Do we as Christians really believe in murdering non-believers?

submitted by [deleted] from self.Christianity

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Cornfed 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

That is completely retarded. Why even bother to have a platform if you are going to retardedly moderate it? There already is a reddit.

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

"Do we really believe in murdering x?" is advocating violence which is against saidit rules. And it's also clearly a troll post.

[–]Cornfed 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

It is not advocating anything - it is posing a question, to which the poster and everyone else is answering "No". It would not be advocating a specific offense anyway. There is no suggestion of killing any specific definable person. By this reasoning, any political action can't be discussed, since politics by definition involves violence. Questions like "should we go to war with Russia" couldn't be discussed, for example.

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

It is saying "I know we murder non-believers, but is this a good idea?"

It implicitly has the assumption murder is a good idea.

There's a huge difference between "Should we go to war with Russia?" and "I know we murder Russians, but is that a good idea?" The latter is clearly against saidit rules while the former is not.

[–]Cornfed 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

Neither statement would be taken as advocating unlawful violence by any rational definition.

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

I disagree, it does advocate violence, saying that murder is appropriate is the implicit assumption of the post, so the post has been removed.

[–]Cornfed 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

I'm going to cease posting on your shitty platform and encourage others to do likewise. We don't need more censorship promoting dickheads.

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

That is your choice. Removing trolls advocating murder isn't censorship. If anything, it keeps saidit online because we're less likely to get in legal trouble. So it's preventing this website from being censored.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

I don't think that's his own assumption, I feel like he's disappointed that too many here do believe that. Hence the really?

[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

He said "we".

He said "do we really believe this?" as if it has been a long-held belief of his that he's now questioning. If he viewed the murderers as an outgroup, he would've said "Do Christians hold this view?" or "Do some Christians hold this view?"

Acting like not murdering someone is a novel idea, is not only an obvious troll post, but is coming in with the default stance of "murder is okay", which is against saidit rules of advocating violence.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

It sounds to me like he disagrees with murder and sees himself as the outgroup. "We" is meant to address Christendom in general, which he is also a part of but that does not make him 100% in agreement with them.

You could be right but I think the language is confusing and it's kind of jumping to a conclusion. Although I can see why we need to err on the side of caution, especially these days.

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes it's on the line, which is why I deleted the post but didn't ban the user. But I agree it's better to err on the side of caution these days.

[–]soundsituation 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's honestly a pretty common troll technique. The recipe is:

1) Make outlandish claim
2) Distance yourself from that claim by attributing it to "others"
3) Fail to show any examples that illustrate your claim

The posts usually reference an always un-cited they/them so this one is different in that it uses us/we, but the game is the same.