you're next!  

Ya, right now the Muslim ISIL are the bad guys, but the forced conversion ideology can easily, and does, in many Christian circles, finds it's home in many of those who consider themselves as 'true believers.' Only the most radical would desire to go to the extent of 'conversion by the sword,' but would sign of on the idea of the lack of legitimacy and equal voice in government to those not professing and demonstrating their Christian Faith.

-- Modified on 9/3/2014 7:05:04 AM

...... and the country and all the media has gone bonkers about two Americans killed in a war zone where they traveled of their own free will!

Where was all this anger, outrage and call for immediate action when 20 little kids and their teachers sitting in classrooms were killed execution style?

Did anything happen or anything changed?    NOTHING CHANGED.

Fix the killing spree here in the country FIRST.

END OF MESSAGE

it is what it is

group of bearded fanatics making guest appearances on Dancing with the Stars.

Yeah yeah, ok, Timbow, I know  

Seriously though, from my perspective, CONVERT OR BE KILLED is not a new concept.
The Crusades, the Inquisition, Islamic Fundamentalism, everything old is new again.

Sounds like a Broadway Musical

for his religion and take Westboro Baptist Church with him to spread Jesus to fanatics in ME.  Fucking brainwashed freaks, all of them.

END OF MESSAGE

...Constitutional amendment outlawing homosexuality and punishing those convicted with ten years at hard labor.  After that, it's only a matter of time until the Christian Taliban will want gays beheaded.  You think that's far-fetched?  The kill-the-gays law in Uganda (now life in prison) was supported by the American Christian Taliban.

I can imagine ISIS and terrorists reading this board. "We kill,rape and enslave women,chop heads off and give them to kids as gifts,and these blockheads are talking about a guy on a TV show."
    Unbelievable.

END OF MESSAGE

END OF MESSAGE

the Commander and Chimp allowed four US diplomats to be sodomized , beat , shot and burned to death because he had thr do not disturb sign on his door. Once again , he put his trip to a fund raiser in front of doing his job .  

I remember your BS posts that week " spare me the phony outrage " you kept posting.  

How's things going  in Lybia today ?

Worthless fucking liberal assholes .  

-- Modified on 9/3/2014 5:35:03 PM

END OF MESSAGE

This attempt to draw a legitimate parallel between the actions of ISIS and Phil Robertson's words is more than laughable, but of course it's nothing more than another attempt to get rid of Robertson. Robertson is far from alone in believing ISIS must stop their actions or begin dying and continue dying until they choose to stop their actions. Hell, Obama says he agrees and some of his actions indicate this.

Now, if someone could come up with an alternative to ISIS dying to achieve our goal (i.e. peace) then I'm all ears. I think attempting to get them to sit down for a little New Testament Bible study is more far fetched than anything else I heard proposed but nonetheless I think Phil's Bible teaches him to not quit trying.

TV celebrity is spouting. You don't think that's newsworthy? The only difference is ISIS is doing it, and Phil is only threatening it. Each side is justifying violence in the name of God.

END OF MESSAGE

END OF MESSAGE

Touting the same thing as Robertson. Minus the conversion rehtoric, I think Matt may have even voted for them.

Matt is making it sound like Robertson could of just been easily speaking of Jews, Hindus, etc being forced to convert or being killed. He said this about ISIS because they are TERRORISTS, not because they are Muslims.  

As you point out, his opposition is based on ISIS's actions, not their beliefs

END OF MESSAGE

Robertson is saying ISIS deserves to die. Many people are saying ISIS deserve to die. Even our President must at least believe that since he has authorized bombing strikes about 100 times. ISIS deserves to dies because of their actions.

What Robertson was saying is that were ISIS to covert to Christianity then that would negate the need for them to die since it would naturally change their actions.

The difference in mentality is stark. One says you must die because you refuse to convert. The other says you must die because of your actions, but holds out hope that you convert so that your behavior would then change thus negating your need to die, NOT simply because you did not convert.

and being right with God. The ISIL fighter believes God smiles on him, just as the Rev. Phil believes God smiles on him.

"Matt is making it sound like Robertson could of just been easily speaking of Jews, Hindus, etc being forced to convert or being killed."

Wow! It's pretty amazing you read all that in to what I said. Try re-reading it a little more slowly and objectively.

Nothing in what I said speaks to any moral equivalency. Just that those who believe they are righteous in God's eyes can justify killing each other in the name of God, at worst, or strip them of equal say, at best. Many of those who view themselves, in this country, as the 'True Children of God,' don't want a democracy, they want a theocracy.

P.S. There's plenty of people in this country who equate radical Islamists with all Muslims.

P.S.S. And, here's a major rub. What would preacher Phil do with those ISIL fighters who have killed, murdered, slaughtered their countrymen, women and children, then came to him and converted?  

And do what he says.

You said the mentality was the same! That is the very definition of moral equivalency!  

The mentality is polar opposite Matt. One thinks the intentional killing of innocents is just while the other finds it abhorrent.

You seem to be saying it is. If someone breaks in your house armed with a knife, you would be justified in using "violence" to stop them and protect yourself.  

Robertson's "violence" he is espousing is to stop ISIS from mass murder in the future among other horrific acts. It is NOT to force his religious views on others as ISIS is doing.

What I have a problem with is preacher Phil introducing the issue of conversion at all. Why is it needed. Why bring God into it at all. Phil believes God smiles on him, while the ISIS militant believes God smile on him. We all agree that ISIS is the enemy. He does it because he wants to preach and he wants to talk about them vs. us. It's just easy when them is ISIS. Then, for some, it becomes the Jew, then perhaps the person swimming across the Rio Grande or the cop vs. the citizen. Notice in the beginning, he recommends Hannity do the same as him; never leave the house without his Bible and his wife. Seems innocent enough, and probably is, but for some Christians, others not following according to their standards of behavior means you have less personal worth, and should have less say in the matters of governance. Many Christians, here in this country, do not want democracy, they want theocracy.

Moral equivalency speaks of morals or moral behavior. Mentality speaks to mental processing. If two people believe God smiles on them, that is not a moral equivalency. How each person behaves because of that belief addresses their person morals.

Thanks for saying that I "seem" to be saying that. I have no problem with mowing down ISIS combatants. I do take exception to preacher Phil bringing conversion and God into the discussion. I see no need for that. In the beginning of the video he speaks about the Children of God and the rest of the world being under siege of the forces of evil (I'm paraphrasing this because it's on the video and can't remember verbatim). Why is it even brought up? Because he wants to preach about us vs. them. As I've said else where, it's easy to speak in those terms when it's someone like ISIS, but then how easy it is for some people to make the other the Jew, then the person swimming across the Rio Grande, or the cop vs. the citizen. The danger of self-righteousness, by those who believe God is on their side, in my view, should always be held suspect. Given the history I've studied, I believe that's a realistic view point.

The most efficacious time to have these young men in a Bible study is long before they take up arms.

END OF MESSAGE

........... militants is no different from what Obama, Biden and many Republicans have stated recently.

...the fucking idiot now?

I just think you may have misspoke or made an unfair comparison. I just see no reason to compare Robertson and ISIS and I think that is why you are seeing so much push back on some of your words.

It kinda reminds me of Hitler comparisons and they are rarely, if ever, accurate unless the person/group is committing mass genocide. Obviously not the case here with the Duckmeister, lol.

...the draft the same cowardly way Dick Cheney did?  Only Phil had carnal knowledge of his wife before they were married.  I guess he wasn't a thumper then.

You notice Phil never shoots yellow-bellied ducks because they're his relatives.

At least this time what was actually said was what Hufpo reported but their interpretation was WAY off.

Robertson introduced conversion because that's what The Gospel tells him to do. It is at the core of Christianity, to spread the Good News (Gospel). It is "needed" (for him) because of who he is (what he believes). The better question is why have him on regarding this issue and why ask him about it. This result was expected.

I'm no Muslim expert but I suspect the underlying desire to convert others is not much different between Muslims and Christians. As many point out (even in this thread) Christians (ones respected in their day) have indeed used violence in their goal to convert. Columbus used to beat Christianity into native Americans. But this ended long ago (at least by respected Christians, but there are nuts anywhere, anytime).

I disagree about your final left turn. I know hundreds of Christians and I have meant many many more. None desire a theocracy. Almost all have deep respect for our Constitution. They DO believe that in the past 50 years or so the influences of Christian (and Jewish) principles have been stripped from the Constitution and governance. I'm sure some think they would live better in a Christian theocracy, but I think we differ on our definition of "many". I would characterize it as a few, a tiny few that want one.

And after listening to Obama tonight, I'm not so sure he wants to actually get rid of ISIS. He now says he wants to "manage" them.

END OF MESSAGE

During that period he was into sex, drugs and rock'n roll. This was after showing up Terry Bradshaw at LA Tech. Bradshaw was second string QB to Robertson (for 2 years). It was later that Robertson credits his "awakening" for saving his life.

What's the difference if I believe my actions are justified because I have faith in my belief?

 .... or when I believe my actions are justified based on my faith?

 
I tend to think most people have faith in their beliefs, because that is what they believe. When people say God is on their side, that is because they have that much faith in their beliefs

Ed and Jack don't surf so maybe they have time to quibble with idiots like matt.

i just call him out as the dickhead he (and you) are. Got better things to do with my time!

...to do with your time?  Like what - keep spreading BS on this board?

Yes, "many" is a very subjective term. And, I have no doubt as to what you say is your experience. Myself, having half my family for 3 generations being Mormon, and having married into a Mormon family, having been educated at Christian institutions, and having a pretty solid connection into the broader Christian community in my area, I'd agree that most want what you've said. However, I have met many who want a theocracy. Any then there are many more who will not say that's what they want, nor that they are against a democratic government, but if you listen to them, they are very quick to want to take away political representation from those whom they disagree with. As I've said before, the Catholic thinks the Protestant is going to hell, and vice versa. They both think the Mormon is going to hell and vice versa. The Southern Baptist believes the Methodist is going to hell, etc., and most of the other protestants think the Episcopalians are going to hell, but few of them believe in hell. Then there's the blue haired old lady at one end of the pew who believes the blue haired old lady on the other end is going to hell. When Christians can believe such about themselves, what do they truly think of non-Christians. If you think or believe someone is going to hell in the hereafter, it seems to me, and I've seen evidence of it, that you treat that person differently; with less respect, and having less personal value, than yourself or others who believe as you do.

the most often used concept.

So, in this case the common "mentality" that preacher Phil and ISIS has is identified by Phil himself, in the video. He speaks of there being two groups, the "Children of God and the whole world" being "under the control of the evil one." That's the common mentality; the fight against the evil one. And, many Christians are now claiming that they are even being persecuted, in this country, because of their fight against the evil one.

Spend on worthless shit like that!!

Got any year old posts you'd like to dredge you while you sit in your basement in your underwear??

Sotblmao

...and trying to divert attention from it.  Surf's up dude! What am I saying - you're a hodad!!

END OF MESSAGE

END OF MESSAGE

END OF MESSAGE

Assholes exist everywhere.  I have no idea which denominations (atheists and agnostics included) have a higher percentage of assholes, but I disagree with your Southern Baptist/Methodist comment. I grew up Methodist/Presbyterian while all our relatives were Southern Baptist. Everyone thought the others could still be saved.

ewport is my summer home away from home