seeing how it developed. The values it rose from rose from Judeo-Christian values.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

All men are created equal under God.


Understand yet?


You're getting lost in what communism eventually became and are not seeing how it developed. The values it rose from rose from Judeo-Christian values.

That would be hard to do since communism's origins are in Germany. It started in the 1750's with Kant, then was continued with Hegel in the early 1800's and finished off kinda with Marx. So I would say it predates the US. The values it rose from was science. It rose from nature vs nurture. It came about when Marx took a lot of peoples ideas together and wrote the communist manifesto. Its anti-religon so its impossible to have a religous base.

Judeo-Christian values and those concepts are 2000 years old.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

Judeo-Christian values and those concepts are 2000 years old.

Way older than that. But you were using the US as an example I was just pointing out that that was wrong.

I didn't use the US for an example. You're strange.