Mr. Sausages Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 I see they've chopped the head off an American journalist. That's like, soooooo 2003. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 No, that's Sooooooo mohammadan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 Also pretty popular in England for centuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 Though they weren't American journalists, obv. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 Slightly off topic at the moment, however, I was watching the video links posted by Chinahand earlier and I noticed that Abu Mosa (identified as the Islamic State Press Officer) is wearing Ray Bann sunglasses. I also noticed that some of the military hardware also stemmed from European/Western manufacturers. I know this is a serious topic but it is instances like these that raise a smile. ISIS are happy to denounce the West/Europe as infidels but are more than happy to purchase branded products from the same area... Smacks of hypocrisy to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 T J they are NOT my ideas they were Spook's when he, in another thread was trying to persuade everyone to have their children baptised in order to prevent them from burning in hell. I'm not a "christian but take the view that , thank god (lol) ,Spook does not speak for all of those who claim to have "christian beliefs" In Christian soteriology, babies and children do not go to "Hell". It is only when a person reaches the age of accountability that they become responsible for their actions. In the early years of Christianity, the churches preaching eternal damnation were the minority, but they had the political power in Rome. The majority were universalists who believed all humanity would eventually go to Heaven. The doctrine of eternal damnation and Hell was invented to control people with fear. There is no "Hell" in the Old Testament, although you'll find the word used in Christian translations of it. The word She'ol they are translating as "Hell" really just means the ground or the grave and was the resting place of the good and the bad alike. Look into the original Greek New Testament even and you see verses are translated in a way that supports this horrible doctrine, whereas you can find translations which contain no mention of it. Derailing the thread I realize, but Catholic soteriology was very much that unbaptized children did go to hell basically right up to the modern era. This view was championed by Augustine and confirmed in the Council of Carthage (417), it was reinforced in the Council of Constance (1418), the Council of Florence (1442), the Council of Trent in 1547 etc etc. Even in the modern era Catholic dogma is conflicted. Just recently there has been much theological writing about Limbo with the Pope authorizing a document which states: "the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium. Still, that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis" When it comes to the fate of the unbaptized the document stated: [T]he many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision. We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us. We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy. What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament. In Catholic dogma it is not known what happens to unbaptized babies - and limbo and hell are possibilities - but so is God's Grace - that is what the Church HOPES for - and asks for in prayerful hope. My opinion it is all fairies in the garden and angels on pin heads, but many people take it very seriously! Ask a Catholic mother of an ill unbaptized child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted August 20, 2014 Author Share Posted August 20, 2014 Derailing the thread I realize, but Catholic soteriology was very much that unbaptized children did go to hell basically right up to the modern era. This view was championed by Augustine and confirmed in the Council of Carthage (417), it was reinforced in the Council of Constance (1418), the Council of Florence (1442), the Council of Trent in 1547 etc etc. Like Martin Luther said, the Catholic Church was co-opted by dolts and blockheads: Our fools, the popes, bishops, sophists, and monks-the crude asses' heads-have hitherto so treated the Jews that anyone who wished to be a good Christian would almost have had to become a Jew. If I had been a Jew and had seen such dolts and blockheads govern and teach the Christian faith, I would sooner have become a hog than a Christian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 And a deafening silence from the millions of Mohammadans in the UK who of course don't constitute the few radicals that we keep being assured are the troublemakers. Yeah. Right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 And a deafening silence from the millions of Mohammadans in the UK who of course don't constitute the few radicals that we keep being assured are the troublemakers. Yeah. Right. That's not true, I was only half listening but heard several different people representing Muslims condemning it on the news today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 And a deafening silence from the millions of Mohammadans in the UK who of course don't constitute the few radicals that we keep being assured are the troublemakers. Yeah. Right. Rubbish ... what Spook is saying that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake me up Judy Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 Deafening silence too from those on this forum who've got their heads stuck in the ideological railings. Does the murderous barbarism of the Islamic State not fit the script ? It's probably all Israel's fault; and of course America and the imperialist West. Yeah, that'll be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreidel Dreidelsohn Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 That's not true, I was only half listening but heard several different people representing Muslims condemning it on the news today. They condemned what exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 And a deafening silence from the millions of Mohammadans in the UK who of course don't constitute the few radicals that we keep being assured are the troublemakers. Yeah. Right. Rubbish ... what Spook is saying that is.Some time ago a poll was conducted and the results published in the Daily Telegraph regarding the opinions of a substantial and representative sample of UK resident Mohammadans. Although the numbers who said they would adopt violent action in order to spread islam were in the minority what was significant was that VERY few expressly opposed such actions, the majority by not actually opposing such violence were in effect at least condoning it if not actually supporting it. There IS a problem today and it's getting bigger. The savagery of the ever increasing population of this emerging Caliphate is going to encourage people who have infiltrated The West and in the UK colonies have become established with no connection to Britain beyond taking the Benefits to become even more militant and activist as regards their aims and ambitions. It'll be interesting to watch what happens now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 That's not true, I was only half listening but heard several different people representing Muslims condemning it on the news today. They condemned what exactly? Exactly. It's very important to listen very carefully to the words being used and to never forget the Mohammadan practice of lying as per hadith. Taquiya and Kitman are employed in no end of devious ways. For example the word 'peace' can be, and is used in many different ways with many different meanings as can embarking on a journey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 And a deafening silence from the millions of Mohammadans in the UK who of course don't constitute the few radicals that we keep being assured are the troublemakers. Yeah. Right. Rubbish ... what Spook is saying that is. It is complex to try to unravel the views of the Muslim population on this. Various estimates put the Muslim population of Britain at around 4 million and, of course, growing fast. This is in the context of a similar process throughout most of Europe. There was a Muslim MP from Birmingham speaking tonight and he estimates that about 2,000 have gone to fight for ISL. They have been radicalised in Britain, so how many others hold similar views but have not yet got around to going out there to fight? How many are comfortable with these views but not sufficiently so to put their necks on the line in The Levant or are being held back by family? This must be a considerable number. At the other end of the spectrum there will be secular individuals and moderates who have no time for ISL at all and are Westernised, with a liking for what we would see as modern rights and privileges. In between, there will be a mass who vaguely support the ideals of ISL, Hamas etc. in a romanticised way but live otherwise decent day to day lives, a bit like those upstanding Irish Americans who happily sent money to the IRA which was then used for killing and maiming. Many of these would rub along just as well and more contentedly, in a Muslim state under Sharia than they do in Britain today. They would swap our society for one in which Islam and Sharia took a higher profile in the running of things. We believe they are at one with our interpretation of moderation and vision of the future at our peril. Possibly the moderates are much smarter than the extremists. It is telling that Muslim organisations often use a form of words such as "All Musilms should obey the laws of the land" or similar. They know that so long as they keep their heads down for 5, 10 or however many generations, that time is on their side in the end and the "laws of the land" will be theirs to shape. They will have their Caliphate and the infidel will be defeated, if only these idiot fundamentalists would stop drawing attention to the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.