DescentBB

You see the amazing tolerance and kindness that is spreading because of islam...

Report: Syrian rebels executed a 14-year-old boy for insulting Islam

When a 14-year-old boy from the Syrian city of Aleppo named Mohammad Qatta was asked to bring one of his customers some coffee, he reportedly refused, saying, “Even if [Prophet] Mohammed comes back to life, I won’t.”

According to a story reported by two grassroots Syrian opposition groups, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and the Aleppo Media Center, Qatta’s words got him killed. A group of Islamist rebels, driving by in a black car, reportedly heard the exchange. They stopped the car, grabbed the boy and took him away.

Qatta, in refusing to serve a customer coffee – it’s not clear why – had used a phrase that the Islamist rebels took as an insult toward the Prophet Mohammed, the most important figure in Islam. That offhand comment, made by a boy, was apparently enough for these rebels to warrant a grisly execution and public warning.

The rebels, according to ABC News’ reconstruction of the Syrian groups’ reports, appear to have whipped Qatta. When they brought him back to where they’d taken him, his head was wrapped by a shirt.

The rebels waited for a crowd to gather; Qatta’s parents were among them. Speaking in classical Arabic, they announced that Qatta had committed blasphemy and that anyone else who dared insult the Prophet Mohammed would share his fate. Then, the shirt still wrapped around the boy’s head, the rebels shot him in the mouth and neck.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wor ... ing-islam/

Not to mention our administration along with John McCain, is now supporting these islamist terrorist thugs and murderers.

Apparently the police didn't get there in time... At least no wanna-be hero had a gun, or a single killing could have turned into the "old west". [/sarcasm]

That's terrible. I can't believe nobody stepped in to stop it. No wonder those people are in trouble. They should form a posse, track them down, and hang them for murder. You've got to have law.

Sergeant Thorne wrote: They should form a posse, track them down, and hang them for murder. You've got to have law.

The irony is,
What you just described is exactly what the militants did to begin with.

REPORT: rebels are removing babies from their incubaters!

hey remember that load of chit?

CUDA wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote: They should form a posse, track them down, and hang them for murder. You've got to have law.

The irony is,
What you just described is exactly what the militants did to begin with.

As I see it, in that situation, everyone around them knows what happened, and everyone knows it was wrong, but they're too cowardly to do anything about it. A posse and a hanging isn't the pinnacle of justice, but I think there is a place for it in a place where there is no established law. I see a big difference between running down and putting to death men who publicly murdered a teenager that they had in their power already (and threatened everyone else with the same fate), and dispensing a beating followed by execution for a verbal slight. I don't think the community would be right until you put them to death.

As I see it, in that situation, everyone around them knows what happened, and everyone knows it was wrong, but they're too cowardly to do anything about it.

wrong by who's standards????

again this gets back to a previous thread. what do you base your morals on. in the Arab world this is not out of the ordinary. it our world this is horrific

I would really question whether that's true, CUDA. I'm not talking about some standard that you really have to meticulously rationalize, I'm talking about what that form of oppression and violence does to people's lives and to their sense of justice. If their sense of justice is so warped that they don't even consciously recognize what's happening to them, then I would say you're right, but I'm not wrong. If those parents don't feel anger at their loss, then they're in a bad way. I can appreciate that there may be some uniquely western ideas behind my notion of doing something to stop it, but I don't believe our civilization was the original birthplace of such ideas--just a good environment, for better and for worse.

this whole story speaks, once again, to the difficulty level of the decisions paced by ANY President. Despite all the fuss and clamor to do something about Assad, a LOT of consideration has to go into what may follow his regime. The consequences for the world could be substantial.....

Our president has to do something about this? Why?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Our president has to do something about this? Why?

our President doesn't HAVE to do something, but, anyone reading the news knows that he is under tremendous pressure by some in Congress to intervene on the side of the rebels.

The president doesn’t answer to congress, sounds like a pre-emptive strike to shift blame if something goes wrong with a presidential decision…in this case.

The president put skin in the game with his chemical red line comments, and now that it has been pretty much proven that they were used, and combine that with the fact that Russia is now aiding Syria, along with Iran & others…Well you get the idea.

But of course the spin doctors will need a fallback option, if something goes wrong.

Spidey wrote:The president doesn’t answer to congress, sounds like a pre-emptive strike to shift blame if something goes wrong with a presidential decision…in this case.

nothing of the case. In fact, I have been very pleased at the restraint shown to date, for the reasons I stated.

The president put skin in the game with his chemical red line comments, and now that it has been pretty much proven that they were used, and combine that with the fact that Russia is now aiding Syria, along with Iran & others…Well you get the idea.

indeed, I do.

But of course the spin doctors will need a fallback option, if something goes wrong.

most students of recent history will note that when the US intervenes(meddles?) in regions it doesn't fully understand, stuff DOES go wrong. Sometimes, badly wrong.

ya think executing boys is bad? Vladimir can one-up that story!!


http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013 ... flesh?lite

I vote for a variation on the old saying: "When your enemy is destroying himself stay out of his way".

We should arm both sides with all they want.

With all this intervention by multiple countries, I'm beginning to see the Syrian conflict as a modern day Spanish Civil War.

It's now looking like a war by proxy between Russia and the U.S. And that old warmonger John McCain wants to have us enforce a no-fly zone. Sounds like a recipe for creating a bigger war to me.

Will Robinson wrote:I vote for a variation on the old saying: "When your enemy is destroying himself stay out of his way".

We should arm both sides with all they want.

Lol, wise as usual , Will.

Heard them throwing handbags last week at Quneitra, bless em.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I would really question whether that's true, CUDA. I'm not talking about some standard that you really have to meticulously rationalize, I'm talking about what that form of oppression and violence does to people's lives and to their sense of justice. If their sense of justice is so warped that they don't even consciously recognize what's happening to them, then I would say you're right, but I'm not wrong. If those parents don't feel anger at their loss, then they're in a bad way. I can appreciate that there may be some uniquely western ideas behind my notion of doing something to stop it, but I don't believe our civilization was the original birthplace of such ideas--just a good environment, for better and for worse.

B-n-L Sergeant, that's true. The eastern world see life VERY differently than the west. I'm sure TB having talked to various folks from the Middle East can verify this. While I'm not saying Cuda's statement is accurate all inclusively, for the vast majority that are more fundamental in their religion. And I don't mean to the point of being radical. Saudi Arabia, Mid to southern Iran and others this would be fairly acceptable.

Will Robinson wrote:I vote for a variation on the old saying: "When your enemy is destroying himself stay out of his way".

We should arm both sides with all they want.

I don't want to be the hippie here, but these aren't victimless conflicts. To arm both would be to increase innocent casualties of war. I would say, rather, that we should force a resolution one way or the other. I'm not talking about forced peace talks, I'm talking supply an ally that we want to see control the entire middle-east, since western control seems to be unthinkable to them, and give them all of the backing they need to conquer all opposing regimes hostile toward us. Based on Biblical prophecy, I don't believe this could happen. Isreal will not be without enemies until the coming of the Lord, and on the same note the middle-east will not be without Isreal. So basically we would have to back both, and they are opposed to each other, so there goes that idea up in smoke. Unfortunately I can't even agree with the current U.S. government enough to suggest a position with regard to another country--my position is our own government is a significant problem.

You know, Duper, as someone who is very familiar with the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, I feel I have something of a grasp of the differences between eastern and western culture, even seeing some of them in my opinions VS some in American society. I still have a hard time seeing this as acceptable from the perspective of the victims. The perspective of those most directly effected is certainly the perspective that counts, and then empathy should be all that is wanting in other perspectives. They killed a man's son. Unless that man is a coward he should be gunning for them, and unless everyone else around concedes their right to do so (as well as to any of them), they should be willing to mount up as well. Is it Islam that keeps them afraid? Is it Eastern culture as a whole? Is it purely a separate culture of passive existence derived from living under the boot of various regimes? It gets me worked up just thinking about it!

Flabby Chick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I vote for a variation on the old saying: "When your enemy is destroying himself stay out of his way".

We should arm both sides with all they want.

Lol, wise as usual , Will.

Heard them throwing handbags last week at Quneitra, bless em.

Is that really so wise an idea? Look at all the weapons we gave the Taliban during their war with the Russians, a lot of which are now being used against the U.S. Nice return favor. Giving both sides a bunch of weapons is a recipe for future attacks against the U.S. or our allies. Nobody on either side in Syria likes the West, or Israel, so why give them anything at all?

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Christianity from the eyes of Christians.



Christianity from the eyes of their forced converts and conversos:

Convert or Die

Sooo.. that's still going on today?

Shall we bring up how Muhammad burned his way across northern Africa and into spain on his own convert or die mission?

It's also important to note that Christ never condoned such antics. You won't find it in the New Testament.

Islam on the other hand?

TC, then was then...now is now.

I love how everyone who cites “The Crusades” always leaves out the reason there were any Crusades in the first place.

That's a bastardization of Christianity any way you look at it, anyway, TC. Jesus warned would-be followers to count the cost. Christians are asked to give up their lives, and anyone who isn't doing that isn't a Christian. Being a Christian is no light thing, and nearly 99% of churches simply do not reflect the gospel. ...

I realize that Islam still lives in the past, which I agree is definitely most of their problem today. But don't try to gloss over your own sins. Christianity hasn't been so "humane" in it's the past either. But I do agree that they've at least modernized and come out of the Dark Ages.

However, if 99% if Christian churches do not represent the Gospel, ST, who does? Who's in the right? Your church, their church? All religions have some sordid history or acts from the past that they'd like to forget in the more civilized present. The Inquisition and forced Missionary Conversions of natives in many countries may have happened in the past, but it's still part of their history. Even today, missionaries are still going out all over the world to convert as many non-Christians as possible, especially Muslims. They aren't taking it well I either.

As to the Bible, the interpretation of it's passages varies depending on which translation you get, and there are at least 20 or more versions, each with subtle variations on the original meaning. What's the real word of God when humans write it and rewrite it century after century?

King James Version - Acts 3:19

"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord."


Easy-to-Read Version - Acts 3:19

"So you must change your hearts and lives. Come back to God, and he will forgive your sins."


New International Version - Acts 3:19

"Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord"

Try simply taking a bible into Saudi Arabia and avoid being arrested.

Try bringing a Koran into the U.S. ....oh....well, then try converting a Christian to Islam...oh..well then just try building a Mosque in the U.S....oh....

America, a predominantly Christian nation governed by a majority of Christian leaders, where Muslims and mosques are exempt from NSA wire taps but Christians and churches are not, yet some people feel compelled to draw parallels between the two cultures that are clearly not there. Why?

Will Robinson wrote:Try simply taking a bible into Saudi Arabia and avoid being arrested.

Try bringing a Koran into the U.S. ....oh....well, then try converting a Christian to Islam...oh..well then just try building a Mosque in the U.S....oh....

America, a predominantly Christian nation governed by a majority of Christian leaders, where Muslims and mosques are exempt from NSA wire taps but Christians and churches are not, yet some people feel compelled to draw parallels between the two cultures that are clearly not there. Why?

I don't like Islam either, especially as a woman. I would not shed a tear if the whole paternalistic, violent and repressive religion vanished tomorrow. But one religion is not better than the other if one looks at their past history. They all have their warts. Even Christianity is a paternal religion. Not my style.

But where do you get that Muslims are exempt from the NSA wire taps? Wanna bet? If we're hacking the Chinese, the Russians and everyone else in between, you can bet that we're hacking and listening into every Muslim business and mosque in the U.S. The NSA knows no laws and respects no courts from what I've heard.

Spidey wrote:I love how everyone who cites “The Crusades” always leaves out the reason there were any Crusades in the first place.

indeed

Gee! A Holy War between 2 religions, Christianity and Islam, for control of Jerusalem. Noble cause for them, but through politics, power and exuberance, it also ensnared those they thought to be inferior to the church, especially pagans, heretics and anyone excommunicated from the church. The Inquisition that came out of it sounded so nicely Christian, with wholesale torture and burning at the stake, don't you think?

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Try simply taking a bible into Saudi Arabia and avoid being arrested.

Try bringing a Koran into the U.S. ....oh....well, then try converting a Christian to Islam...oh..well then just try building a Mosque in the U.S....oh....

America, a predominantly Christian nation governed by a majority of Christian leaders, where Muslims and mosques are exempt from NSA wire taps but Christians and churches are not, yet some people feel compelled to draw parallels between the two cultures that are clearly not there. Why?

I don't like Islam either, especially as a woman. I would not shed a tear if the whole paternalistic, violent and repressive religion vanished tomorrow. But one religion is not better than the other if one looks at their past history. They all have their warts. Even Christianity is a paternal religion. Not my style.

But where do you get that Muslims are exempt from the NSA wire taps? Wanna bet? If we're hacking the Chinese, the Russians and everyone else in between, you can bet that we're hacking and listening into every Muslim business and mosque in the U.S. The NSA knows no laws and respects no courts from what I've heard.

It isn't "the religion" it is the implementation....its the culture. Without the support of the people/culture "religion" is just theory on paper.
The fact that you have to qualify your parallells by citing ancient history before the atrocities line up to be analogous tells volumes about the cultures and how far apart they are.

As for NSA tapping Muslims in spite of the order to exclude them....I certainly hope so!

But why do we have a naive president who thought that was a good idea? And I attribute it to naïveté out of generosity! You would think that after campaigning on the silly premise that on the day he was sworn in as President the Muslim world would become more friendly to the US due to his family ties to the religion....and then saw that it went the other way hard...
Well, i would hope that he wouldn't try to patronize his way into their favor again but he continues to do so. He is blinded by his own ego I think.

tunnelcat wrote:Even today, missionaries are still going out all over the world to convert as many non-Christians as possible, especially Muslims. They aren't taking it well I either.

As to the Bible, the interpretation of it's passages varies depending on which translation you get, and there are at least 20 or more versions, each with subtle variations on the original meaning. What's the real word of God when humans write it and rewrite it century after century?

King James Version - Acts 3:19

"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord."


Easy-to-Read Version - Acts 3:19

"So you must change your hearts and lives. Come back to God, and he will forgive your sins."


New International Version - Acts 3:19

"Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord"

1. You should read up on biblical translations vs. paraphrases. Know that a significant amount of scholarship goes into the study of the Bible in its original languages, and most Christians draw a distinction between the two.

2. You should read up on the reformation & the history of the modern protestant church. Many of people's complaints revolve around political moves that "Christian" governments pull behind the guise of religion.

3. You should read the gospels & compare Christ's example to actions taken by Christians that you oppose, I think you will find that pretty much all of the evil things Christians have done through the ages are not in keeping with Christ's example.

your SINS may be wiped out ... not people. common TC. You can read better than that.
*edit*
It's also important to note that context makes a deal of difference here. Peter is speaking to a Jewish assembly here. He isn't talking to the washed masses or an elect few to go out and beat the hell outta people until they "convert". NOWHERE in the new testiment is that ever stated or implied.
Here's the whole set"

Acts 3:11-26 - NIV translation wrote: 11 While the man held on to Peter and John, all the people were astonished and came running to them in the place called Solomon’s Colonnade. 12 When Peter saw this, he said to them: “Fellow Israelites, why does this surprise you? Why do you stare at us as if by our own power or godliness we had made this man walk? 13 The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. 14 You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. 15 You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. 16 By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus’ name and the faith that comes through him that has completely healed him, as you can all see.

17 “Now, fellow Israelites, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. 18 But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Messiah would suffer. 19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, 20 and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus. 21 Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. 22 For Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you. 23 Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from their people.’[a]

24 “Indeed, beginning with Samuel, all the prophets who have spoken have foretold these days. 25 And you are heirs of the prophets and of the covenant God made with your fathers. He said to Abraham, ‘Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed.’ 26 When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways.”

Link to above Verse

If missionaries are holding people at gun point or sword point or putting electrodes to their genitalia, or swiping kids off the streets. I would "just" venture a guess that they don't really know who Jesus is.

Also, Muhammad's crusade wasn't against Christians. It was against everyone that didn't believe as he did. I have never backed the actions of the Christian crusades. And there is noting I can do about them 800 years later. Talk to the Masons about that.

tunnelcat wrote:I realize that Islam still lives in the past, which I agree is definitely most of their problem today. But don't try to gloss over your own sins. Christianity hasn't been so "humane" in it's the past either. But I do agree that they've at least modernized and come out of the Dark Ages.

However, if 99% if Christian churches do not represent the Gospel, ST, who does? Who's in the right? Your church, their church? All religions have some sordid history or acts from the past that they'd like to forget in the more civilized present. The Inquisition and forced Missionary Conversions of natives in many countries may have happened in the past, but it's still part of their history. Even today, missionaries are still going out all over the world to convert as many non-Christians as possible, especially Muslims. They aren't taking it well I either.

As to the Bible, the interpretation of it's passages varies depending on which translation you get, and there are at least 20 or more versions, each with subtle variations on the original meaning. What's the real word of God when humans write it and rewrite it century after century?

King James Version - Acts 3:19

"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord."


Easy-to-Read Version - Acts 3:19

"So you must change your hearts and lives. Come back to God, and he will forgive your sins."


New International Version - Acts 3:19

"Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord"

I appreciate your confusion on the matter. My family invested a fair amount of time over the years learning the answers instead of collecting the questions. The KJV is, overall, the most accurate translation of the most reliable manuscripts. The NKJV made some errors, but generally did a fair job of making the KJV more readable. The NIV, and just about every other new or popular version are actually based on unreliable manuscripts that did not agree with the "majority text" that the KJV and NKJV are based on, and even though they get it right here and there, their method of translation largely relies on their inescapably limited understanding of the message rather then an accurate representation of the meaning of the original language itself.

To answer your question about who is right is simple (and I don't have a church), it's whoever is in agreement with the Bible. If the Bible says do this this way, and you're not, how can you call what you're doing Christianity if the Bible is the gospel and message of Christ? The truth is people don't want Christianity, but they do want their religion to make them feel good about themselves, and then over the generations the knowledge of the compromise is lost and people just aren't careful enough to know why they do what they do, and to criticize their shortcomings. So people in churches believe they are in agreement with the Bible, but they don't even really know their Bible, so they think Christianity is something it is not. Teaching Christianity would get a person thrown out of most churches today.

Snoopy, I definitely separate Christ from the actions of people or churches who call themselves "Christians". It's people, those who call themselves followers and who sometimes do terrible things to others and then justify those things as righteous, all in His name. That's what absolutely revolts me.

Duper, I don't believe in sin. I believe human beings are a product of their genetic programming and what they learn throughout life. If there is a creator, He made us that way in order for us to survive in a tough, changing and cruel world. But part of that programming and learned behavior is that things can go terribly wrong and create someone bad or evil. Such is life, survival and death and the way we were made. There is no Devil and there is no sin that can be magically wiped clean just by believing that Christ died for our sins. It's too easy of an out in my book for those who do evil things to others. One person's sin can end up another person's accomplishment. It's all a matter of the social definition of what's evil and what's not. People can redeem themselves in either their own eyes, or the eyes of others, but they can never wipe the slate clean. What's done is done, pay the piper.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:To answer your question about who is right is simple (and I don't have a church), it's whoever is in agreement with the Bible. If the Bible says do this this way, and you're not, how can you call what you're doing Christianity if the Bible is the gospel and message of Christ?

If the meanings in the Bible are always shifting, how can anyone agree with it? But even if you can gloss that one over, there is one simple thing that absolutely makes me NOT like most of the teachings in the Bible. This also applies to the Koran as well. It's the male-centric, male dominant, female repressive themes that run through through these religious texts ad infinitum. Men wrote them and men are fallible. Even God is described as male, which of course makes absolutely no effing sense for an omniscient being, who would NOT need to reproduce biologically, to even have a gender. I am my own being with my own desires, wishes and life choices. I'm not a slave, or a fornicator, or an evil temptress who's purpose is to defile and pervert men, or my husband's property or a convenient piece of flesh, who's sole purpose is to live under the domination of men.

tunnelcat wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:To answer your question about who is right is simple (and I don't have a church), it's whoever is in agreement with the Bible. If the Bible says do this this way, and you're not, how can you call what you're doing Christianity if the Bible is the gospel and message of Christ?

If the meanings in the Bible are always shifting, how can anyone agree with it? But even if you can gloss that one over, there is one simple thing that absolutely makes me NOT like most of the teachings in the Bible. This also applies to the Koran as well. It's the male-centric, male dominant, female repressive themes that run through through these religious texts ad infinitum. Men wrote them and men are fallible. Even God is described as male, which of course makes absolutely no effing sense for an omniscient being, who would NOT need to reproduce biologically, to even have a gender. I am my own being with my own desires, wishes and life choices. I'm not a slave, or a fornicator, or an evil temptress who's purpose is to defile and pervert men, or my husband's property or a convenient piece of flesh, who's sole purpose is to live under the domination of men.

First, the meanings of clearly written text only "shift" when it's convenient for someone who is either taking advantage or is hiding from the plain truth. The meanings of the Bible do not shift. People shift. I don't go along with the Catholic church, the Mormon church, the Jehovah's Witness church, the main-stream Protestant denominations, or any other organization which declares doctrinal changes according to cultural expedience, for the survival of their cult/business. The Bible is clear--God does not change.

Second, I'm really unconcerned with your ideas of feminine equality, and whether or not you like Christianity. I was just trying to set you straight on a couple of things. At the same time, in response to your weak arguments, I would point out that it's an assumption without basis that God, who made MAN in his own image could not be male, simply because of the sexuality of his creations. Then you throw out a bunch of random, misogynistic bull★■◆● that is not found in the Bible... What you are is a woman, and if you didn't spend your life trying to be equal to men, you might have taken note that in many subtle ways you are not the same. I think a person would be unable to prove, from the Bible, that women are innately inferior, as individuals, in the sight of God, to men. But the Bible assigns a place for women in life. It isn't the place the society has put them, 100 years ago, or now, and it isn't necessarily the place your local church would have them in, or a place you could even appreciate having come through life as you have, but God says it's the way things were meant to be, if we are to accept the claims of scripture. Personally I believe it's not something that many men or women grasp entirely, but it's all in there whether it's understood or not. No offense, but people believe all kinds of foolish things about who has the right to do what. It causes children to be without necessary guidance and restraint (to touch on something that might be easier to see), for instance, because it assumes they are something which they are not. Children need parents, and they need parents to be parents. In a similar way (not to compare women with children), women need men to be men (and men need women to be women). I'm going to do my best, in the event I get married, to fulfill the responsibilities of a man. I am not going to rule my wife with an iron rod, so to speak, but I'll be damned if the authority that comes with addressing the aspects of life that a man needs to meet is going to be subverted because my wife has some confused notion of equality. In a great many ways we may be equal, but in some ways, for some purposes, we are most certainly not. It's a God-given responsibility, not a gender-specific birthright.

Of course, the world is a fucked up place. People mistreat people, elements of society justify this mistreatment, or rebel against it and swing the pendulum in the opposite direction . I wouldn't try to justify any of that. It's a mess, and the Bible says it's a mess, and why, so what more do you want? If you are looking for the Bible to justify any specific strain or occurrence of "Christianity", present or historical, in order to legitimize itself, you have it exactly backwards, and you're definitely barking up the wrong tree.

I should add that I believe that women insisting on a certain respect from men, and not allowing themselves to be objectified or enslaved is a noble trait, but I have rarely seen it displayed without gross excesses added on to it, and it usually results in a woman walking around with a chip on their shoulder which only a male can disturb. A woman that demands respect from me must respect that which is unique to my state in life. Usually I find that the demand is made at the expense of my state, and my responsibilities as a man. That, in a nutshell, is why I do not care for feminists.

See Thorne, all of what you're saying is funny because it was originally the Church that came to a consensus on what should or shouldn't be in the Bible in the first place. In lieu of the entire book falling fully-formed directly from God's hands to yours, Christianity itself was what legitimized the Bible, not the other way around.

Regardless TC, that's the context in which that bit of scripture is being applied. Peter is addressing the sin, the condition of the peoples' hearts, not the eradication of the populace.

Sin is in relation to God, not the devil. God makes account for sin, not people. There are consequences for sin both here and within God's kingdom. You can be forgiven but still will endure punishment (divorce, broken family, death, arrested, jailed, executed etc.). I state this only as a matter of clarification within doctrine, not to change your mind.