The Kingdom of Jordan was rocked today by the purported murder of an Air Force pilot. He was burned to death. Burned. There are millions of Muslims in the world, and most of them do not support this brutal murder. If this can not convince you that Islamic Terror needs to be wiped from the Earth then you have a problem. The Jordanian government has issued a statement declaring that ISIS will see the power of Jordan. I hope the US government stands by them and gives them support, I am not a Muslim, but that poor man is in my prayers tonight, he is as much a hero as any American Soldier, serving his nation to death. God bless.

Religion is not peaceful, and anyone who believes that is a fool.

Would be lovely if it was easy to just nuke em but it's never that simple. Already Jordan is deciding to execute a woman it otherwise would have imprisoned; where are the lines drawn? IS must be wiped off the face in the Earth, but they are not the only evil in the world...

Religion is not peaceful, and anyone who believes that is a fool.

Jesus showing peace to all, even to unbelievers and people that did hurt him.
I don't believe everything that is written in the bible, and strictly speaking you could say that the "Religion" it self is not peaceful, but Jesus in my opinion is the most peaceful person that has ever lived. Jesus was also very progressive, so people that try to live like he did around 2000 years ago do not follow his example in my opinion.

Mohammed on the other hand was not very peaceful against people that did not take is word for the truth/did not follow him. The Islamic States continues to follow his example and therefore continue murder, including muslims that they think that do not follow Muhammad's example truly.

Religion is not peaceful, and anyone who believes that is a fool.

Not once you take into account over vague and contradictory religious texts tend to be, leaving them open to interpretation and available to put more weight on one part over another.

Would be lovely if it was easy to just nuke em

No, that would be horrible.

Would be lovely if it was easy to just nuke em

No, that would be horrible.

Person=Problem. No people, no problem.
It's harsh, but true.

My opinion is Fire bombs, burn the oilfields, kill their money, then dont negotiate, dont contact, dont speak of them as if they were a state, kill them all.

That's pretty much what's already been happening, albeit, half-assedly, but that has it's own problems. Domestic terrorism could increase, for some states, more of a problem than others. Russia would probably be in this war as well if Muslims didn't exist in Russia, China might, but that would be impossible.

I feel like if just stepped back a little and let the Middle East handle it they would, Iran is dead set on being the only radical state allowed to exist, they want ISIS dead too, they may be extremely sharia based,but even the Iranians don't want to murder people for no reason. (unless they're Jews of course)

unless they're Jews of course

As General Arun said, stuff usually isn't that simple:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Jews

and strictly speaking you could say that the "Religion" it self is not peaceful
Since the focus of Christianity is on a better afterlife and not on making life on this planet better there is no concept of violence in the name of Christianity. A "Christian State" that tries to conquer the world just wouldn't make any sense.

The ISIS has been called by Ban-Ki Moon

The Unislamic Nonstate

I must say, I agree. Not much order at all, and their religion isn't Islam, it's being violent. Islam /=/ violent.

A Christian State would make perfect sense, but again

Unchristian Nonstate

Jesus in my opinion is the most peaceful person

I give you the following from the bible...

So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds. (Revelation 2:22-23) -Jesus

Oh yes, what a peaceful man.

---

over vague and contradictory religious texts

kek

open to interpretation

I will strike her children dead.

Edited 2/4/2015 04:53:47

Jesus wasn't peaceful.
He was radical, sought to unify the people under one true God and did what he must to do what he could.

Just because they aren't peaceful doesn't mean they're not good/heroic.

After all, Jesus got crucified in all of our names. It's like the Margaritaville episode of South park. He paid off all of our credit card debt onto his own card. But by getting stapled to wood!

So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds. (Revelation 2:22-23) -Jesus

But this is what Johannes wrote in a letter "To the angel of the church in Thyatira"
so your "-Jesus" is incorrect, the writer is Johannes.

One could interpret: He is saying that Jesus will strike her(false prophet) children(followers) dead. In other words: Jesus will protect us so we, his followers do not have to resort to violence.

But Johannes wrote this after Jesus died, and Jesus never did hurt a single person as far as we know, and like told in my post, i do not believe everything* what is written in the bible. In this example I do believe that Johannes did write this, but that Jesus did really say that is not certain.
*I do not believe in the parts that are not historically reliable

Edited 2/4/2015 17:10:20

tl;dr - understand what you're talking about before you talk about it.

Muhammad - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad
Quran - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran

Jesus - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus
Bible - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible#Divine_inspiration

Religion - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
Faith - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

Generic statements will not address the entirety of this issue.

I am not a debater, I am simply going to post my understandings. I will not rebuttal, so please, no attempts to start a flame war. If you have genuine questions, you may invite me to a game and PM me.

Take religion out of the equation. Why do men (or women) strive to control or have power over others? Why is brutality used to establish this control? Why are laws created (even modern peaceful nations still have laws)? Does mankind need laws? What determines if a law is good or bad? Who should enforce those laws? Can a man governed by laws enforce said laws? Who governs the law enforcer? Can there be no law, no right or wrong?

These questions should point out that faith, belief and religion in a higher power or deity is not a 'crutch' or substitute. It is a vital part of humanity's nature that can only be addressed by establishing some kind of relationship of faith with a belief system or deity that establishes a code of right and wrong.

That only leaves the question, what are you going to do about it and why?

Human brutality is oppressive violence designed to force the victims to conform/submit to the aggressors ways. This can be 'disguised' as 'justice from a deity'. Many have tried this, including those who claimed to be of Muslim and Christian faiths at some point in time in History. Wrath as a first choice does not seem like the kind of deity I would chose to submit myself to. However, I understand the need of punishment.

A truly powerful deity (of note would be a creator of our universe) would not need to, though may chose to, use mankind to enforce its will or purpose. A just and righteous deity would establish right and wrong and punish those who chose wrong, every time without fail. A loving and gracious deity would want a enduring relationship with their creation (mankind) and desire that they to chose to follow the established right and wrong.

A just, righteous, loving, gracious and merciful deity (among other qualities) would establish right from wrong, enforce it 100% of the time, and recognize humanities inability to meet that standard. This type of deity would provide a way to maintain that relationship with mankind through a standard that still meets the just aspects of its nature and allows the loving aspects of its nature to forgive the failures. Though the failures would have to be addressed in some manner. (It sounds a little like circular logic at this point, right?)

In order to maintain the right to declare a standard, a just deity must 100% of the time do what is right. So how can it punish wrong without destroying the creation that it loves? Transferal of punishment to another is a common theme in religious faiths. Sacrifices of animals and in some cases other humans is littered throughout religious texts. But if a 100% righteous deity accepted another individual (who has broken the law) or lesser creature as the object of substitution for punishment, the deity would no longer be 100% just. Two wrongs don't make a right. Offering a bad individual (who is already due punishment for their own choices) in place of a another bad individual will not remove the need to punish both individuals.

A greater substitute must be offered in place of both (in fact, for all mankind). The only one capable of creating and offering this substitute would be the deity itself. The deity would have to create another Just, Righteous, Loving, Gracious & Merciful human, that would chose to adhere to the laws, love all humankind, offer them self as a substitute for punishment and bare the punishment for not a few, but all mankind.

This kind of punishment would utterly destroy a human or any other 'creation' of the deity. So the only true substitute would be the deity itself. Thus, a truly Just, Righteous, Loving, Gracious & Merciful deity would offer itself, in human form, as a flawless substitute for punishment.

So, then would mankind then be free to break the established law without consequence since the just and loving deity has born the brunt of the punishment for breaking the law? Wouldn't it be like spitting in the face of this gracious deity to say, 'thanks for everything, but I really don't want to obey your rules"? If this deity has gone this far, and done all these things, and yet mankind chooses to walk away from a free ride, why should the just deity do any more? At this point the deity has extended the offer, and mankind has refused. If the punishment was paid, but mankind chooses to reject the free gift to claim 'freedom from religious bondage", then they have chosen to reject the substitution and will have to face the full accounting of their actions.

I would not want to be these individuals. If a deity has given a part of itself to suffer the full punishment of my rebellion to its laws... I can only imagine the kind of punishment that would follow rejecting that sacrifice.

If my bias has not been revealed yet, then let me make it plain. I am a follower of Jesus Christ, and everything I've written here is true.

Colossians 1: 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by[f] him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. 21 And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, 23 if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, ... (ESV)

So, instead of looking for the one phrase or statement I made that you would launch a rather vigorous campaign to discredit what I've posted. Simply read the Bible, as well as the Quran, and the many other religious texts, and make a decision. Is there a God? Does he care? What is truth, what is right, what it wrong, and how does it effect you.

If you have questions, I would love to spend time talking to you about them.

Remember, I will not be responding to this post. I know that many will not like it, and I'm not interested in flame wars.

Thank you for your time.

That was..........amazing.*starts crying*

I was trying to say something like that but I couldnt word it correctly. You took the words out of their cage and set them free.

Clement, if it was possible, nuking these monsters would be lovely. I recognise it is not, and the knock on effects are horrible, but why would you not be happy to see these people obliterated?

How a talk about ISIS made you talk about Jesus......

How a talk about ISIS made you talk about Jesus......

THIS IS INTERNET!!!