London machete attack!

It is .8% of the population of the US, but as these numbers are "on American soil" not by American Muslim citizens (the 9/11 attacka are counted in, for example), this relationship is misleading.

The data is also not conclusive, as we can not for sure say which of the other groups are Christian in membership - Latino and Communist attacks could very well be done by Christians.

So this is comparing apples with oranges.

BUT - look at the media coverage and tell me, do you feel well informed about the other 94% of terrorist attacks?

For example, from 1980 to 2009 there were 290 bombings - if we just apply the same numbers, roughly 275 of those are non-Muslim attacks. YOu heard of them?

7% were by Jewish extremist groups - WTF?

To follow your line of reasoning, that is 7% of terrorist attacks by 1.2% of the population.

or to alter your quote:
1.2% of the population causing 7% of the problems isn't a problem in and of itself?

Also, your phrasing is loaded. They are not causing x% of "the problems" but "of terrorist attacks".

And sorry about the sources but

a) it is not MY FBI
b) it is not my fault that the data available ends at 2005

::emp::
 


True.

936375_245751452232347_2121449807_n.jpg

Oh my god....
 
1. No, it's not. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Based on your answers, I'm certain you have never studied Christianity (I have, extensively).

I like to study things I have a visceral hatred of, so yes, I minored in Religious Studies in College. Also, I benefit from a key factor that you most likely lack: objectivity. I don't believe the shit, so I can look at it with an impartial, historical eye, not "omgjesus143". Let me direct your attention to this passage you dummy:

The earliest works which came to be part of the New Testament are the letters of the Apostle Paul. The earliest of the books of the New Testament was First Thessalonians, an epistle of Paul, written probably in 51, or possibly Galatians in 49 according to one of two theories of its writing. Of the pseudepigraphical epistles, scholars tend to place them somewhere between 70 and 150, with Second Peter usually being the latest.[citation needed]
In the 1830s German scholars of the Tübingen school tried to date the books as late as the 3rd century, but the discovery of some New Testament manuscripts and fragments from the 2nd and 3rd centuries, one of which dates as early as 125 (Papyrus 52), disproves a 3rd-century date of composition for any book now in the New Testament. Additionally, a letter to the church at Corinth in the name of Clement of Rome in 95 quotes from 10 of the 27 books of the New Testament, and a letter to the church at Philippi in the name of Polycarp in 120 quotes from 16 books. Therefore, some of the books of the New Testament were at least in a first-draft stage, though there is negligible evidence in these quotes or among biblical manuscripts for the existence of different early drafts. Other books were probably not completed until later, assuming they must have been quoted by Clement or Polycarp.
However, John A. T. Robinson, former Bishop of Woolwich, Dean of Trinity College and New Testament scholar argues for a much earlier dating. Robinson challenges almost all the judgments which teachers of the New Testament throughout the world commend to their pupils on the dating of the NT books. His reassessment has all of the New Testament completed before AD 70. Using inductive reasoning, he uses historical argument and historical knowledge as the basis of his theory. Robinson points to four major historical events of which, he argues, no New Testament authors make mention:

  1. the Great Fire of Rome (AD 64), one of the most destructive fires in Roman history, which Emperor Nero blamed on the Christians, and led to the first major persecution of believers
  2. the final years and deaths of Paul, who wrote most of the epistles, Peter, whom Catholics recognize as the first pope, and the other apostles
  3. Nero's suicide (AD 68), or
  4. the total destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (AD 70). He writes, "One of the oddest facts about the New Testament is that what on any showing would appear to be the single most datable and climactic event of the period—the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, and with it the collapse of institutional Judaism based on the temple—is never once mentioned as a past fact. Jesus prophesied its total destruction in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but the fulfillment of that prophecy never appears anywhere in the New Testament.
Therefore, Robinson claims that every book which would come to form the New Testament must have been written before AD 70.[64][65] Robinson's proposed set of consistently early dates are rejected by the majority of scholars.[66]
Most contemporary scholars regard Mark as a source used by Luke (see Markan Priority).[67] If it is true that Mark was written around the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, around 70,[68] they theorize that Luke would not have been written before 70. Some who take this view believe that Luke's prediction of the destruction of the temple could not be a result of Jesus predicting the future but with the benefit of hindsight regarding specific details. They believe that the discussion in Luke 21:5-30 is specific enough (more specific than Mark's or Matthew's) that a date after 70 seems likely.[10][69] These scholars have suggested dates for Luke from 75 to 100.
Support for a later date comes from a number of reasons. Differences of chronology, "style", and theology suggest that the author of Luke-Acts was not familiar with Paul's distinctive theology but instead was writing a decade or more after his death, by which point significant harmonization between different traditions within Early Christianity had occurred.[70] Furthermore, Luke-Acts has views on Jesus' divine nature, the end times, and salvation that are similar to the those found in Pastoral epistles, which are often seen as pseudonymous and of a later date than the undisputed Pauline Epistles.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament#cite_note-71

2. Are you serious?? Really?? A Christian saying that someone who does not accept Christ and dies will go to hell, that's nothing at all like a follower of Islam saying "Convert to Islam or I will cut off your head". A Christian will, out of love and compassion, attempt to convert the non believer. At NO TIME, will the Christian threaten death to the non believer. They comparison you are trying to make is so far off the mark, it's laughable, it really is.

So deferred eternal damnation because of conversion aversion is perfectly acceptable and "peaceful" but your supposed notion that over one billion people all share a murderous mindset for infidels isn't?

To say that contemporary Christians AT NO TIME have threatened death to the non believer is objectively false and frankly embarrassing to assert.

My best friend's dad helps run a large Californian Muslim community and I can assure you, he is not trying to cut off my fucking head for being an Atheist.

3. As with #2, your comparison just doesn't make sense.

ex6qfo03~~ax.png
 
I like to study things I have a visceral hatred of, so yes, I minored in Religious Studies in College. Also, I benefit from a key factor that you most likely lack: objectivity. I don't believe the shit, so I can look at it with an impartial, historical eye, not "omgjesus143". Let me direct your attention to this passage you dummy:


So deferred eternal damnation because of conversion aversion is perfectly acceptable and "peaceful" but your supposed notion that over one billion people all share a murderous mindset for infidels isn't?

To say that contemporary Christians AT NO TIME have threatened death to the non believer is objectively false and frankly embarrassing to assert.

My best friend's dad helps run a large Californian Muslim community and I can assure you, he is not trying to cut off my fucking head for being an Atheist.



ex6qfo03~~ax.png

1. So you study things you hate? No bias there, right? No preconceived ideas to cloud your judgement?

2. The quote you posted . . . so what? What does that have to do with the topic? Nothing really. You state that all of that info like it's fact. First of all, it's not. Secondly, it doesn't change anything with regards to Christianity compared to Islam.

3. I don't believe there is such a thing as a "radical" Muslim. What the media and others label as "radical", I see as simply followers of Islam. These are the true followers, they are not "radical" at all.

A so called "radical" Muslim, one that is truly following the Quran without "picking and choosing" will want to cut my head (and yours) off if we do not convert. So your friend's dad, if he really doesn't want to convert you or kill you, I say he's not a real Muslim. He's made up his own religion by picking and choosing. And, if he's peaceful, there's nothing wrong with that, let him be. I've got no problem with those people. It's the true followers of Islam I have a problem with.

A true Christian, a Christian that is really living their life according to the Bible, would never want to cut your head off (or even harm you). This is the difference. If you cannot see that, you are blinded.
 
A true Christian, a Christian that is really living their life according to the Bible, would never want to cut your head off (or even harm you).

Maybe not, but they do worship a god that has absolutely 0 problem with sending people to hell for simply not believing in him, and at times murdered mass amounts of innocent people. So let's not make Christianity to be all about peace and love here. ;)
 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtrC3rMP1lQ"]Bob Dylan- Only A Pawn In Their Game - YouTube[/ame]

Change White for Christian and Black for Muslim and we have the same situation. Sorry to say bob, times haven't really changed. It is sad.

Us vs the alien other.
 
I like how this thread went from 'we have a problem with muslim violence and dominance in Europe' to 'Muslims are peaceful, just look at my terrorism stats I just found on the interwebs' to 'Oh yeah, Christians are the real violent ones here, just look at these phrases in the bible'.

Liberal fucknuts crashing every thread lol.
 
Guy starts hacking people with machete...Good thing someone had a GUN to shoot this guy before he killed more people. I wonder if they are going to try and ban knives now, I hope not..it would suck trying to cut my steak with a spoon.
 
Maybe not, but they do worship a god that has absolutely 0 problem with sending people to hell for simply not believing in him, and at times murdered mass amounts of innocent people. So let's not make Christianity to be all about peace and love here. ;)

That's not really true though. Christians believe that God DOES have a problem with it. But that's what free will gives people, the choices to make right and wrong decisions, and wrong decisions come with consequences.

Again though, it's not "maybe not", it's "absolutely not". The comparison that at least one person has tried to make in this thread (Christians saying non believers will go to hell, and Muslims wanting to DECAPITATE anyone who does not convert), is outlandish. It's not anywhere close to the same thing. One of these want no harm to come upon me (believer or not), and the other group wants to cut off the heads of the non believer.

Yes, a so called "radical" Christian wants to convert non believers. But they also do things such as put a new roof on my neighbors house, help the poor, help etc...
These are "radical" Christians.

A so called "radical" Muslim wants to kill anyone who does not submit to Sharia Law.
 
That's not really true though. Christians believe that God DOES have a problem with it. But that's what free will gives people, the choices to make right and wrong decisions, and wrong decisions come with consequences.

So not professing faith and belief in the Christian God is the "wrong decision" and will result in an eternity of hell? While hell sounds shitty, I think I'd rather take my chances there than forever worshiping a homicidal, egotistical, mass murderer who deems it necessary to send otherwise good people to burn forever for wanting evidence/proof of his existence before professing belief in him.
 
So not professing faith and belief in the Christian God is the "wrong decision" and will result in an eternity of hell?
Hey, did you hear about the UK soldier in London who was ran over and decapitated with a meat cleaver?

It happened only the other day and the guy who did it said only seconds afterwards: "We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you. The only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying every day. This British soldier is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."

I'm sorry. You were saying something about your feelings and Christianity and hell and historical metaphysical hypocrisies from testaments old and new ... so back to that.
 
Isn't it funny. Just 2 weeks before this event. A 75 year old Pakistani man was brutally murdered and stabbed to death by a white adult male. The police now think it may of been a racially motivated murder.

Yet there was hardly any coverage of this at all.

It is so obvious the UK media and a good proportion of the public have a racial (religious) agenda.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/02/birmingham-murder-racially-motivated-police
 
I'm sorry. You were saying something about your feelings and Christianity and hell and historical metaphysical hypocrisies from testaments old and new ... so back to that.

I'm sorry for diverting the topic in a forum designated as shooting the shit; I forgot we're all highly regarded individuals who've represented major brands at some point and demand both a strict and orderly conduct.
 
Since 2001 the number of islamic related terror attacks in the US has skyrocketed.

Marathon bombers, the Army base shooter.. what else?



A so called "radical" Muslim, one that is truly following the Quran without "picking and choosing" will want to cut my head (and yours) off if we do not convert.

How does that fit in with part of the Quran I quoted earlier?



I like how this thread went from 'we have a problem with muslim violence and dominance in Europe' to 'Muslims are peaceful, just look at my terrorism stats I just found on the interwebs' to 'Oh yeah, Christians are the real violent ones here, just look at these phrases in the bible'.

Liberal fucknuts crashing every thread lol.

You're leaving out the part where early on the pot might have been stirred with comments about Africans and Arabs not being smart enough and a picture about how Muslims treat their mothers or something.

It's the same thing over and over on the internet. Someone will be all like "RED SOX SUCK! EAT SHIT BOSTON!", then inevitably the white to their black shows up, or at least a gray shows up with some baseball stats, and then Yankee fan acts surprised and tells the others that they have gone full retard.


And it's a bit of a misnomer to apply labels like "liberal" or "conservative" to most any post in here.

"OMG, we're all gonna die."
"You're more likely to be killed by lightning."

Neither of those statements have anything to do with what someone thinks about tax rates or about marijuana laws.

If a person believes women should be able to wear short skirts in public, then they are "liberal" compared to many Muslims.
 
Marathon bombers, the Army base shooter.. what else?





How does that fit in with part of the Quran I quoted earlier?





You're leaving out the part where early on the pot might have been stirred with comments about Africans and Arabs not being smart enough and a picture about how Muslims treat their mothers or something.

It's the same thing over and over on the internet. Someone will be all like "RED SOX SUCK! EAT SHIT BOSTON!", then inevitably the white to their black shows up, or at least a gray shows up with some baseball stats, and then Yankee fan acts surprised and tells the others that they have gone full retard.


And it's a bit of a misnomer to apply labels like "liberal" or "conservative" to most any post in here.

"OMG, we're all gonna die."
"You're more likely to be killed by lightning."

Neither of those statements have anything to do with what someone thinks about tax rates or about marijuana laws.

If a person believes women should be able to wear short skirts in public, then they are "liberal" compared to many Muslims.

List of Islamic Terror Attacks in America