Here we go with religion again.

Just to put the intro out there, Jesus of Nazareth, his apostles, nor the sanhedrine had the English King James bible. That needs to be said/written, because of the King James bible only sect.

Thus what people know as the Bible, was constructed by humans and politicians. There was no break between New or Old Testaments. It was all the same testament, right up until the crucifixion.

It was only “new” after Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled the blood sacrifice required for sin as dictated in the Leviticus chapters. That was the entire point, that a god would die himself to his own laws, and thus be consistent and just.

As for the concept of Jehovah “evolving”, that is an interesting claim, but not factual. Human civilizations don’t evolve so much as de evolve, considering what many churches and pastors can’t even get the visions and powers of the disciples of the Messiah in 1st century AD, let alone the powers of the Apostles. Did Jehovah change or did human civilization change?

That they don’t directly participate in that violence does not absolve them from complicity in Islam’s crimes against humanity. You cannot embrace a totalitarian ideology without offering tacit support for that ideology.

The same is said about the Leftist alliance and Democrats, yet you GB resisted the concept that regular Democrats like your associates, were guilty. You quoted out of context the ritualistic dogma that “forgive them, they know now what they do” as a way not to cast the judgment of justice on those who indirectly support violence. You are willing to condemn ragheads like Islamic jihadists, yet are unwilling to condemn your own compatriots. That resistance negates whatever point you think you made.

I still remember how some people were outraged that I was talking about LEos executing Americans.

How does it feel now, that crowing.

The human livestock sheep again think they know what the shepherd is doing.

Well said.

“Again, it’s worth maintaining “terrorism” as a destinct subset of violence, as destinct from, say, war in general. This is the least controversial thing i could imagine saying”

“Wars” are conducted by nation states. That assertion is supported by the Geneva Convention. Modern day combatants who wear no uniform and are therefore indistinguishable from civilians are NOT subject to G.C. protections. By definition they are terrorists. So much for your “distinct subset of violence”.

You’re avoiding the point. Non-violent Muslims are complicit in Islamic violence because they embrace an inherently totalitarian ideology.

That they don’t directly participate in that violence does not absolve them from complicity in Islam’s crimes against humanity. You cannot embrace a totalitarian ideology without offering tacit support for that ideology. The vast majority of Muslims agree that the world should be Islamic. That amounts to silent approval. The only difference is the means they advocate for reaching that goal.

When I respond to you, I feel like Mickey Mouse in “Fantasia” dealing with the exponential increase of brooms and buckets.

Each time I comment back to one of your multiple dubious points (IMO) you come back with another dubious response and four more dubious talking points.

Then you tell me I didn’t understand you or my reasoning is sadly flawed.

This is too much work. Kinda like dealing with Mitsu, another liberal/progressive who parachutes in to neo’s blog occasionally.

It’s hard for people to talk across large rifts. The only constructive way I can see for that to happen is to speak slowly, carefully, and in small steps.

“Murder, pillaging, rape and enslavement are, most definitely a form of terrorism.”

Again, it’s worth maintaining “terrorism” as a destinct subset of violence, as destinct from, say, war in general. This is the least controversial thing i could imagine saying and yet I have to keep repeating it and I don’t really know why, except insofar as it sounds cool to imagine yourself a hero of an ancient war or something?

(I spend time watching white supremecists out of morbid curiosity and they love Lord of the Rings because they love to imagine themselves as heroic Men of the West fighting off brown hordes from the East as part of some epic struggle.)

Anyway, if Muslims of today who commit no violence are somehow…responsible for? tainted by? all those bad things–murder, rape, enslavement, pillaging–then aren’t you? Because you have ancestors who did those things (and some who had those things done to them) because they were near universal features of all human societies. Humans can be pretty terrible! But this remains a slight of hand–atttibuting any violence by any Muslim anywhere ever to a monolithic category of Islamic violence, but explaining away all violence by anyone tangentially related to you. A great many of my ancestors were German, but I feel no affinity for or responsibility for Nazi Germany’s violence, and great pride and reverence for my American family members who fought against the Germans. Right now there are Iraqi and Syrian and Kurdish and even Iranian Muslims fighting and dying against ISIS; far more are aligned against it than are part of it. How does your ledger count them?