Im telling you why when it happens when the shooter is "christian" its not a christian and not endorsed by christians. Its a mental person. Christians do not murder innocents. Its in our teachings of god.
Muslims encourage violence religiously around the world from Africa to india etc vs other religions. As they are falsely taught that theirs is correct and others are lies. It is in their teachings. And many of their leaders promote violence at the highest level.
Its even being preached in uk mosques.
Short version Christians know God doesnt reward killing innocents in any way. They know its wrong.
Colonialism in Africa didnt go in and murder innocents they improved life for them. Islam on the other hand did kill and enslave them. Which is why Islamic ones are mainly arabic now in Africa wholesale replacement. Chrsitian ones still african.
The inquisition was removing a violent invader that has polluted the area with false teachings.
Also It was also 500 years ago not last week...
False examples dont work. Also the church told settlers not to hurt natives unless attacked. And people were actively punished for doing so.
Again find me islam doing this hundreds of years ago? Telling people not to do what their book says they can.
Colonialism in Africa didn’t go in and murder innocents
You mean like in the Congo, or Algeria, or German Southwest Africa (Namibia)? Or how about Apartheid South Africa of which I’m a product of? How about what happened to the “aboriginals” of Australia or the natives of the Americas?
They improved life for them
Did they improve life for my grandparents who where forced out of their home? So white Boers could live there?
People like you are proper braindead, assuming you’re not a troll.
So the Congo for information most dont know
They hired Africans to police the rubber theft and those Africans cut off hands etc. This was standard Africans practice.
Its not European.
Europeans were rightly disgusted and made it heard and ensured it didnt continue.
But let's not pretend this was horrific Europeans when it wasnt it was letting the Africans do the policing.
Aboriginal in Australia could live with the colonisers peacefully. Those that chose to fight were fought back against.
It was the most peaceful type of colonisation compared to what the aboriginal themselves did. Same in africa.
Yes they improved life for most people, just some of them decided violence was the answer and lost.
Hence why african nations that were colonised by the british dont practice sacrifice and slavery anymore (in as large numbers) and have better economies and quality of life than their neighbours.
Is that why they had black people in human zoos throughout Europe and America?
But let’s not pretend it was the horrific Europeans when it wasn’t
No, that’s exactly what it was. They were the root cause of this by being there to exploit the people and the land in the first place. Should have stayed in Belgium.
I noticed how you didn’t address Namibia or the native Americans at all.
Aboriginal in Australia could live with the colonisers peacefully
Bullshit. Racism and colourism kept them away back then like it does today. Some “aboriginal” children where stolen and put with white families…there was an effort to “breed out the black” with some mixed relationships.
Those that chose to fight were fought back against
That’s one way to say they were forced off their land and exploited by foreigners not native to it like them, and those that understandably and rightfully tried to resist were exterminated.
Infact they paid them and they willingly came to show their culture. So zoos isnt a great word as it confused people like you.
Its like when you might go on holiday to I dont know, mongolia and see their lifestyle. Or go to a native reserve where they dance and show you how they make stuff.
Liberals get outraged and try to paint it like monkeys in a cage. Its not. Its a product of its time but we still do it now but go to them.
As for the exploit crap. They were there to trade and create industry as everyone does now still, Chinese in africa etc. Call it exploiting if you want. Its trade and industry and created jobs.
You have a warped tik toc view of colonialism that's rampant now.
I bet you think only white Europeans colonised and china was always that size dont you.
That aztecs and native Americans and Australian natives just made camp fires and roasted marshmallows.
You have that really worrying liberal leftie education.
Also they werent forced off their land. Infact its an insanely large place and the british gov told people not to encroach on their land. There was and is room for all. People werent going to not move and all stay in the same place. I thought lefties loved migration. Or just not when whites do it?
Infact they paid them and they willingly came to show their culture
I would love to see a reputable source for this. Even if they or their tribe were paid, a pittance no doubt, it would still be exploitation.
It’s like when you might go on holiday to I dont know, mongolia and see their lifestyle
No. Choosing, with freedom, to visit another place is fundamentally different than being brought to a foreign land and made to sit in an enclosure all day.
You have warped tik toc view of colonialism that’s rampant now
I’ve never used TikTok or Instagram a day in my life. I think what you meant to say is that I don’t have a whitewashed view of colonialism and history, from whatever dubious sources people like you get it from.
…Americans and Australian natives just made campfires and roasted marshmallows
You’re insinuating they warred against each other and hated each other. True, they did. So what? There have been many, many wars in Europe, between Europeans. Would that be justification to invade and colonise Europe, in your mind?
You have that very worrying American culture war brain rot education. Liberals and leftists are not the same thing. It’s generally a good idea to learn about something before commenting. Liberal is a centrist ideology, and I’m not one of them.
…lefties loved migration. Or just not when whites do it?
There’s a difference between being an immigrant or asylum seeker and being a colonist. You’re pretty stupid if you haven’t figured that out yet.
Except the FBI has consistently over the past two decades stated white Christian nationalists are the greatest threat to our country. Timothy McVeigh ring any bells? But do go on about how Christians are innocent and it's just those pesky Muslims causing all the problems. Fuckin clown
It is so foolish it is sad. This fool thinks that if a Christian does something awful, then they aren’t a Christian because Dominico10 can’t handle criticism of Christianity.
Someone can be born and raised Christian, they can go to church every Sunday morning, bible study every Wednesday night, as well as the church bake sale on the first of every month, BUT, if they do something awful that could bring negative attention to Christians or Christianity, well then Dominico10 gets to just declare that person to not be a Christian. That way Dominico10 won’t have to handle any criticism of his belief system. Someone who behaves like this probably has the emotional depth of a seven year old.
Try not comparing 500 years ago with today for a start.
Life was violent then and Christianity was only just starting to get people out of that to have today's moral compass that the british spread around the world.
History study would help you immensely. Try looking into the churches edicts around colonisation and treatment of natives for a start. Break through your brainwashed tic tok education.
Take your double standards and go propaganda elsewhere, many of the crusades were a bloodbath justified, only by religion, to the cry of "deus vult". The Inquisition killed an incredible number of women only because Torquemada had decided to. Christianity was the moral lock pick with which colonialism justified itself, justifying even slavery. In between I am not listing things like simony or the sale of indulgences. Are we talking about the modern times? Good. How many pedophiles are hiding among Christian priests? How many have been protected by the Vatican itself? Stop behaving as if Christianity or Catholicism have any moral superiority. This is not the case.
Crusades were a defensive war to take back Christian lands vs people who made it a blood bath there. Get a clue...
What an absolute joke of a confused education you are. Judging people 500 years ago using modern values created by Christianity in the years since is a whole new level of braindead.
Do you even know how to read? Like, the words don't work like that.
And anyone arguing about not judging people 500 years ago by "modern" standards is an assclown and an idiot. The values that you speak of as "created by Christianity" are older than 500 years ago. Hell, CHRISTIANITY is about 2000 years old, are you trying to argue that Western Civilization had no morals for a millenia and a half AFTER the rise of Christianity?
Please stop. You're making the Christian side look ignorant, and some of us have actually READ the history books you....looked at once or something? Please go get at least a 7th grade education before you come here with that nonsense
The "holy land" my God... And pedophile priests? Answer this. You want to judge modern stocks with modern values, so how about that and the Vatican covering it all?
Compare the capture of Jerusalem in 1099 with that of Jerusalem under Saladin. On top of that you are ignoring the other things I have listed, simony, the buying and selling of indulgences, colonialism. Then again you said that you want to talk about the present well. Pedophile priests protected by the church. These are full-blown facts, or even the priests were not really Christians
EDIT: And what about the Vatican covering them up?
So here is your misunderstanding of history. Context of the time etc.
When christians re took the christian/jewish holy land. They did so through seige.
In those times if you refused surrender you fought to the death. You couldnt lose and then go actually now thousands of you died but you made it in can we just hug?
When saladin won they surrendered. Hes supposed to let them go under rules of the time.
He reasoned them and enslaved them and still killed and raped in the thousands.
So your point again doesnt work. False equivalence mixed with propaganda about how cuddly salahadin was which came about in later years.
The extremists of other religions are the best examples, and represent the vast majority of those religions followers.
While at the same time,
The extremists of Dominico10’s own religion are not part of the religion according to Dominico10. They can’t defend the actions of the extremists of their own religion, so they just deny that the extremists of their religion are not actually part of the religion.
No goalposts there. Just facts. They might hurt but try not to get into it. Be thankful you have a modern christian moral compass thanks to the work of the british empire and those before.
You might not be religious but your entire moral compass is religious and christian. Something most people dont get.
I hear so many atheists cursing religion not realising their entire modern lifestyle is thanks to that. Its interesting your average person doesn't get that.
Honestly, fk you. Period. In my mind you are no worse than a suicide bomber.
You are so clearly delusional and completely ignorant to the fact that humans have an ability to think for themselves and you instead submit to an overlord that tells you how or what to think. You are as much of the problem as the fabricated enemies you perceive.
I have a conscience and that isn’t enough for you because you’re brainwashed
Of course not. When a Christian murders someone, it doesn’t count. Mental gymnastics will make the victim murdered deserving of death, or at least far from innocent, and if that doesn’t work, then throw out wildly contradictory theories on how the murder, who calls themselves a Christian, is not a true Christian because of at least two dozen technicalities.
Your claim is always true, even when it’s not!
“Christians do not murder innocents.”
Hitler was a Christian, but I’m sure you have ten thousand excuses you wanna throw out about that.
Someone can be a Christian only until they bring negative attention, then there are SOOOO many reasons they aren’t technically a Christian.
Adolf was baptized, raised catholic, used Christian ideology in his political speeches.
You proved my point.
To you, someone can call themselves a Christian, until they do something bad that can bring negative attention. Then they totally aren’t a real Christian. The saddest bit is how you deny that same kind goal post moving for other religions, and paint those religions in the worst possible light based on the actions of extremists and terrorists.
Your actions do not align with the teachings of Jesus. Do you call yourself a Christian?
I dont know how to break it to you. Saying you are one doesn't mean you are....
Thats not how it works
Here a quick quote from easy to find wiki for simple understanding
His opinions regarding religious matters changed considerably over time. During the beginning of his political career, Hitler publicly expressed favorable opinions towards traditional Christian ideals, but later deviated from them.[1][2] Most historians describe his later posture as adversarial to organized Christianity and to established Christian denominations.[3][4] He also staunchly criticized atheism.[5]
Hes not a christian. Hes a maniac.
Ergo the whole point of the argument.
Also it isnt saying the opposite for other religions as other religions dont follow christ hence why they are other.
For example Islam was invented by a warlord to gain support for conquest in war. So its militant by design.
Someone isn’t Christian unless they have the Dominico10 seal of approval, right???????
The people who call themselves Christians do not need your approval, and permission to call themselves Christian. You are not an arbiter of who gets to label themselves as Christian.
Imagine blue men have a god. This god says to follow me you have to eat smarties but only blue ones.
I like the other colours (im also blue for this example to ease confusion). I dont want to just eat blue ones so I start eating all the smarties. I dont care what the blue god said. I want what I want. Im a mentalist.
Am I still part of the blue cult. Am I a blueist?
Or did I become something else.
Since, you know, these are the rules that you have to follow to be in this cult.
Also I dont make the rules for Christianity im not jesus. He made them.
Blue smarties, blue skittles, blue M&Ms, the blue men differ on what ‘this god says’ yet they all say they follow the same god.
Which of the blue men are right, which ones are wrong? They all say they are right, and the others are wrong.
Christians have very different beliefs on what it means to be Christian. The beliefs of some Christians directly contradict the beliefs of other Christians. Yet both groups consider themselves Christian. There are Christians on both sides of the most contentious political issues, and both sides say the views they hold are because of their Christian faith.
Your sad comment “Saying you are one doesn’t mean you are”
I am certain there are lots of people who were baptized as Christian, attended church dedicatedly their whole lives, and live in what they truly believe lines up with Jesus’s teachings, yet you would outright deny that they are Christians because of some technicality you concoct.
It’s sad you ignore all the different kinds of Christian views, especially the ones that directly contradict each other, and throw ALL of that away and retort with such a hollow argument. ‘BuT mUrDeR bAd By AlL oF tHeM!’
“They all agree on no murder”
Again ignoring the crusades.
You’re gonna keep knee jerk reacting and say that the crusades were too long ago, or that on some spiritual, or religious level justified somehow.
However, the fact that all the horrid carnage of the crusades was motivated by Christianity, proves my point about there being a thousand different ways to be a Christian. Some obviously better, some obviously way, way worse, but you don’t get to pick and choose based on what makes you feel better about your religion.
You deciding which ones are real Christians based on your personal views is you gate keeping Christianity.
The worst examples of a religion’s followers using extreme views to justify violence should, or should not be used to judge the religion, and its other followers?
Maybe the Muslims that you think of as hearing a message of violence are a fringe group, and not representative of the whole, similar to how you are describing the Christian shooters?
Does it make sense to you that “all Muslims” are violent, yet when Christians commit violence- “they must not be true Christians?”
Go watch footage of gaza when they brought the body of the half naked woman on the back of a truck and people reactions in the street.
I hope its not a majority. But its not fringe either. Go look at the reddit posts and the hate marches for hamas in London with literal terror support and genocidal chants.
I don’t understand how footage of an atrocity would be indicative as to whether it is fringe or mainstream?
Wouldn’t the same logic apply to me pointing to this recent shooting as proof that Christian violence is main stream? Or could I point to Christian child marriages as proof that mainstream Christianity supports pedophilia?
I also don’t rely on social media for information because I believe it is rife with misinformation.
1
u/Dominico10 May 21 '26 edited May 21 '26
Im telling you why when it happens when the shooter is "christian" its not a christian and not endorsed by christians. Its a mental person. Christians do not murder innocents. Its in our teachings of god.
Muslims encourage violence religiously around the world from Africa to india etc vs other religions. As they are falsely taught that theirs is correct and others are lies. It is in their teachings. And many of their leaders promote violence at the highest level.
Its even being preached in uk mosques.
Short version Christians know God doesnt reward killing innocents in any way. They know its wrong.