Completely agree. The Bible is pretty clear on its morally bankrupt stance on most things (slavery, racism, misogyny ,etc)
All the more reason to consign it to the dustbin of history.

[Edit:] Sent response into private message instead.

Coincidentally, bad examples on your part - I'm not all that much of a consumer of culture nowadays. :lol:

Generalised examples, off the top of my head, at whatever o'clock in the morning before bed... NEWS FLASH: this wasn't aimed at you (if it was I would have used your name, or quoted you or whatever) it was a general musing on the degree of hypocrisy which exists.

You do not represent all Christians, which is why I find it highly amusing that you egotistically seem to be posting as if you do, because if you did you'd also be doing the aforementioned shootings at health centres or, posting things like "I'm saved in Jesus and I hope you get raped!" on atheist Facebook pages (yeah, saw about 4 or 5 posts by people proclaiming themselves Christians and hoping the guy who runs the page is raped, killed or otherwise hurt in horrible ways...) because someone dared question their cult about something or the other.

Islamists have every right to live in the USA and most of them are good people.

That being said, the main goal of Islam is to overtake the entire world and Islamists are massively colonizing western nations. France has over 20% of births being from Islamic families and the percentage is climbing. France might already be too late to avoid being Islamized. The same is true for Sweden. At current rates of mass immigration and high birthrates of Islamists, Britain and Germany will be nearing the point of no return in 20-30 years. Much of this is generating appeal for people such as Nigel Farage and Donald Trump for eventual national leaders.

Sadly, it should be obvious that the clash of civilizations of Islam and The West will only get worse - until Jesus Christ establishes his worldwide kingdom ( who knows how long that will be ^_^ ).

Islamists[...]Islamists[...]Islamists[...]

Is it possible you are completely clueless about the meaning of the word 'Islamist', especially in the way it is distinct from Muslim?

Actually in the context of his post, Islamist is the proper term.

Islamists[...]Islamists[...]Islamists[...]

Is it possible you are completely clueless about the meaning of the word 'Islamist', especially in the way it is distinct from Muslim?

What is the distinction? I might be clueless about that myself.

I've known, and have known for years, the difference between Arab (ethnicity from one part of the middle east - as opposed to, for example, Turkish, or Iranian) and Muslim, and so don't mix the two. But what's the difference between Islamist and Muslim?

You do not represent all Christians, which is why I find it highly amusing that you egotistically seem to be posting as if you do

Examples of how many times during this thread I said the exact opposite of what you claim:

"many Christians"
"some Christians"
"Many Christians"
"many Christians"
"conservatives"
"some women at church"
"some people [i.e. Christians]"
"most Christians"
"pro-life movement"
"Christians of various denominations"
"Christian who upholds God-inspired scriptural prominence"
"Jews and Catholics"
"Protestants"
"many Christians"
"not all of us"
"majority of Christians"
"Hyper-conservative "extremist" Christian"
"every Christian isn't"
"the Christians who say"

You ignored all the times my posts explicitly said otherwise, specifically so you could pretend that the times I didn't bother specifying an already established fact was proof of egotism.

Talking in generalizations is a foundational tool in discussion, even used from ancient times (such as by the Greek philosophers and even earlier), and continues to be used in the modern day in everyday discussion as well as in disciplines like computer science (for example, design patterns).

Extra ironically, multiple times in this thread you've used the exact same generalizations you are calling me out on, without the clarifications I've repeatedly made. *That* is hypocrisy - telling me I can't do the same thing you yourself have been doing.

More relevantly to the discussion, this article about government spy planes and spy drones is interesting. It also describes the government's response following the San Bernardino shootings, and the drone flight paths over the mosque. Generally, I dislike BuzzFeed as too click-baity, but that's some cool interactive maps they show.

Despite terrorist attacks of religious nature seem to often come with multiple coordinated strikes, people seem to have an (understandable) aversion to the government monitoring mosques (invasion of privacy).

If one Christian goes and bombs a building, or shoots up a mall, I think it's due diligence to quickly check out their house/apartments and silently observe their church for a month or so, as long as personally identifiable information about members of the church isn't permanently stored for longer than, say, 90 days.

Or, if the Irish Republican Army was still heavily active, if one IRA member goes and firebombs a government building, and he frequented a specific bar, monitoring that bar for additional activities for a month or two for followup attacks wouldn't seem overboard.

So for me, the problem is more: How do we limit the duration so it doesn't stretch on for years, and how do we ensure the government disposes of collected information of innocent people after the due-diligence is finished? (And how do we prevent the government from distributing the information beyond the one task force that's investigating it, prior to deletion?)

I think short-term monitoring bars/mosques/churches/clubs that were attended by confirmed terrorists is justified, but I don't trust the government to delete the data when finished. It's kinda the "who will guard the guards" thing. Yea, we need the guards, but we also need protection from the guards.

Generalising on established data is not the same as 'I do a thing' being used to imply others do a thing.

Honestly, I'm not reading most of your replies because I pretty much have zero time for reading walls of text which are going to be more or less "here is the reason my book of fairy tales lets me be a bigot". I mean, feel free to write them if you like, its your time you are wasting not mine but waste of time it is; if 8 years of attending church couldn't convince me this was A Thing then chances are your self serving justifications won't either.

I'm surprised this thread has managed to go on as long as it has and take the crazy tangents it has without turning into a disaster. But now we appear to be toeing that line, so consider this everybody's friendly reminder to play nice or I will simply close the thread.