International Tourist accused of blasphemy killed by mob in Pakistan

Burn one heretic 500 years ago and y'all never let it go...

kmhoiccji6yh4pxfmqg4dypfnh6jc3sachvcdoaizecfr3dnitcq_3_0.png


just one heretic btw..
 
What was said in Acts by James and Paul were not the words and teachings of Christ in the gospels. What James said was to allow for gentiles to have an easier time converting. Paul always oppose the Judaizer in attempts to shape the religion in his own image.

Acts is incredibly flawed historically. One can't deny that Acts has many contradictions to the letters of Paul. This is because while it's references those letters it was written after those letters. We know that Jerusalem was not the birth place if Christianity as claimed in Acts. Simply put it is another fan fiction like the gospels. In order of times written Paul's letters> gospels> acts.

So while apologist such as yourself will claim that Paul's letters confirm the gospels, that simply does not hold up well. Acts itself serves to fill the cap in the canon between the letters an the gospels.

It's mainly believed that the Author of Luke also wrote Acts. These are not first hand writings of events, rather a reinterpretation who's Author most likely used Josephus as a historical reference, but misinterpreted many of the historical events. The author of Acts is also trying to reshape the religion to his views and accounts of events are often contradicting. Acts is very much in conflict with Paul's own writings about himself reconning and giving him a fantasy Christian beginning. This happens a lot with fan fiction.

Jesus said over and over that the law was still the law: “For verily I say unto you, Till. heaven and earth pass, one jot or one. tittle shall in no wise pass from. the law, till all be fulfilled.” - Matthew 5:18. Jesus has not fulfilled everything that has been promised. he has failed to returned as promised.

Much like today Christianity has always been split on interpretation and meaning of the words. Apologetics must always ignore that which is not convenient for their faith. The actual teachings of Christ are only in less than 15% of the Bible, even that is filled with fluff. Just as today's preachers try to interpret the Bible to fit their needs and goals the authors of the bible were doing the same.

You come to further problems with books being selectively added and removed from the Canon based on what the goals of those putting together the bible intended. 60+ books written by believers, yet are considered heretical. It's all fanfiction, just like the books of Acts. Jesus/God could have given his own flawless work for his followers yet elected not to so, apologist must reconcile contradictory works and claim they are the true word, even when they go against the supposed words of Jesus himself.

The (4)Gospels are the teachings of Christ, the letter from (4 churches) (9 individual) Paul are the early forming and organization attempts of the Churches. (8) General letters. Then we have the acts of the apostles which is filler fluff, and finally the apocalypse.

A better argument for the laws that Jesus is fulfilling is that of blood sacrifice. That was the point of Jesus/God sacrificing him self to himself. God's law would still be ineffective, but for salvation and forgiveness one must on accept Jesus. God's old testament laws are still laws but for salvation one only needs Christ. To willfully ignore God's laws is a sin and one that goes unrepentant is a sin that you have not been forgiven for. I would argue that Jesus made an argument against any law enforcement in the Christian faith. If going strictly by Jesus' teaching only God can judge and punish. Blasphemy, murder infidelity on and on. This is a hard contradiction to the old testament.


No need to go 1000s of years back I already gave other examples of people committing horrible acts in the name of Christianity. No need to rehash.

If you want to say the teaching of Christ found in the gospels go against these sort of violent acts committed in his name sure. That doesn't mean they weren't committed in his name.



If one only follows the teachings of Christ they are against violence, for acceptance, and are for helping their fellow man. The religion of Christianity picks and chooses when it wants to follow Christ words and when it wants to ignore them for their own benefits.
As a student that studied Biblical studies in academia. There are a lot of assumptions and generalizations here, and ones I hear often. Acts stands out as one of the most historically verifiable books from ancient times. Also, there were good reason why books were rejected from the cannon, like the gnostic gospels; the early Christians used legitimate criteria to discern scripture. It definitely wasn’t some political conspiracy.

I’m interested in where you got some of your source's. I’d like to read them.
 
Egypt used to be nice a few decades ago but it's not anymore. Their population has exploded leading to lots of desperate, violent people, their government is openly hostile to tourists and people are trying to scam and rob you 24/7. It's also gotten at India-levels of danger for women. So even if you're with your wife, they don't give a shit and they'll just beat you up and try to rape her anyway because they view white women as whores/infidels who are asking or it. Just count yourself lucky you went before shit hit the fan.
The scammers were there then like most of the type. Havent been there since they had all that civil unrest a few years back. I would still likely go today though I havent really looked at what its like lately.
 
Last edited:
Jesus said "
Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
— Matthew 5:17–19

So Jesus fulfilled the old testament prophecy but did not replace the laws. If you do not follow the laws then you are sinning against your god. Is one to argue that Non Israelites are not obligated to follow the laws handed down from god in the old testament? Or must they follow them or else they are committing sin? Perhaps only the ten commandments apply to those of non Hebrew lineage?

The god of the Bible gave many rules to his chosen people. However the creator of all was so powerless to save all of those that believed in him, that he could not save them from sin without sending himself down to live a sinless life to allow them into his kingdom. We are talking about the creator of everything. He was powerless to save them from sin without sacrificing himself to himself.

He himself had to live the perfect sinless life to save all of those that believed in him, because living a perfect sinless life was impossible. He is all knowing all powerful omnipresent, yet he could not forsee the first sin, or perhaps he planned for the down fall of Adam?

Maybe those that go to heaven are predestined to be saved by his perfect plan? Maybe those that do not believe are meant to burn in hell for all eternity. Why would a perfect being that loves all of his creations, plan for there to be sin. Was he powerless to stop the fall of man? Why did he require the blood sacrifice in the old testament? Perhaps he isn't truly the god of all creation, but and a made up construct of man to explain morality.

We can look at his chosen such as Sampson, a truly evil man according to the Bible. A liar a thief a murder. A man that gave into his attraction to a woman and lost his power do to a hair cut. The man's only request was to be allowed to murder his fellow human by pulling down a building upon those who he himself had wronged. Such a righteous warrior of a god that requires blood.

If you only follow the teaching of Christ, then most of the bible is completely irrelevant to you. Other wise you not only endorse the brutal nature of the old testament god, you yourself must follow it. This includes striking down those that are the enemies of the old testament god. This is a major problem with the Bible. Not only is it full of contradicting passages, the god of the old testament is incredibly brutal and unforgiving.

We are talking about the architect of our existence. This is the same god the Islamic faith follows. A god that issued arbitrary death to those that he himself made to condemn.

Jesus told his followers that he would return in their age, yet here we are over 2000 years later waiting for his return. Why did he make a promise that he would return in their age, yet stay silent on giving his word for thousands of years. Perhaps he is not real and was a creation of flawed men that didn't have the knowledge of the world they lived in. Perhaps a creation of men trying to understand their own existence and meaning in this world. A false creator with no power in this world.

The reason you are seeing so many contradictions in the Bible is that much of the behavior of the OT "God" was actually an amalgamation of Sumerian, Babylonian, and Akkadian stories/myth/religions. Specifically, the brutal nature of "God" was derived directly from the Sumerian's creation Gods of Enki and Enlil, who were supposedly the Sumerian gods of creation of human beings. Enlil was said to rule from the heavens (off planet) and was a malevolent and brutal dictator who had no feelings whatsoever towards humans (Sumerian = A.DAMU") because humans were created as slaves initially. Enki, who ruled "from below" (ie on earth), however was closer to humans and felt sorry for them. This is what the "Garden of E.DIN" was all about. Enki, represented as a serpent in Sumerian mythology (serpent represented wisdom, or knowledge) felt sorry for humans and attempted to inform man of the reason for his existence (as a slave with wiped memory (junk DNA). This infuriated Enlil, and he sought to punish any human for an eternity should they attempt to gain this type of knowledge (where we came from, who we are, what happens when we die). Enlil later got so pissed at humans that he vowed to start all over again with a new species or creation by wiping everyone out with a flood. When Enki got wind of this, he again felt compassion for humans and decided to save man (biblical Noah).

So you can see why "God" of the Bible can be both compassionate and a malevolent, violent being - because "God" was based on the personality traits of 2 separate beings from Mesopotamian culture that existed thousands of years beforehand.
 
Egypt used to be nice a few decades ago but it's not anymore. Their population has exploded leading to lots of desperate, violent people, their government is openly hostile to tourists and people are trying to scam and rob you 24/7. It's also gotten at India-levels of danger for women. So even if you're with your wife, they don't give a shit and they'll just beat you up and try to rape her anyway because they view white women as whores/infidels who are asking or it. Just count yourself lucky you went before shit hit the fan.
The only reason Egypt gets any tourism is because of the millennia long appeal of ancient Egyptian civilization. People were visiting the place as tourists hundreds if not thousands of years ago. Too bad its run by one of the most incompetent governments on the planet.
 
For the exact opposite reason rightists are so hostile towards it. Tolerance towards difference is just a major part of the left, while bigotry and hostility towards outsiders are a fundamental part of the right.

So it could be Muslims, Latinos, any other sort of immigrant (including Irish, Italian, and Jewish immigrants in the early 1900s) and rightists will do what they do: demonize them, stereotype them, and point out their worst aspects in order to keep them away or at least marginalized.

Leftists/liberals will also do what they do: look for ways to co-exist and find common issues with different people.

I would call the left wing softness towards Islam “deference” rather than “tolerance” or understanding. As they are obviously intolerant of Christians and white men for stated reasons that are in reality most prevalent in Islam and Muslims. Thats the sticking point. Seems quite selective and not so benevolent.

Nobody tries to understand where Muslims are coming from or if they are misunderstood. Thats understanding and tolerance. I think everybody is quite sure where they are coming from. ..it’s simply “don’t talk about it” but that’s become quite impossible in Europe specifically. That isn’t understanding. That’s submission.

So it seems to many to have a more “my enemies enemy” motivation. For leftists specifically. Liberals may be more naive about it than actual leftists .
 
I read everything, what do you think I got wrong there exactly?
You need to read it again and then read what you wrote. You keep repeating things I've said as if they're your ideas which means you're not reading what I say. I've never seen you like this man but you're not in your best form in this exchange.

Also, it's not anti-islam to have criticisms of Islam any more than its Anti-Semitic to have criticisms of the Jewish state of Israel.

Accusing people of that kind of thing is just a cheap tactic. In this case, it's a continuation of your bad faith discussion with me.
 
The only reason Egypt gets any tourism is because of the millennia long appeal of ancient Egyptian civilization. People were visiting the place as tourists hundreds if not thousands of years ago. Too bad its run by one of the most incompetent governments on the planet.

Not sure if that Renard dude was joking with that bizarre post. A few years ago, my mom went there with a bunch of other ladies in their 60s and had an absolute blast.

She said the sites were amazing, the people extremely friendly, and everything was awesome. Yeah, they were a little pushy and always trying to sell shit but they never felt unsafe.
 
Not sure if that Renard dude was joking with that bizarre post. A few years ago, my mom went there with a bunch of other ladies in their 60s and had an absolute blast.

She said the sites were amazing, the people extremely friendly, and everything was awesome. Yeah, they were a little pushy and always trying to sell shit but they never felt unsafe.
I have heard many others echo his complaints and Egypt has been cracking at the seams lately. I don't deny that its possible to have a good tourist experience there but the industry is threatened by the lack of stability.
 
You need to read it again and then read what you wrote. You keep repeating things I've said as if they're your ideas which means you're not reading what I say. I've never seen you like this man but you're not in your best form in this exchange.
Nothing in my post was said by you, reread it if you'd like and point out where I'm wrong.
Also, it's not anti-islam to have criticisms of Islam any more than its Anti-Semitic to have criticisms of the Jewish state of Israel.

Accusing people of that kind of thing is just a cheap tactic. In this case, it's a continuation of your bad faith discussion with me.
To be clear I say "anti-Islam" to distinguish criticism of the religion from "anti-Muslim" or "Islamophobic" sentiments which refers to bigotry against the people. Your posts ITT do seem pretty clearly anti-Islam in that sense which again isn't to say you're bigoted against Muslims. That's more than I can say for other posters ITT.
 
Nothing in my post was said by you, reread it if you'd like and point out where I'm wrong.

To be clear I say "anti-Islam" to distinguish criticism of the religion from "anti-Muslim" or "Islamophobic" sentiments which refers to bigotry against the people. Your posts ITT do seem pretty clearly anti-Islam in that sense which again isn't to say you're bigoted against Muslims. That's more than I can say for other posters ITT.
That's better because anti islam sure sounds like some kind of an attempt at a slur against my motives, which you have done several times in this exchange. But it's still totally inaccurate.

I'm not going to do your homework for you, but you've repeated what I've said several times in your criticisms of my posts and if you can't see what you just missed them there is something wrong on your end.

Either way, this has been a disappointing exchange for me as you've always been what I consider a high level poster.
 
That's better because anti-ism sure sounds like some kind of an attempt at a slur against my motives, which you have done several times in this exchange.

I'm not going to do your homework for you, but you've repeated what I've said several times in your criticisms of my posts and if you can't see what you just missed them there is something wrong on your end.

Either way, this has been a disappointing exchange for me as you've always been what I consider a high level poster.
If you're the one claiming that then you should be able to point out where I did so. I don't see anywhere where I've repeated your points but again maybe I'm wrong and you can prove that by just quoting both our posts and highlighting the relevant parts.

I think your motive is that you saw someone criticizing Christianity and then got defensive and started to rag on Islam. Pretty natural reaction but in my defense I don't slag off Christianity to defend Islam. To the extent I pointed to other religions ITT its to point out underlying cultural trends that transcend the two religions in South Asia.
 
Its not uncommon for mobs to kill religious minorities in neighboring Hindu majority India and yet I've virtually never seen anyone frame these incidents in the context of South Asian intercommunal violence while pretty much always blaming Islam as a whole. Rob Battista was claiming that executions for blasphemy were common in the Islamic world and then cited at least two countries that haven't executed anyone for blasphemy in decades if at all in the modern world. In fact in Indonesia blasphemy is not a capital crime but he nonetheless took it for granted that people in Brunei and Indonesia were being executed left and right for blasphemy. That's the kind of low effort analysis we tend to see here on this issue.
I am aware of many of the ongoing problems in India. Kinda hard to ignore considering they assassinated a prominent Sikh in Canada last year.

My general care is to not bring any of that over here to my country. In fact, my stance on further immigration from anywhere has been fairly transparent. Slow it down. more vetting. More assimilation and less taking in so many people you allow them to form enclaves of their home culture instead of having to assimilate into Canadian Culture.

But I can say we have waaaay more seamless integration with folks of any religion from India than we do from certain other places that come from a Muslim dominant country.



Its funny that you mention that because most right wingers online will tend to side with the Muslims in those cases.
You aren't wrong. Hell, a lot of Centrists agree with their views too. A lot of people are cool with LBG, but divide on the T. Even the left sometimes divides on the T.
 
But I can say we have waaaay more seamless integration with folks of any religion from India than we do from certain other places that come from a Muslim dominant country.
And you think that's because they are Muslim?
You aren't wrong. Hell, a lot of Centrists agree with their views too. A lot of people are cool with LBG, but divide on the T. Even the left sometimes divides on the T.
Kind of contradicts this earlier statement you made then
In my Experience, even "moderate" islam newcomer immigrants to halifax generally fall into the camp of what is far to the right. With beliefs Moderate Christians who live here long ago abandoned.
You cited that incident as an example of how extreme Muslims are and now you're saying even centrists agree with them on that issue?
 
I would call the left wing softness towards Islam “deference” rather than “tolerance” or understanding. As they are obviously intolerant of Christians and white men for stated reasons that are in reality most prevalent in Islam and Muslims. Thats the sticking point. Seems quite selective and not so benevolent.

Nobody tries to understand where Muslims are coming from or if they are misunderstood. Thats understanding and tolerance. I think everybody is quite sure where they are coming from. ..it’s simply “don’t talk about it” but that’s become quite impossible in Europe specifically. That isn’t understanding. That’s submission.

So it seems to many to have a more “my enemies enemy” motivation. For leftists specifically. Liberals may be more naive about it than actual leftists .

Uh no. First of all I'm not sure what kind of leftists you're referring to... meaning from where. Leftists arent exclusive to Western civilization. But this is a nice "white people are the actual victims" perspective which is definitely going to be more harshly criticized by leftists considering much of this regional destabilization which gave birth to the stranglehold these horrendously powerful fundamentalist regimes have was a direct result of colonialism in their areas.

How did Pakistan even become a thing?

Leftists would merely say that you dont simply wash your hands with the situation you were instrumental in creating, doing so by taking out on refugees the things you observe going in in their regions, as if those things are merely results of those people existing. If you want to protect yourself from religious extremism, that has to be done with a legal structure that applies to everyone. Religious entities, on the whole, need to not be able to pursue and secure State power.

Most leftists are NOT tolerant of ANY religious fundamentalism. But also are not going to be tolerant of the blanket notion that every Muslim on the planet wishes to turn every Country into a Caliphate. And if any of them do, they automatically become opposition. Same as any Christian Nationalist. Same as anyone who thinks people should be able to establish theocracies, which double as ethno-States where the racial identity becomes blended with the religion (Israel). A leftist would have no problem living next to a Muslim family where the woman chooses to wear their "modest" garb because she desires to live by the tenets, not any different than living next to a convent or monastery. Because religious freedom can be hard to come by. But the moment any of them try to take over Government and turn the whole City or Country into that...when authoritarianism ramps up, now we have a problem.

Leftists would also point out how many Christians currently take issue with the idea of "Islamic Law" while simultaneously wanting Western Countries to intertwine law with Christian dogma. Leftists dont want any of it.
 
If you're the one claiming that then you should be able to point out where I did so. I don't see anywhere where I've repeated your points but again maybe I'm wrong and you can prove that by just quoting both our posts and highlighting the relevant parts.

I think your motive is that you saw someone criticizing Christianity and then got defensive and started to rag on Islam. Pretty natural reaction but in my defense I don't slag off Christianity to defend Islam. To the extent I pointed to other religions ITT its to point out underlying cultural trends that transcend the two religions in South Asia.
Yeah that's total b******* man and they were criticizing Christianity dishonestly which is different than what I'm doing.

You have insisted on a bad faith interpretation of me even after I've told you directly. That's not what I was doing so that's it man. I'm done with you on this. It's your problem not mine.
 
Yeah that's total b******* man and they were criticizing Christianity dishonestly which is different than what I'm doing.
Why do you assume dishonesty? What if they're just wrong?
You have insisted on a bad faith interpretation of me even after I've told you directly. That's not what I was doing so that's it man. I'm done with you on this. It's your problem not mine.
You're insisting on a bad faith interpretation of others posts(that they're being dishonest instead of sincere and wrong) and now you're complaining about bad faith? Don't you see the irony there?
 
And you think that's because they are Muslim?
No. Muslims I have met who came from India generally integrate much better than, say, Syrians or other parts of the middle east where Islam was dominant locally by local views and interpretations.
Kind of contradicts this earlier statement you made then

You cited that incident as an example of how extreme Muslims are and now you're saying even centrists agree with them on that issue?
Pretty much everyone except the far left doesn't believe in the T mate. My wife is a very left wing lady and even she has begun the pendulum swing because of the T issue. I mentioned months ago that she started going down the rabbithole and that i had to keep her level

LGB is a separate issue from T. They lump it together in the news, and for rallies, but it is not the same at all.

LGB? Most folks of all religions see support for it, and threw the old "same sex Marriage is wrong" crap out with the bathwater and moved into the 21st century. Except 1 around here. yes, Islam. That is one area where it seem 1 religion is 50 years behind the others. Depending on the area they came from, treatment of Women is another.



This is all the Same sex relationship friendly churches/Synagogues/temples in halifax. You will notice on the defunct list, The halifax unity Mosque. its defunct for a reason after it tried for a year or two to hold a few events. Immense backlash and lots of threats from the local Muslim community and nearly ZERO support from the Muslim community. In fact they made sure to go out of their way to ensure you would be a pariah if you participated in it or went near it.

You don't even see that kind of crackdown suppression in small catholic communities around here. Most just go "Eh, your life". moderate Christians long ago moved past that shit, even in the late 90s
 
Back
Top