atheists are trolls..

That has nothing to do with anything. That is hyperbole. She is saying "I am very angry". All speakers of English use "enrage" that way (and a lot of other words as well). It doesn't mean that we are going to commit a violent act. What violence is she suggesting? What violence has occurred?

Lily wrote

That has nothing to do with anything. That is hyperbole. She is saying "I am very angry". All speakers of English use "enrage" that way (and a lot of other words as well). It doesn't mean that we are going to commit a violent act. What violence is she suggesting? What violence has occurred?

Lily, I didn't say shes being violent. I said was that she's enraged which she admitted herself.
Don't you find it hypocritical of her that she didn't even criticize christian group for STEALING yet she's mad at atheists for using 'thou shall not steal sign'?

Being angry is not the equivalent of being a Jihadi. That is what you claimed originally and it is incorrect. No, I don't find it hypocritical of her not to criticize whoever stole the sign--that wasn't her point. (Who said it was a "Christian group"? No one said it and it never is a group that does this sort of thing. It is always an individual and, maybe a friend, who are usually rather stupid.)

Lily wrote

Being angry is not the equivalent of being a Jihadi. That is what you claimed originally and it is incorrect. No, I don't find it hypocritical of her not to criticize whoever stole the sign--that wasn't her point. (Who said it was a "Christian group"? No one said it and it never is a group that does this sort of thing. It is always an individual and, maybe a friend, who are usually rather stupid.)

Jihad isn't always about bombing or beheading. Jihad means "struggle/fight" which requires Muslims to "struggle in the way of God" or "to struggle to improve one's self and/or society" according to Islamic morals. She is clearly "enraged at atheists displays" and later she says "If you let them (atheists) do that, then they will have the control. If you don't stand up and fight for it, it might just disappear, I am talking about Christianity". How does she want christians to FIGHT for it?

[WITHTEETH]

TO clear the battlefield, here is the term you 2 are enraged about. hehe
ji·had [ji hd]
(plural ji·hads) je·had [ji hd] (plural je·hads)
noun
1. Islamic campaign against nonbelievers: a campaign waged by Muslims in defense of the Islamic faith against individuals, organizations, or countries regarded as hostile to Islam
2. hostile campaign: any hostile campaign, for example, a series of political advertisements attacking an adversary

Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

[Irreligious]

Lily wrote

Well, no, she doesn't. There is no such thing as a "Christian Jihadi". She is not enraged; she is disgusted. No Christian group has waged anything remotely like a terror campaign in many centuries, if ever. She is not suggesting that atheists be killed or imprisoned, is she? She is poking fun at them. There is a difference.

At 24 seconds into the video, Gretchen Carlson says: "I am just so enraged by all these atheist displays and trying to push Jesus to the back seat on Christmas Day..."

Carlson didn't say she was "disgusted." She said she was "enraged." Why are you putting different words in her mouth?

Carlson may not be calling for the slaying or imprisonment of outspoken atheists (at least, not in any overt way... yet) but she certainly does seek to abridge their rights to free speech by sanctioning the theft of atheists' signage, apparently.

It's curious that Michelle Malkin specifically used the term "Christmas wars" to describe the source of her alleged fatigue. I don't think that is a term that was coined by any atheist. She seems to perceive that there's some kind of war going on.

Yet, when Malkin suggested that, maybe, Christians might take the high road by leaving atheist signs alone, Carlson replied:

Yeah, but, Michelle, if you let them do that then, over time, they will have the control. That's my point. If you don't stand up and fight for it, it might just disappear. I'm talking about Christianity.

emphasis, mine.

If Carlson was joking, she left out the punchline. Otherwise, I don't know what's supposed to be funny about abridging others' rights to free speech. Carlson sounded pretty damned serious to me when she suggested that atheists ought not have a voice in the public square the way Christians do.

It was Malkin who suggested that mockery is the Christian's best defense, and I agree. I also say that turnabout is fairplay.

A Muslim struggles/fights for Islam = Jihadi
A Christian struggles/fights for Christianity = ?

[WITHTEETH]

Tamana wrote

A Muslim struggles/fights for Islam = Jihadi
A Christian struggles/fights for Christianity = ?

Crusade?

EDIT: An adventurous wholesome crusade where family members and children can all take part in hating infidels!

Buy the ticket, take the ride!

[Irreligious]

Lily wrote

Being angry is not the equivalent of being a Jihadi. That is what you claimed originally and it is incorrect. No, I don't find it hypocritical of her not to criticize whoever stole the sign--that wasn't her point. (Who said it was a "Christian group"? No one said it and it never is a group that does this sort of thing. It is always an individual and, maybe a friend, who are usually rather stupid.)

You don't know who stole the sign.

And the fact remains that what enraged Carlson was the idea of atheists exercising free speech and not that someone stole their property. Carlson even objected to the idea of atheists chastising those who stole from them, suggesting that only Christians should have that right because, in her mind, Christians invented the concept of "thou shalt not steal."

[psychodiva]

and being a typical christian she forgot all the philosophy and morality that preceded the invention of her own religion faux news with faux journalists indeed

Tamana wrote

Jihad isn't always about bombing or beheading. Jihad means "struggle/fight" which requires Muslims to "struggle in the way of God" or "to struggle to improve one's self and/or society" according to Islamic morals. She is clearly "enraged at atheists displays" and later she says "If you let them (atheists) do that, then they will have the control. If you don't stand up and fight for it, it might just disappear, I am talking about Christianity". How does she want christians to FIGHT for it?

I answered that in message #14. I quote:

"Fight for Christianity" has absolutely nothing to do with Jihad in western society. Nothing. It means "defend" and has lawyers, courts, and Christians standing up for their rights in mind. We are not Muslims and have never asserted ourselves with violence since the last Germanic tribes were civilized.

[Irreligious]

Got that, Tamana? Christians are not violent. Only Muslims are violent because they are not civilized. Christians never owned slaves that they abused and their Christian progeny never lynched people and employed violence to keep them in their places. They never fought wars with each other over in Ireland. They've never bombed abortion-clinics or murderd OB-GYNs in their own homes. Why, they haven't asserted themselves like that since the last Germanic tribes were civilized.

I know you can't stay on topic, nor can you actually think. But I have high hopes that someone, somewhere will read this and say to himself, "yep, that man is clueless and doesn't know how to think or respond".

Here are some hints:

When have the Methodists, as a Christian body, ordered that an abortuary be bombed?

When have the Baptists, as a Christian body, ordered any one to be lynched?

When did the Disciples of Christ, as a Christian body, employ violence against slaves?

When has the Catholic Church, as a Christian body, ordered that an an abortuary be bombed? When did it order violence in Ireland?

You couldn't be foolish enough to equate what an unstable or immature person chooses to do with the official policy of an entire corporate body, could you?









Why yes. You could.

[assilem]

Lily wrote

I know you can't stay on topic, nor can you actually think. But I have high hopes that someone, somewhere will read this and say to himself, "yep, that man is clueless and doesn't know how to think or respond".

Here are some hints:

When have the Methodists, as a Christian body, ordered that an abortuary be bombed?

When have the Baptists, as a Christian body, ordered any one to be lynched?

When did the Disciples of Christ, as a Christian body, employ violence against slaves?

When has the Catholic Church, as a Christian body, ordered that an an abortuary be bombed? When did it order violence in Ireland?

They didn't do anything to stop it either.
BTW, what the hell is an abortuary? Are you trying to say abortion clinic? Come on, say it like a big girl!

Onto Faux News. When my TV just stopped showing the Fox network, I had joked it was a conspiracy by Sarah Palin. I only watched it for Cold Case reruns and the Simpsons. (They're not as good as they used to be, but they're still better than half the crap out there.)

Abortuary is the right word for a place that has no other purpose than the deliberate killing of humans. Clincs don't exist to kill. Abortuaries do. Get it?