Papal Madness
#1

If we don't allow Muslims into Europe, we're committing "suicide." Yes, Francis said this.


Francis’ words upon exiting the Basilica of St. Bartholomew
Isola Tiberina, Rome, Italy — Saturday, 22 April 2017


“Thank you for being here. Thank you for your prayers.  This church of the martyrs this reminded me of the cruelty, the cruelty that so many people have to suffer, the exploitation of people I’m reminded of the people who come here in boats and they are left there (in internment camps), in generous countries like Italy and Greece who receive them but then because of international agreements don't allow them to move on. If Italy was able to welcome two migrants per municipality there would be room for everyone.  And this generosity of the South (of Italy) of Lampedusa, Sicily, Lesvos, if only it could infect a bit the North (of Italy). It’s true we are a society that doesn’t have children, but we close the doors to migrants. This is called suicide. Let us pray!”



Francis's remarks start at the 1:38:34 mark


How in Sam Hill is it "suicide" for us to not allow a totally alien culture to take over ours? How is that saving US? What he's saying is akin to telling someone that topping off a half empty glass of wine with bleach will "save" the wine from disappearing. Does that make any sense at all?

Why is he not encouraging Europeans to have children instead of telling the Catholics among them to not "breed like rabbits"?


Pope Francis Wants More of This


Between Muslims and their fondness for separating Christians' heads from Christians' bodies, and the Noahide Laws that religious Jews push for -- laws that make the worship of Jesus punishable by beheading -- these verses from the Apocalypse make even more sense:

Quote:Apocalypse 20:1-5

And I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit, and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon the old serpent, which is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. And he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should no more seduce the nations, till the thousand years be finished.

And after that, he must be loosed a little time. And I saw seats; and they sat upon them; and judgment was given unto them; and the souls of them that were beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, and for the word of God, and who had not adored the beast nor his image, nor received his character on their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. The rest of the dead lived not, till the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

And speaking of Christians getting slaughtered, listen to very fascinating psychiatrist Steve Pieczenik at the 12:38 mark on to about 15:28 in the video below. From Wikipedia: "Pieczenik was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance and James Baker. His expertise includes foreign policy, international crisis management and psychological warfare. He served the presidential administrations of Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush in the capacity of deputy assistant secretary. In 1974, Pieczenik joined the United States Department of State as a consultant to help in the restructuring of its Office for the Prevention of Terrorism. In 1976, Pieczenik was made Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for management."

Reply
#2
                                                          If I have to choose between Muslim neighbors and no neighbors at all, then I'll opt for the chirping of birds at dawn over the hideous call of the muezzin.
Reply
#3
It was very slick that the New World Order Programme pushed contraception for decades on the White West, all to set up a false dilemma wherein a childless populace without families would then be guilted into having no choice of accepting strangers, or else!

But a Europe of Arabs and Africans and without native Europeans is not the avoidance of suicide.... It is suicide. 

How is Francis any different than the Judeo-Masonic NWO that wants the ethnic suicide of Europeans?  If he is not part of them, and that it all is just a coincidence, must he not then be an unprecedentedly dangerous moron?  If he is not a moron, then what explains this?

Reply
#4
(04-25-2017, 11:43 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: If we don't allow Muslims into Europe, we're committing "suicide." Yes, Francis said this.

“Thank you for being here. Thank you for your prayers.  This church of the martyrs this reminded me of the cruelty, the cruelty that so many people have to suffer, the exploitation of people I’m reminded of the people who come here in boats and they are left there (in internment camps), in generous countries like Italy and Greece who receive them but then because of international agreements don't allow them to move on. If Italy was able to welcome two migrants per municipality there would be room for everyone.  And this generosity of the South (of Italy) of Lampedusa, Sicily, Lesvos, if only it could infect a bit the North (of Italy). It’s true we are a society that doesn’t have children, but we close the doors to migrants. This is called suicide. Let us pray!”

I have to differ respectfully.

First, we forget that many of the migrants are Christians or belong to other religious minorities.

Second, we have to read the statement in bold through the lens of what the Pope has taught elsewhere on that subject: he is referring to the fact that Europe is dying out because it has embraced a culture of contraception and abortion and of selfish convenience which only opens itself to life "if it can be afforded".

As wealthy but aging and shrinking Europe continues to die out by its own hands, it is a natural social consequence that migrants will flee from terror and destruction into what they perceive to be a land that has greater possibilities to offer.

Most of these migrants - and especially the Muslim - have an important lesson to teach: they are not afraid to have children, even in situations of dire despair, out of fear of God and love for life. And it is unfair to classify all as a threat, forgetting just how much organized crime, human trafficking, and corruption is ongoing in Europe at the hands of native Europeans, many of which profess themselves to be good Catholics.

If Europe's response, after forsaking the supernatural life of its Christian roots and shutting down to unborn life, is to shut its doors against the stranger who seeks refuge from the horrors of their native land, it will once again be reiterating its suicidal policy of shunning life because "it is not affordable".

Then a Europe of Arabs and Africans and without native Europeans would be just, and a natural consequence, unless native Europeans return to their roots and behave as good Catholics. This includes (a) not acting out of fear, but out of unconditional love, and (b) welcoming the stranger:

- "Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner...but the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt"
- "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me."

"Beware lest perhaps also ye be found fighting against God"...
Reply
#5
(04-25-2017, 03:43 PM)Macarius Wrote: I have to differ respectfully.

First, we forget that many of the migrants are Christians or belong to other religious minorities.

No, "many" of the migrants aren't typically Christians or of other religious minorities. They are overwhelmingly Muslim. And not just Muslims, but Muslims who are young males -- males who should be in their homelands defending their women (oh, or maybe Muslim women are bullet-proof or something!).  They are not coming to "become German" or "become French"; they are coming to wage jihad and get stuff for "free" -- i.e., off the backs of European workers.


73% of them are young males! Who is bringing home the the halal version of bacon so the women and children left back home can eat? Who is going to defend those women and children? These men are cowards who leave their women and children defenseless in war zones they claim are so bad they, themselves, have to leave them. What kind of man is that?  And what do these guys do once they get to Europe? They rape, rape, rape. (But it's not really their fault; they're animals, see. At least according to their own thinking. From Front Page Magazine:
Quote:"In September 2006 in a Ramadan sermon on adultery, Australia’s most senior Muslim cleric blamed immodestly dressed women who don't wear hijab for being preyed on by men. Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali alluded to the infamous Sydney gang rapes in 2000, committed by a group of fourteen Lebanese Australian men, and suggested the attackers were not entirely to blame. Sheik Hilali said: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem."
And it's not just those Western women who are so hussy-like they refuse to wear tents to go grab some groceries who get raped, either; they go after kids as well.

Further, if truly helping these people were the goal, then safe zones would be set up in their own homelands. Many, many more could be helped in this manner and at a much lower cost, both in terms of money and of cultural impact. From The National Review:
Quote:A recent analysis finds that admitting 10,000 refugees to the United States presents a net lifetime cost to taxpayers of $6.5 billion, meaning that under the current plan to admit 85,000 refugees this fiscal year, taxpayers will be on the hook for $55 billion. For the cost of resettling one refugee in America, we could successfully resettle 12 refugees in the region. Creating safe zones in Syria and the region is a vastly more effective and compassionate strategy.

Quote:Second, we have to read the statement in bold through the lens of what the Pope has taught elsewhere on that subject: he is referring to the fact that Europe is dying out because it has embraced a culture of contraception and abortion and of selfish convenience which only opens itself to life "if it can be afforded".

As wealthy but aging and shrinking Europe continues to die out by its own hands, it is a natural social consequence that migrants will flee from terror and destruction into what they perceive to be a land that has greater possibilities to offer.

The Pope kvetching about Europe dying is pretty rich when he accuses Catholics of breeding like rabbits, waters down the presentation of the Faith, does nothing to restore Tradition (quite the opposite), and refuses to EVANGELIZE.

But anyway, here's your thinking: Europe is really ailing, so let's shiv it and finish it off instead of fighting to FIX it, right? Wow. Wish you had as much compassion for Europeans as you do for young male Muslim jihadist rapists who leave women defenseles back home.

The greater possibilities that the West offers are present because it is THE WEST, founded on Christian social teaching, and populated by a various peoples with healthy average IQs. If you replace its population and replace its cultures, it is no longer the West; it's the new Islamabad. Europe is not just its soil and buildings; it's its people and cultures. You don't replace a people and end up with the same country.

And Europe isn't dying solely by its own hands; it's dying by cultural assault and economic assault, the former by such things as Frankfurt School critical theorists having made their long march through the institutions and by the channels of European culture being in the hands of non-Christians, and the latter by such things as usury, fractional reserve banking, fiat currencies, etc.. The answer to all this is Truth, looking at History, restoring the human element of the Church, and reclaiming what is ours, not allowing jihadists to take over. Are you insane?!

Quote:Most of these migrants - and especially the Muslim - have an important lesson to teach: they are not afraid to have children, even in situations of dire despair, out of fear of God and love for life. And it is unfair to classify all as a threat, forgetting just how much organized crime, human trafficking, and corruption is ongoing in Europe at the hands of native Europeans, many of which profess themselves to be good Catholics.

Fear of God? The god of Muhammad? That's a selling point, a lesson we should learn? My God, man.

Love for life? They blow themselves up. They blow us up. They rape us. They have been waging war against Christendom since the inception of their demonic religion (see http://www.fisheaters.com/crusades.html ). They love the sword, and you say they "love life"?

And you're basically saying that because Europeans are sinners that jihadists should come in and take over? Are you God, meting out the "just" punishments or something? You aren't raising kids in Europe, are you? What a nasty, nasty thing to say.


And what about the "justice" owed to Muslims? They slaughter innocent Christians in the Middle East (oh, look! The New York Times is finally talking about it! Israel must want a war!) -- and they should be rewarded with European lands, the ability to turn our great cathedrals into mosques? Unreal.

And you say that not all of them are a threat because some Europeans are criminals? WHAT sort of logic is that? But even if you were simply making the point that not each and every Muslim is a  jihadist, see:


Quote:If Europe's response, after forsaking the supernatural life of its Christian roots and shutting down to unborn life, is to shut its doors against the stranger who seeks refuge from the horrors of their native land, it will once again be reiterating its suicidal policy of shunning life because "it is not affordable".

Then a Europe of Arabs and Africans and without native Europeans would be just, and a natural consequence, unless native Europeans return to their roots and behave as good Catholics. This includes (a) not acting out of fear, but out of unconditional love, and (b) welcoming the stranger:

A "just and natural consequence"? Consequences of this sort are what we ALLOW them to be, within the confines of God's Will. Obviously Europe and the rest of the West need to "return to their roots and behave as good Catholics" (that's what this website is all about!), but they kinda-sorta have to be, oh, I dunno, ALIVE to do that. And if they don't do that, it isn't up to you to hand our lands over to Muslims. Your duty as a Catholic is to defend Christendom, not finagle things so Muslims take over.

Quote:- "Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner...but the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt"
- "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me."

"Beware lest perhaps also ye be found fighting against God"...

If I see a hungry Muslim, I have no problems giving him food. But I'm not going to invite him to live where my grandson does. I like my grandson's head on his shoulders, I want him to remain sexually unmolested, and I don't want any Muslims trying to convert him. I have a duty to my family, see. We all do. Even Leftists do in spite of their not realizing it, apparently.

THIS is the traditional Catholic view on immigration. From the Catholic Encyclopedia on "Migration" (URL: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10291a.htm):

Catholic Encyclopedia Wrote:"The legal control of migration began when it ceased to be collective and began to be individual. Laws have been passed preventing people from leaving their native land, and also, by the country of destination, forbidding or regulating entrance thereto. Extensive regulation has been found necessary applying to transportation companies and their agents, the means of transportation, treatment en route and at terminal points. The justification of public interference is to be found in the right of a nation to control the variations of its own population. The highest necessity is that arising from war: on this ground nations almost universally regulate very closely the movements of population, forbidding emigration, that they may not lose their soldiers, and guarding immigration as a military precaution. Restrictive measures are also justified on grounds of health and morals, and on the general ground that a national family has a right to say who shall join it...

"...The attitude of the United States at the present time (1910) towards foreign immigration is one of caution. Actual and projected legislation aims, not at exclusion, but at selection. It is recognized that the assimilative power, even of America, has its limits. Legislation must, by the application of rational principles, eliminate those incapable of assimilation to the general culture of the country. Great care is, of course, necessary in determining and applying these principles of selection: an educational test, for instance, while it would exclude much ignorance, would also exclude much honesty, frugality, industry, and solid worth. It is probable that a more vigorous system of inspection of immigrants at ports of entry will be put in force, while a stricter control will be exercised over the steamship companies. At the same time, the co-operation of foreign governments is needed, if the exclusive measures designed for the protection of the United States against undesirable immigration are to be made thoroughly effective."

You are preaching some strange "social justice gospel" that is radically different from what the traditional Faith teaches. You completely ignore moral principles such as piety. You go on about corruption of Europeans while completely ignoring the corruption involved in immigration, such as how Bishops betray their countries for filthy lucre, how big corporations push for immigration so they can get cheap labor at the expense of the people who live in their countries, how immigration drives down wages of the host populations, the corruption of the immigrants themselves who, in Europe,  not just "very often," but typically immigrate to take advantage of welfare systems -- i.e., they are abusing, taking advantage of, and impoverishing the host populations, etc., etc.

"The stranger" can be helped without committing suicide. In classical moral thinking, we look out for our own FIRST. Only then do we extend our charity outwards. And when we extend charity to others, we don't do so on the backs of our own children and grandchildren. We don't sell out their birthright -- what their ancestors fought for, died for, sweated to build! As I said at the beginning of this post, refugees can be helped in their OWN lands, in a MUCH more humane way, and at a fraction of the cost of trying to do the impossible of assimilating them.

I'd taken you for a male for some reason, but am wondering if you're female, with your having written what you did. I can't see the icon indicating your sex since I'm in posting mode, but am guessing you are.
Reply
#6
If we look at any country that has been, and/or is currently taking in unprecedented amounts of refugees, their entire country is being destroyed.

Look at France. Look at Sweden. Look at Germany.

Sweden has epidemic levels of rape, and what are they doing? They're giving anti-rape bracelets to girls. No rapist is going to look at a girl and go, "Oh, you have an anti-rape bracelet. I guess I'll look elsewhere." They're also so paranoid in this overly PC culture to report rapists out of fear that they'll look "racist" (never mind that Islam isn't a race), "Islamophobic," or "xenophobic," or out of concern that the migrant/refugee will be deported.

The problem is the absolute, total lack of any proper vetting process, so you have tons of, like Vox mentioned, adult males coming in with agendas, not families, and not to make a better life for themselves.

Also, why are only a few people criticizing Saudi Arabia, where there is an entire area full of air conditioned tents sitting empty 99.9% of the time (unless it's the Hajj)?

http://truthfeed.com/breaking-saudi-arab...ees/49366/

I have no problem with people who happen to be Muslim coming into a different country if they promise to sincerely follow that country's laws (instead of trying to implement Sharia after they get a strong foothold population-wise). What I do have a problem with are these people who are claiming to be migrants/refugees coming in by the boatload who clearly have an evil agenda.

Intel Confirms ISIS Hid Among Refugee Hordes Flooding Europe

http://thefederalist.com/2016/08/15/inte...ng-europe/

Terrorism Suspects Are Posing as Refugees, Germany Says

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/06/world....html?_r=0

17 ISIS Militants Posed as Refugees to Reach Europe: German Official

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/europes...al-n603366
Reply
#7
Anti-rape bracelet means Mr. Grab-twist-pull or Mr. Glock. Remember, a sucking chest wound is nature's way of telling the bad guy "STOP!"

As In His Love  said, I have no issues with bringing Muslims here, after vetting and giving priority to Christians and families. At the risk of sounding like a hippie, I see a chance for conversions. That being said, anyone who doesn't respect the host country's laws and culture needs to be deported.

I think I get Macarius' point about pro-life Muslims. Vox, I agree that islam ain't a religion of life or love, but...  ...they're willing to trust God, or their concept of God, and have lotsa babies. On that note, the pope and the rest of the clergy could do a lot by actually vocally condemning birth control, and working/talking with governments to create conditions to encourage family life in Europe.
Reply
#8
(04-25-2017, 08:47 PM)Jeeter Wrote: Anti-rape bracelet means Mr. Grab-twist-pull or Mr. Glock. Remember, a sucking chest wound is nature's way of telling the bad guy "STOP!"

As In His Love  said, I have no issues with bringing Muslims here, after vetting and giving priority to Christians and families. At the risk of sounding like a hippie, I see a chance for conversions. That being said, anyone who doesn't respect the host country's laws and culture needs to be deported.

I think I get Macarius' point about pro-life Muslims. Vox, I agree that islam ain't a religion of life or love, but...  ...they're willing to trust God, or their concept of God, and have lotsa babies. On that note, the pope and the rest of the clergy could do a lot by actually vocally condemning birth control, and working/talking with governments to create conditions to encourage family life in Europe.

I don't want anyone professing Islam in a Western country. Islam and Christendom -- or even Islam and the modern secular Western world -- are completely, 100% incompatible.

Their having lots of babies is so not a feature; that's a bug. That means more Muslims in Western lands, the last thing we need, especially given that it's the second generation Muslims who are radicalized the most.

As to their "trusting God": Satanists trust Satan. I'm not impressed. Their god is not our God. Our God is Triune, and the demon-possessed Mohammed is not His prophet. He doesn't condone raping kids, mutilating little girls' genitals, cutting off the heads of unbelievers, spreading His message by the sword, destroying art and ancient cultural artifacts, throwing homosexuals off of rooftops, eschewing logic and reason, forcing women to wear tents, and all that sorta jazz. They want to live that way, fine by me. But not in Christendom. They have  tons of countries they can slither around in; they don't need ours.

For real: all that stuff I just listed: that IS what orthodox Islam teaches. That IS what orthodox Muslims do. Why, for any reason, would we invite people who BELIEVE that stuff to live next door to our children and grandchildren? Hey, they need food, I'm down with chipping in and sending them some. An earthquake destroys a Muslim city and many are displaced? I'd be fine with sending money to the Red Cross to help them out. But that help needs to be in their OWN lands, not in ours. And that's the case now with the alleged and actual refugees: many, MANY more can be helped in their OWN lands for the same amount of money, and doing that way is a much more humane approach. It's better for everyone. They don't have the big social, cultural upheaval, and neither do we. (of course, I'm VERY much for the U.S. of A. minding its own business, stopping doing Israel's bidding, and stopping the bombings and dronings and assassinations that bring about refugees in the first place. It'd be nice, too, if the idiots that rule us and Israel would stop creating monsters by building and arming groups like ISIS. But their doing that isn't my grandson's fault, and I'll do all in my power to make sure HE doesn't pay for the fact that idiot politicians and the CIA act against our interests in the first place. We didn't ask them and Mossad to create ISIS.

This doesn't mean at all that I don't believe that there are "good Muslims" out there who are, in fact, bad Muslims -- i.e., not orthodox, which is to say, Muslims who don't really practice what they preach. But their religion, their ideology, is what it is, and that's what I'm going by. They could start taking their religion seriously at any time, and I don't want them doing that around my family, that's for sure. I don't want people who believe what they do voting in our elections. I don't want them teaching in our schools. I don't want them on our school boards. I don't want them sitting as judges. I don't want the medically-licensed among them destroying girls' genitals in clinics.

And as to potential conversions, this is the internet age. If they want to learn about Christianity, they can do that without living next door to my grandson. I'm very much NOT willing to risk his safety, his life, or his culture because some good bad Muslim might get converted some day. St. Francis went to the Muslims to preach; he didn't invite them to move to Assisi so they might convert someday.

If a Muslim were to convert, then bring him on in if he's willing to play by the host nation's rules and add to the place. But til then, a big fat no from me. Huh-uh. No way, no how.


Ex-Muslim Woman Warns America, THEY'RE HERE TO KILL YOU!



Excellent: Ex-muslim Woman Speaks the Truth About Islam



Just go to Youtube and type in "ex-Muslim." All SORTS of videos like these will come up.
   
Reply
#9
(04-25-2017, 10:42 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(04-25-2017, 08:47 PM)Jeeter Wrote: Anti-rape bracelet means Mr. Grab-twist-pull or Mr. Glock. Remember, a sucking chest wound is nature's way of telling the bad guy "STOP!"

As In His Love  said, I have no issues with bringing Muslims here, after vetting and giving priority to Christians and families. At the risk of sounding like a hippie, I see a chance for conversions. That being said, anyone who doesn't respect the host country's laws and culture needs to be deported.

I think I get Macarius' point about pro-life Muslims. Vox, I agree that islam ain't a religion of life or love, but...  ...they're willing to trust God, or their concept of God, and have lotsa babies. On that note, the pope and the rest of the clergy could do a lot by actually vocally condemning birth control, and working/talking with governments to create conditions to encourage family life in Europe.

I don't want anyone professing Islam in a Western country. Islam and Christendom -- or even Islam and the modern secular Western world -- are completely, 100% incompatible.

Their having lots of babies is so not a feature; that's a bug. That means more Muslims in Western lands, the last thing we need, especially given that it's the second generation Muslims who are radicalized the most.

Concurred.  My thoughts are that we as Catholics could learn from that, and start having babies, and rid of the  :censored: pill. 

Quote:As to their "trusting God": Satanists trust Satan. I'm not impressed. Their god is not our God. Our God is Triune, and the demon-possessed Mohammed is not His prophet. He doesn't condone raping kids, mutilating little girls' genitals, cutting off the heads of unbelievers, spreading His message by the sword, destroying art and ancient cultural artifacts, throwing homosexuals off of rooftops, eschewing logic and reason, forcing women to wear tents, and all that sorta jazz.

I agree that Mo' ain't his prophet and was, at least eventually, demon possessed.  Off topic question, but is he a different god, or the God, but they're worshipping Him wrong, because they're following what Mad Mo' said to do, instead of what Jesus said? 

Quote:This doesn't mean at all that I don't believe that there are "good Muslims" out there who are, in fact, bad Muslims -- i.e., not orthodox, which is to say, Muslims who don't really practice what they preach. But their religion, their ideology, is what it is, and that's what I'm going by. They could start taking their religion seriously at any time, and I don't want them doing that around my family, that's for sure.
  I agree, and we should especially be reaching out to these people.

Quote:And as to potential conversions, this is the internet age. If they want to learn about Christianity, they can do that without living next door to my grandson. I'm very much NOT willing to risk his safety, his life, or his culture because some good bad Muslim might get converted some day. St. Francis went to the Muslims to preach; he didn't invite them to move to Assisi so they might convert someday.

But the flip side is, how many people convert because they read something on 'da interwebz?  I know that's not what brought me back to the Church.  Good point about Saint Francis, though.
Reply
#10
(04-26-2017, 09:46 AM)Jeeter Wrote:
Quote:As to their "trusting God": Satanists trust Satan. I'm not impressed. Their god is not our God. Our God is Triune, and the demon-possessed Mohammed is not His prophet. He doesn't condone raping kids, mutilating little girls' genitals, cutting off the heads of unbelievers, spreading His message by the sword, destroying art and ancient cultural artifacts, throwing homosexuals off of rooftops, eschewing logic and reason, forcing women to wear tents, and all that sorta jazz.

I agree that Mo' ain't his prophet and was, at least eventually, demon possessed.  Off topic question, but is he a different god, or the God, but they're worshipping Him wrong, because they're following what Mad Mo' said to do, instead of what Jesus said? 

I dunno. People argue about it, and I have my opinion, but in the end, does it really matter? Even if they claim to be worshiping the God of Abraham, they're blowing it, lying about Who He is and what He teaches, slaughtering those who belong to His Church, raping kids, raping women, etc., etc., so who cares? I mean, if you were "friends" with someone who knew your name, but didn't know your birthday, your favorite color, what music you like, what you like to eat, what you think, etc., did everything you hate and teach against, did everything the world hates, killed your family, raped your wife, diddled your kids, trashed your house, and repeatedly crapped on the dining room table -- does it matter if he gets your name right? Is he any kind of friend? Does it make him on some kind of par with a friend who didn't do any of those things and who loved you? Would those two have anything truly in common? Would it be a good idea for them to live together?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)