General News Christian Beheads Jihadist

I really can't say much here. I hate ISIS, and I think they need to be eliminated for all the terror they cause. I'm reluctant to call this man's actions "good", but people definitely shouldn't sit back and let ISIS terrorize their people. There certainly is little room for mercy for ISIS members, because they will take any chance they get to kill you for not converting to their beliefs.

Many people agree with "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind". However, what type of punishment could the ISIS member have gotten in an area that is overrun by his allies? The man who caught him would of been killed if he waited too long.

 

By what means did he "find out" that the person was an IS militant? If it was on the basis of hearsay, I'm not convinced beheading him was a good idea.

If, on the other hand, the person freely admitted to being an IS militant or member, I am very hard-pressed to come up with condemnation for his summary execution.

~ Adrienne

 

I'm glad I have no religion, and live in a part of the country where it holds little sway.

 

It's awful! Fighting brutal violence with more brutal violence just makes you no better than them. It's shameful and disgusting that any person could justify murder of a muslim with the fact that some other muslims kill people. That's like me going into Germany and killing everyone, because some Germans killed people in wars. I can't ever agree to killing, ever. Even if the guy deserved it - which he probably didn't - that doesn't make murder right.

 

I agree completely - the solution to people beheading people is not to behead people.

 

Yeah...both religions suck though....actually: all religions suck, even the one from my favorite Israel or the tolerant Buddhism.

Religions are conservative views though, nothing surprising about news like that: "american conservative christian attacks con from england..." etc.

 

Not all religions are conservative

 

There are also radicals among Christians. In the U.S., they have been known to create havoc at abortion clinics, including having killed some of the people who work at them from time to time.

I was disturbed by this headline, but I wasn't surprised, either.

 

Well a moderate liberal christian here and one of many lol

 

I don't know why he is labeled as Christian, when there is nothing in Christianity that tells you to behead someone

This is just awful.

 

Agreed

 

I agree with you, if only the rest of the country was as non-religious as Baltimore, it too could be just as peaceful and safe a place to live.
From the mayor down to the least affluent homeless person, Baltimore is a true image of mankinds love for one another.
I think that is why there is so little problem with drugs there vs those other places in the country that have been destroyed by the religious fanatics.

 

I agree with Im Hazel.

Depends on what part of the Bible you look. Clearly the Old Testament didn't care so much about those things:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+17

And yes, I know it's the Old Testament and I know people say it doesn't apply anymore (which is something I'm not going to debate about right now). And it's not beheading, it's stoning to death.

The point is, it's in there. For a book that's supposedly perfect (or something that supposedly comes close), I find this to be very wrong. Even if it doesn't apply anymore, it's odd that it ever did make sense to anyone or was ever justifiable. So I'm not too surprised if people call themselves Christians and follow lines like these. While others, thankfully, don't adhere to these kind of things, others might. However, that doesn't mean that the person out of nowhere is no Christian basically because they follow other rules from the Bible than you do.

 

I don't think religion has anything to do with it really. Fanatics, crazy people exist in all races, religions, and walks of life. People just like pointing the finger and saying "Oh those atheists!" or "Oh those Christians!", when the fact is it has nothing to do with any such beliefs. Only specific beliefs or religions actually mandate such practices, like in Islam, but the fact here is a crazy person out of hate murdered another.

Good trees = good fruit
Bad trees = bad fruit

It's not limited to specific sects.

---------- Post added 30th May 2015 at 03:24 PM ----------

Pretty sure people today did not agree to this covenant and swore to live by the Lord's rules and live in the city where He is worshipped. If you break the law of the town, there were consequences. It has nothing to do with Old or New testament, or whether it's right or wrong, because none of us live in that time under that law under that context.
It's entirely different. If an ignorant person wants to blindly follow rules they do not understand for a purpose they do not comprehend, they'll do it. Heck, people like olives and I have no idea why; anything is possible.

 

It doesn't matter whether none of us live in that time right now. I'm solely saying that it is in the book, and some people interpret those kind of things as relevant. While this specific thing might not be regarded relevant anymore, other parts from the Old Testament are definitely regarded relevant by others, no matter whether other people say it doesn't apply to them.

The point is, it's in it. It's in there. If it was so extremely obvious that it only applies to people of a specific time and area/city, there would likely have been less issues with these kind of things, don't you think?

People like olives and that can be explained. Look it up, it's easily there. Your analogy here doesn't add much to your story.

Besides, if you are talking about blindly following.. That's a matter of how you look to it. One might call any follower a blind follower, but that doesn't make it right. "Blindly" following might be not-blind in the eyes of someone else.

The point is, the person killed someone else, but you don't know why is labeled a Christian. All I'm trying to say is that it's not your job to decide whether he is a Christian or not. There are many branches of Christianity. Him killing someone doesn't make him "not a Christian", because you don't share his viewpoints.

 

Quem, I understand your argument, but I think the point is that a Christian is supposed to emulate Jesus Christ. And Jesus did not call for people's beheading. The Old Testament is meant to be read in context and as a history in many ways. It's the same argument people make to support that ISIS is only "following the Qur'an". However, read in context, you can say that they absolutely are not following the Qur'an. Context does matter.

 

I was not trying to upset you, the olive thing was a joke.

If someone thinks news from 100 or 1000 or more years ago is relevant to today, that's their agenda. The Bible does not just have doctrine in it, but is also a history book among other things. Our laws today would be as relevant back then, as the laws back then would be today. Furthermore everyone living back then agreed to those laws, and often they were not even fully followed. When you get a license to drive a car, you agree to not drink and drive, if you do you receive the written punishment. It's a poor citing because unless the individual is a fool, they know it holds no barring to the now.

I don't know, I don't live in Israel and have not personally witnessed a stoning. Though I imagine if I saw a Christian stalk someone that enjoys worshipping the stars and the moon, along with atleast 2-3 witnesses and took them to the gate of the local McDonalds and threw rocks at them, I'd likely be alarmed and have a chat with them about how they clearly do not understand doctrine or common sense.

Again it was a joke, olives are yucky Dx

Abstract semantics, we could say the same thing about anything, just because someone /thinks/ 2+2 could be 22, does not mean it is. if they want 2+2 to be 5, or 22, they could be right in their eyes all they want, and could call me blind for thinking it equals 4. The point is they are ignorant or unlearned in the context and understanding of the subject.

Well when you do things, that categorically go against Christianity, then yes, you are not a Christian. That aside, I was moreso commenting about how the label felt arbitrary and unnecessary.

"White man eats BurgerKing burger"
Was labelling him as white necessary?

"Trans man walk a dog"
Why is it necessary to point out he is trans?

That was all. If it had said anything else I'd feel the same way. Just seems like the article is trying to cause a buzz or make a larger story for itself.

 

Pretty much what Pret Allez said. I can't say it in a better way.

That's extreme. Not every German is a Nazi, just like how not every Muslim is an ISIS member. If you were to kill random people in Germany just because they are German, I would judge the hell out of you. If you were to kill a member of the SS, on the other hand, and you knew for a fact that he was a member of the SS, I wouldn't be against that at all.

If you don't think killing is EVER acceptable, consider this. What if you had the chance to kill Adolf Hitler? Would you still believe that murder is never acceptable, even if doing so could save millions of innocent lives?

 

And down the rabbit hole we go, hold on to your carrots folks. It is going to get a bit bumpy.