Crime 9+ dead in Munich shopping centre terrorist attack; at least 3 shooters suspected

[ripskater]

I will concur that Islam is 1000 times more dangerous then Christianity, but god i hate Evangelicals.

You may hate me but I won't murder you. So we should probably join together against all this and keep Islam from immigrating to the USA.

 

[lifelessheap]

That isn't peaceful ...<11>

 

[lifelessheap]

And George Zimmerman the 'white hispanic'. Now we've got Ali Sonboly the 'white power Iranian immigrant'.

Multiple news sites were caught photoshopping Zimmerman's pics to drain him of color and make him appear as white as possible. They will stop at nothing.

 

[Zankou]

Re-read John 1
The Word was God and the Word became flesh.
This has nothing to do with the Nicene council.
How anyone can misinterpret the meaning of this verse is beyond me.
Also Christians don't say that Muslims stole or misinterpret the Holy Bible, nice straw man.
We could care less about the quran for all we know Satan wrote that book.

Gospel of John was written about 100 AD as Christianity was in the midst of coalescing as a divergent sect of Messianic Judaism. I realize Christians consider it the ahistorical revealed word of God, but that's why I distinguish Christianity as a historical phenomenon from the Christianity of Faith. For the first few centuries, enormous numbers of Christians believed that Jesus was God's messiah, but not equal to God the Father. Being God's word, part of his identity, and his son, does not logically make one equal to the Father any more than my own word, my son, or my liver, is equal to me. Trinitarian absolute equality was a weird and late theological doctrine, historically speaking, though it eventually became dominant and crushed its competitors.

It took many centuries of bitter theological dispute before an understanding of what the Johanine formulation meant was formed and reached the specific Nicene consensus ... In terms of what the divinity of Christ was and how it related to the Father.

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

Here we go again.

Broken record time line of terror attack:

.Major terror attack takes place.
.Lets not jump to any conclusiions, it's racist to assume this was a Muslim.
.Turns out the guys name was Abdul Muhammed and he was screaming Allahu Akbar as he killed people.
.He was just a crazy lone wolf, he might not have been linked to any Islamic groups, his religon is just a coincidence. Stop being racist.
.Turns out he was recruited by ISIS, attented Mosques with known radical preachers, was on a terror watch list and had a wide network of support within his comminity with several of his accomplices arrested.
.He was not a real Muslim, him and groups like ISIS have nothing to do with Islam, Islam is a religion of peace. You are just being racist.
.Que social media idiots - but..but..what about the terror attacks in Pakistan/Iraq/Syria/Afghanistan etc, why don't you care about them.
. Que outrage - people are giving Muslims funny looks, this is WAY worse than the mass murder that took place. Anti-Muslim sentiment is the real threat of extremism we face.
.Politicians and talking heads bang on about unity, winning hearts and minds, not letting terror win etc.
.People bury their heads back in the sand.
. A few weeks later.............100 killed in Belgium nightclub attack

and repeat.

That being said it s not an act of terrorism. That guy could have been of any origin. They found a bunch of shit on mass shootings in his room, stuff about Breyvik.

Just another looser asshole who snaped and went on a shooting spree.

His Iranian origins are not relevant imo.

 

[Ruprecht]

Multiple news sites were caught photoshopping Zimmerman's pics to drain him of color and make him appear as white as possible. They will stop at nothing.

Hardly comparable. In this case it was early reporting based on the mobile phone video of his conversation on the balcony. He said he was German and made disparaging comments about Turks/immigrants, hence the speculation about possible right-wing/nationalist motivation.
At the same time there was a woman who witnessed the events claiming he was shouting, "Allah Akhbar", and the outlets that caught that were reporting it as Islamic terrorism.

 

[unimackpass]

I will concur that Islam is 1000 times more dangerous then Christianity, but god i hate Evangelicals.

Ha, this is kinda funny, for sure some of the evangelical world can be pretty annoying sometimes but it's usually not the silent minority that people engage with. Having said that their motive is mostly good. Bin hanging out with some Antiocian Orthodox Christians and the tone is a bit different. Trace their roots to Antioch where Acts says they were first called Christians.

 

[wandiswar]

Ha, this is kinda funny, for sure some of the evangelical world can be pretty annoying sometimes but it's usually not the silent minority that people engage with. Having said that their motive is mostly good. Bin hanging out with some Antiocian Orthodox Christians and the tone is a bit different. Trace their roots to Antioch where Acts says they were first called Christians.

 

[unimackpass]

That being said it s not an act of terrorism. That guy could have been of any origin. They found a bunch of shit on mass shootings in his room, stuff about Breyvik.

Just another looser asshole who snaped and went on a shooting spree.

His Iranian origins are not relevant imo.

This is a interesting element to this discussion. How does the culture someone comes out of affect their overall disposition even if their not directly connected to a terrorist group . If the exposure is there's no value to the heathen around them and prior "terrorist" gain a kind of rock star status amongst some Muslims then you end up with essentially the same result from the same source.

 

[unimackpass]

Well, I tried, I tried.

 

[wandiswar]

Well, I tried, I tried.

Your cool in my book mate.

 

[maddog7]

Gospel of John was written about 100 AD as Christianity was in the midst of coalescing as a divergent sect of Messianic Judaism. I realize Christians consider it the ahistorical revealed word of God, but that's why I distinguish Christianity as a historical phenomenon from the Christianity of Faith. For the first few centuries, enormous numbers of Christians believed that Jesus was God's messiah, but not equal to God the Father. Being God's word, part of his identity, and his son, does not logically make one equal to the Father any more than my own word, my son, or my liver, is equal to me. Trinitarian absolute equality was a weird and late theological doctrine, historically speaking, though it eventually became dominant and crushed its competitors.

It took many centuries of bitter theological dispute before an understanding of what the Johanine formulation meant was formed and reached the specific Nicene consensus ... In terms of what the divinity of Christ was and how it related to the Father.

It is specifically said that the 'Word was God' not son, not liver or whatever.

Sure, there were people arguing like you are now but they were wrong and if they wilfully denied the Godhood of Christ we cannot consider them Christians. That wouldn't make sense.

I understand that you are looking at this from a historian's point of view.
But theological debates are useless if you don't believe.
It is a faith and reason won't get you there.

Christianity as a faith is very different from Islam as a faith.
Do you agree with that?

 

[in the]

I'm really resisting the urge to jump into a Christian theological debate because it had absolutely nothing to do with the shooting.

Let's just say Nicene wasn't the start of anything, it was a confirmation of what already was, a weeding out of movements trying to leach off of the church. I'll just leave it at that. Not the time or place for this - though I will give Sherdog credit, the "but Christianity" red herring didn't pick up steam until well after 1,000 posts. That has to be a record.

 

[Amerikuracana]

I'm glad you posted. To the sjw and the globalist new world order, Christianity is the real enemy here.

The common white man has always had power on a large scale when they were morally (Christian, really) driven, when they were leaders where they were in terms of a nation, and when they were leaders in their own home. There can only be one world leader, and aggressive forces will always identify the enemy and attack it. No other group has been able to stand up to tyranny, to stand up for their rights, to create a strong working class, or anything the powers that be would like to prevent, like the European male has... No other people other than perhaps Japanese; with the help of the Constitution we gave them, and their military being neutered, they also have been able to do it.

Thing is, it might not be as "conscious" of an effort as conspiracy theory may predict.. It's almost like a Force.. Like money, greed, extravagance for the few, and immoral behavior conquering all is the force driving the bus, free from the confines of a few peoples intentions, who are intentionally driving the bus in this fashion. Maybe it's.. Evil? Maybe it is a conspiracy of the few to make sure the only people that are a real threat are taken down so far they can never stand up. If you aren't white and are reading this, when that happens, you lose too.

 

[Islam Imamate]

You've said that already. No one said there aren't any differences, so what was the point of stating that? You're trying to BS you're way out of this, but it's way too obvious. There was no evidence that this individual was 'spontaneously radicalized' or whether he did or didn't have larger connections. You said they're not known for these sorts of attacks, but you had none of the necessary details to make that claim.

I was putting this attack in the context of previous attacks where many of the terrorists have been individuals who were radicalized and pledged allegiance to ISIS but also noting that his nationality, which might suggest he is Shiite, could point to differences between this attack and the others.

Then it was a meaningless point to make.

Any time any of these attacks happens ISIS is a prime suspect, mentioning them is hardly unreasonable.

 

[unimackpass]

Gospel of John was written about 100 AD as Christianity was in the midst of coalescing as a divergent sect of Messianic Judaism. I realize Christians consider it the ahistorical revealed word of God, but that's why I distinguish Christianity as a historical phenomenon from the Christianity of Faith. For the first few centuries, enormous numbers of Christians believed that Jesus was God's messiah, but not equal to God the Father. Being God's word, part of his identity, and his son, does not logically make one equal to the Father any more than my own word, my son, or my liver, is equal to me. Trinitarian absolute equality was a weird and late theological doctrine, historically speaking, though it eventually became dominant and crushed its competitors.

It took many centuries of bitter theological dispute before an understanding of what the Johanine formulation meant was formed and reached the specific Nicene consensus ... In terms of what the divinity of Christ was and how it related to the Father.

Thro

Gospel of John was written about 100 AD as Christianity was in the midst of coalescing as a divergent sect of Messianic Judaism. I realize Christians consider it the ahistorical revealed word of God, but that's why I distinguish Christianity as a historical phenomenon from the Christianity of Faith. For the first few centuries, enormous numbers of Christians believed that Jesus was God's messiah, but not equal to God the Father. Being God's word, part of his identity, and his son, does not logically make one equal to the Father any more than my own word, my son, or my liver, is equal to me. Trinitarian absolute equality was a weird and late theological doctrine, historically speaking, though it eventually became dominant and crushed its competitors.

It took many centuries of bitter theological dispute before an understanding of what the Johanine formulation meant was formed and reached the specific Nicene consensus ... In terms of what the divinity of Christ was and how it related to the Father.

100 AD is actually very close to 33 AD, the crucifixion. Much of trinitarian theology came out of Paul's writings and other nt books. The writings of the apostolic fathers and church fathers confirm the early church conviction of the divinity of Christ. A lot of the discusion was based around how to describe transendent concepts to finite minds.

 

[unimackpass]

It is specifically said that the 'Word was God' not son, not liver or whatever.

Sure, there were people arguing like you are now but they were wrong and if they wilfully denied the Godhood of Christ we cannot consider them Christians. That wouldn't make sense.

I understand that you are looking at this from a historian's point of view.
But theological debates are useless if you don't believe.
It is a faith and reason won't get you there.

Christianity as a faith is very different from Islam as a faith.
Do you agree with that?

For sure faith is a element here but it's a faith built on the most plausible interpretation of evidence. If it's faith only then one might as well believe in the plates smith dug up. A lot of people ended up believing because of theological debates based on reason even though they started out a sceptic. Interesting listening to Peter Hitching talk about his own conversion.

 

[Coolidge]

I was putting this attack in the context of previous attacks where many of the terrorists have been individuals who were radicalized and pledged allegiance to ISIS but also noting that his nationality, which might suggest he is Shiite, could point to differences between this attack and the others.

Now you're just getting silly. The facts of the case did not fit the narrative you spun. You had your mind made up about the attack and made statements that went along with this fictional scenario. Your entire basis for downplaying the Muslim terrorist element was that Iranians typically don't commit these sorts of attacks. According to the statement you just made, 'these sorts of attacks' was supposed to refer to 'spontaneously radicalized' lone actor terrorism. You didn't know whether any of this was reality at the time you commented.

 

[Coolidge]

Hardly comparable. In this case it was early reporting based on the mobile phone video of his conversation on the balcony. He said he was German and made disparaging comments about Turks/immigrants, hence the speculation about possible right-wing/nationalist motivation.
At the same time there was a woman who witnessed the events claiming he was shouting, "Allah Akhbar", and the outlets that caught that were reporting it as Islamic terrorism.

He didn't. That was the man on the balcony.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Now you're just getting silly. The facts of the case did not fit the narrative you spun. You had your mind made up about the attack and made statements that went along with this fictional scenario. Your entire basis for downplaying the Muslim terrorist element was that Iranians typically don't commit these sorts of attacks. According to the statement you just made, 'these sorts of attacks' was supposed to refer to 'spontaneously radicalized' lone actor terrorism. You didn't know whether any of this was reality at the time you commented.

I never downplayed the Muslim terrorist element. Its clear you have your mind made up about what I believe despite my clarifying multiple times what I believe. There is no point in continuing this conversation if you're going to keep projecting onto me and building strawman.