Current Events > Such peaceful preacher of a religion. Christian pastor says burn Pro-Gay schools

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/08/11/us-preacher-calls-for-lgbt-friendly-schools-to-be-burned-to-the-ground/amp/

"Religion of peace"
---

l33t_iRk3n_Rm33 posted...

20 bucks says you don't get modded for this even know they made it every single time someone says it about a Muslim

typical republican
---

stupid thing is he is probably one of the touchy feely kind of preachers

what a clown. what, does he think the flames will burn with prettier colors than a "regular" school?

people like that never have rational or even consistent beliefs anyway.
---

BootyGif posted...

l33t_iRk3n_Rm33 posted...

20 bucks says you don't get modded for this even know they made it every single time someone says it about a Muslim

Gosh diddly darn, I was hoping it would take at least two more posts after mine before someone deflected to Islam.
---

l33t_iRk3n_Rm33 posted...

"Religion of peace"

---

He said if you took people from the 50's and brought them to 2017, they would burn those schools to the ground. But I guess that isn't nearly click baity enough for this article
---

AngelsNAirwav3s posted...

He said if you took people from the 50's and brought them to 2017, they would burn those schools to the ground. But I guess that isn't nearly click baity enough for this article

it's pinknews. A heavily biased clickbait site.
---

Yeah, good thing one idiot represents tens of millions of people, right?

Like how do people not realize how incredibly asinine that logic is?
---

MakoReizei posted...

AngelsNAirwav3s posted...

He said if you took people from the 50's and brought them to 2017, they would burn those schools to the ground. But I guess that isn't nearly click baity enough for this article

it's pinknews. A heavily biased clickbait site.

His co-host Bill Jack said: “We need to burn them down.”

Terra-enforcer posted...

Yeah, good thing one idiot represents tens of millions of people, right?

Like how do people not realize how incredibly asinine that logic is?

Who said that

AngelsNAirwav3s posted...

He said if you took people from the 50's and brought them to 2017, they would burn those schools to the ground. But I guess that isn't nearly click baity enough for this article

That's because most of CE doesn't read the articles as already enters threads triggered by the thread title. The definition of baiting.
---

thanosibe posted...

AngelsNAirwav3s posted...

He said if you took people from the 50's and brought them to 2017, they would burn those schools to the ground. But I guess that isn't nearly click baity enough for this article

That's because most of CE doesn't read the articles as already enters threads triggered by the thread title. The definition of baiting.

His co-host Bill Jack said: “We need to burn them down.”

CruelBuffalo posted...

Terra-enforcer posted...

Yeah, good thing one idiot represents tens of millions of people, right?

Like how do people not realize how incredibly asinine that logic is?

Who said that

The people saying "religion of peace" as if this act is indicative of said religion.
---

certain people are more concerned about the usage of buzzwords than they are about truth and context. typically these people can't contribute in an intellectual way anyway.

some of these people are so ignorant with handling their emotions, using a buzzword marks the end of the conversation for them. regardless of how truthful and on point it is.
---

While saying this is disgusting, it's much better than another peaceful religion that's actually doing it.
---

The Admiral posted...

While saying this is disgusting, it's much better than another peaceful religion that's actually doing it.

like poetry
---

Terra-enforcer posted...

CruelBuffalo posted...

Terra-enforcer posted...

Yeah, good thing one idiot represents tens of millions of people, right?

Like how do people not realize how incredibly asinine that logic is?

Who said that

The people saying "religion of peace" as if this act is indicative of said religion.

Well, it is. Name one non-religious reason to burn down a pro-gay school.

It's not so much a problem with religion as it is a problem with a stagnant, unquestionable, uncompromising, logic-exempt authority. Which tends to come with religion.
---

@l33t_iRk3n_Rm33 posted...

Well, it is. Name one non-religious reason to burn down a pro-gay school.

The burden of proof lies on you. Where in the bible does it state that we should burn thousands of schools of people?

I also have an example of your question. Same reason an atheist would burn down any other structure (as many have done before). They're against what that group of people condones. That's essentially this "preacher's" logic. Nowhere in the Bible does it condone such an act as this, thus it's incredibly stupid to equate this act as an act of religion when nowhere in the religion does it support this.
---

Terra-enforcer posted...

l33t_iRk3n_Rm33 posted...

Well, it is. Name one non-religious reason to burn down a pro-gay school.

The burden of proof lies on you. Where in the bible does it state that we should burn thousands of schools of people?

oh jeez...
---

@RickyTheBAWSE posted...

Terra-enforcer posted...

l33t_iRk3n_Rm33 posted...

Well, it is. Name one non-religious reason to burn down a pro-gay school.

The burden of proof lies on you. Where in the bible does it state that we should burn thousands of schools of people?

oh jeez...

What's the problem?
---

Not schools per se, but the Bible does say that homosexuality is an abomination before the Lord and that those who practice it must be executed. Sure, a lot of Christians just take that to mean it shouldn't be done but don't be a violent dickhead about it, but at the end of the day, the means to convince oneself that killing homosexuals is the best thing you can do remains, and it only takes one guy to see it that way.
---

NTerra-enforcer posted...

I also have an example of your question. Same reason an atheist would burn down any other structure (as many have done before). They're against what that group of people condones.

?

You talkin to me about burden of proof and then go say that?

Besides, Atheism does not claim to be the moral absolute in the face of the relative few atrocities committed by those within it. It's literally the default option.

Also, believing that homosexuality is literally worse than murder (Bible says so) is a little more than "being against what a group condones."
---

l33t_iRk3n_Rm33 posted...

"Religion of peace"

---

l33t_iRk3n_Rm33 posted...

Not schools per se, but the Bible does say that homosexuality is an abomination before the Lord and that those who practice it must be executed. Sure, a lot of Christians just take that to mean it shouldn't be done but don't be a violent dickhead about it, but at the end of the day, the means to convince oneself that killing homosexuals is the best thing you can do remains, and it only takes one guy to see it that way.

That's an entirely different argument as there are multiple other passages in the New Testament that go into further detail on the matter (and most of the quotes about not condoning homosexuality is from people, not God himself).

But again, I digress. You still haven't shown me where in the Bible it says we should burn thousands of schools of children (which would include both homosexuals and heterosexuals alike). That's right, it does not. This guy just took his personal opinion on homosexuality to the extreme, something I have seen many atheists do as well.
---

There is no peaceful religion if it has violent acts, sadly people have yet to realize this.
---

hyperpowder posted...

l33t_iRk3n_Rm33 posted...

"Religion of peace"

---

It says homosexuality is worse than murder and that murderers should die. Do the math.
---

Frolex posted...

The Admiral posted...

While saying this is disgusting, it's much better than another peaceful religion that's actually doing it.

like poetry

He's like clockwork

CruelBuffalo posted...

thanosibe posted...

AngelsNAirwav3s posted...

He said if you took people from the 50's and brought them to 2017, they would burn those schools to the ground. But I guess that isn't nearly click baity enough for this article

That's because most of CE doesn't read the articles as already enters threads triggered by the thread title. The definition of baiting.

His co-host Bill Jack said: “We need to burn them down.”

Lmao conservatroll turds getting called out on their laziness
---

OmegaVideoGameG posted...

There is no peaceful religion if it has violent acts, sadly people have yet to realize this.

I prefer philosophies rather than a structured religion, tbh.
---

l33t_iRk3n_Rm33 posted...

NTerra-enforcer posted...

I also have an example of your question. Same reason an atheist would burn down any other structure (as many have done before). They're against what that group of people condones.

?

You talkin to me about burden of proof and then go say that?

Besides, Atheism does not claim to be the moral absolute in the face of the relative few atrocities committed by those within it. It's literally the default option.

Also, believing that homosexuality is literally worse than murder (Bible says so) is a little more than "being against what a group condones."

You're still just dodging my point here. And yes I say that. For one, the burden of proof still lies on you because of your remark. Second, do you really want me to link one of the dozens of articles or videos on Atheists burning various structures? I'm looking right now and I can see a whole page of them by merely googling "atheist burns."

What does being a "moral absolute" have to do with this guy taking matters into his own hands and doing things not stated into the text his religion is based on? Your logic is still completely asinine. What he does is not reflective of tens of millions of others, end of story. To think otherwise would be incredibly stupid.
---

CruelBuffalo posted...

Frolex posted...

The Admiral posted...

While saying this is disgusting, it's much better than another peaceful religion that's actually doing it.

like poetry

He's like clockwork

And he's right, as usual. You clowns can do nothing else but push false equivalence fallacies when your one-sided anger doesn't align with reality.

I mean, if what this one priest said upsets you, then what tens of millions of folks in the Middle East believe and do to homosexuals in that region must absolutely enrage you. Any other response is hypocritical.
---

Welcome back to the confederacy. Leave your rights at the door.
---

Swanson was one of my two guesses.
---

Schwarber posted...

CruelBuffalo posted...

thanosibe posted...

AngelsNAirwav3s posted...

He said if you took people from the 50's and brought them to 2017, they would burn those schools to the ground. But I guess that isn't nearly click baity enough for this article

That's because most of CE doesn't read the articles as already enters threads triggered by the thread title. The definition of baiting.

His co-host Bill Jack said: “We need to burn them down.”

Lmao conservatroll turds getting called out on their laziness

I mean your free to shit post assumptions about me and satisfy your bias but I didn't take a side at all. I merely pointed out that before my post, it was clear people didn't read the article TC posted and went off his thread title to make their posts. Both sides of this political shit posting bait to rile people up. But it's certainly clear your only contribution to this thread is insults.
---

thanosibe posted...

Schwarber posted...

CruelBuffalo posted...

thanosibe posted...

AngelsNAirwav3s posted...

He said if you took people from the 50's and brought them to 2017, they would burn those schools to the ground. But I guess that isn't nearly click baity enough for this article

That's because most of CE doesn't read the articles as already enters threads triggered by the thread title. The definition of baiting.

His co-host Bill Jack said: “We need to burn them down.”

Lmao conservatroll turds getting called out on their laziness

I mean your free to shit post assumptions about me and satisfy your bias but I didn't take a side at all. I merely pointed out that before my post, it was clear people didn't read the article TC posted and went off his thread title to make their posts. Both sides of this political shit posting bait to rile people up. But it's certainly clear your only contribution to this thread is insults.

Except the title is correct. You're the one who shitposted and didn't read it.

CruelBuffalo posted...

thanosibe posted...

Schwarber posted...

CruelBuffalo posted...

thanosibe posted...

AngelsNAirwav3s posted...

He said if you took people from the 50's and brought them to 2017, they would burn those schools to the ground. But I guess that isn't nearly click baity enough for this article

That's because most of CE doesn't read the articles as already enters threads triggered by the thread title. The definition of baiting.

His co-host Bill Jack said: “We need to burn them down.”

Lmao conservatroll turds getting called out on their laziness

I mean your free to shit post assumptions about me and satisfy your bias but I didn't take a side at all. I merely pointed out that before my post, it was clear people didn't read the article TC posted and went off his thread title to make their posts. Both sides of this political shit posting bait to rile people up. But it's certainly clear your only contribution to this thread is insults.

Except the title is correct. You're the one who shitposted and didn't read it.

Try again. I read it. People went off your thread title and came in with preconceived notions. I didn't even say at any point that your thread title wasn't correct. Both of you are reaching and trying to say I said something I didn't. People not reading articles in the OP before posting is a problem on CE and why this thread started the way it did. You seem to be the one taking it personally.
---

BootyGif posted...

l33t_iRk3n_Rm33 posted...

20 bucks says you don't get modded for this even know they made it every single time someone says it about a Muslim

Looks like you owe me 20 bucks. Got modded. Inb4 you try to act like I'm the one who said that.
---

Terra-enforcer posted...

l33t_iRk3n_Rm33 posted...

NTerra-enforcer posted...

I also have an example of your question. Same reason an atheist would burn down any other structure (as many have done before). They're against what that group of people condones.

?

You talkin to me about burden of proof and then go say that?

Besides, Atheism does not claim to be the moral absolute in the face of the relative few atrocities committed by those within it. It's literally the default option.

Also, believing that homosexuality is literally worse than murder (Bible says so) is a little more than "being against what a group condones."

You're still just dodging my point here. And yes I say that. For one, the burden of proof still lies on you because of your remark. Second, do you really want me to link one of the dozens of articles or videos on Atheists burning various structures? I'm looking right now and I can see a whole page of them by merely googling "atheist burns."

What does being a "moral absolute" have to do with this guy taking matters into his own hands and doing things not stated into the text his religion is based on? Your logic is still completely asinine. What he does is not reflective of tens of millions of others, end of story. To think otherwise would be incredibly stupid.

I'm attacking Christianity, not Christians. As long as the ideology continues to be considered valid, there will always be those who actually follow it.

Bible says gays have to die. That's a fact. Some Christians just ignore that because following it would make them murderers.

Were these structures burned in the name of Atheism? No, because an Atheist has no one to please by burning them.
---

Religion breeds hate and intolerance no matter the religion
---

thanosibe posted...

CruelBuffalo posted...

thanosibe posted...

Schwarber posted...

CruelBuffalo posted...

thanosibe posted...

AngelsNAirwav3s posted...

He said if you took people from the 50's and brought them to 2017, they would burn those schools to the ground. But I guess that isn't nearly click baity enough for this article

That's because most of CE doesn't read the articles as already enters threads triggered by the thread title. The definition of baiting.

His co-host Bill Jack said: “We need to burn them down.”

Lmao conservatroll turds getting called out on their laziness

I mean your free to shit post assumptions about me and satisfy your bias but I didn't take a side at all. I merely pointed out that before my post, it was clear people didn't read the article TC posted and went off his thread title to make their posts. Both sides of this political shit posting bait to rile people up. But it's certainly clear your only contribution to this thread is insults.

Except the title is correct. You're the one who shitposted and didn't read it.

Try again. I read it. People went off your thread title and came in with preconceived notions. I didn't even say at any point that your thread title wasn't correct. Both of you are reaching and trying to say I said something I didn't. People not reading articles in the OP before posting is a problem on CE and why this thread started the way it did. You seem to be the one taking it personally.

So because the title includes everything that happened in the article it's definition of clickbait? That's your shitty backpedeled defense?

there's nothing rational about arguments like that because they prioritize feelings over facts. emotion and desire over logic and understanding.

people like that can't be reasoned with and won't hold themselves accountable for anything they say/do. it's like that abusive husband who blames his wife for his violent rage, or that remorseful voter who blames other voters for their vote. no matter what, you're responsible for their feelings and actions.

"I'm too worked up to read about what I'm going to engage in! hope I don't make a fool of myself!"
---