Chechnya 'is attempting to eliminate its gay community

[ABX]

Full title:

Chechnya 'is attempting to eliminate its gay community by the start of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan', it is claimed following reports of torture camps for homosexuals in the country

Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov has been accused of plotting to eliminate the gay community
Reports from the republic say gay men are being rounded up and murdered
Sir Alan Duncan told MPs the treatment of homosexuals is 'utterly barbaric'
It is thought Kadyrov may try to carry out threat by May 26, the start of Ramadan


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4443890/Chechnya-attempting-eliminate-gay-community.html#ixzz4fNIUbn5t
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[geronl]

Chechnya is Russia. The pogrom is regional. Putin installed the guy as Chechnya's leader by decree.

Chechnya's leader has denounced Mohammad cartoonists (should be burned alive), forced women into headscarves, Kadyrov leads a cult of personality in Chechnya and many of his opponents abroad have been murdered.

In 2009, Kadyrov stated his approval of honor killings, based on the belief that women are the property of their husbands.

He is a huge Putin fan and wears Putin t-shirts often. Oh and he likes cats (one positive thing)

[musiclady]

Who was it on this very forum who claimed that Christians were the worst when it came to dealing with homosexuality?

Methinks that Communists (mostly atheists) and Muslims are just a tad worse than we are....   

[mirraflake]

Who was it on this very forum who claimed that Christians were the worst when it came to dealing with homosexuality?

No one. Muslims are the very worst.
@musiclady

[Cripplecreek]

Chechnya is Russia. The pogrom is regional. Putin installed the guy as Chechnya's leader by decree.

Chechnya's leader has denounced Mohammad cartoonists (should be burned alive), forced women into headscarves, Kadyrov leads a cult of personality in Chechnya and many of his opponents abroad have been murdered.

In 2009, Kadyrov stated his approval of honor killings, based on the belief that women are the property of their husbands.

He is a huge Putin fan and wears Putin t-shirts often. Oh and he likes cats (one positive thing)

Putin's image as great defender of Christianity is a sham. He just likes his muslims obedient so they can be used against others.

[musiclady]

Putin's image as great defender of Christianity is a sham. He just likes his muslims obedient so they can be used against others.

Bush fell for that "I'm a Christian" routine from Putin.............. but not for long.

He's KGB.  He's not Christian.  And he, like a good Communist/atheist is fine with killing off homosexuals.

[musiclady]

No one. Muslims are the very worst.
@musiclady

I stand corrected.......... sort of. 

The fellow, who believes the Jesus Seminar is actually Christian, is the one who actually said that "bible-thumpers" were the worst haters of homosexuals, ignoring Muslims, et al.

Those "bible-thumpers" are the ones who actually believe Jesus meant what He said, and that the Scripture is God's word.

I interpreted that as an attack on Christians.  You obviously agreed with the Jesus Seminar, Christians-are-bad guy, and disagreed with those of us defending actual Christianity.

So, you are right.  "No one" said that Christians were the worst.

Just those of us who believe in the Bible are bad........ 

At any rate, it was said, and it was meant, and the actual haters of homosexuals were completely ignored, as usual from the anti-Christian crowd.

[mirraflake]

I stand corrected.......... sort of. 

The fellow, who believes the Jesus Seminar is actually Christian, is the one who actually said that "bible-thumpers" were the worst haters of homosexuals, ignoring Muslims, et al.

Those "bible-thumpers" are the ones who actually believe Jesus meant what He said, and that the Scripture is God's word.

What is a Jesus Seminar? I have zero clue what you are talking about.

@musiclady

[Cyber Liberty]

Jesus Seminar.  Pretty interesting to read about, actually....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar

[kevindavis007]

Putin's image as great defender of Christianity is a sham. He just likes his muslims obedient so they can be used against others.

Well the sad part is that a lot of people on our side thinks Putin is a defender of Christianity..

[musiclady]

A Christian perspective of the Jesus Seminar.... (not from liberal Wiki)

The stated "purpose" of the Seminar was Biblical "scholarship," the actual goal was to undermine Biblical Christianity and the historical, Scriptural understanding of who Jesus is/was.

There are other sources, but here's one......

Conclusions of the Seminar

Several radical conclusions emerge from the work of the Jesus Seminar which seriously affect historic orthodox Christianity, to the extent that they are taken seriously by the public:
1. The “old” Jesus and “old Christianity” are no longer relevant.
2. There is no agreement about who Jesus was: a cynic, a sage, a Jewish reformer, a feminist, a prophet-teacher, a radical social prophet, or an eschatological prophet.
3. Jesus did not rise from the dead. One member, Crossan, theorizes that Jesus’ corpse was buried in a shallow grave, dug up, and eaten by dogs.
4. The canonical Gospels are late and cannot be trusted.
5. The authentic words of Jesus can be reconstructed from the so-called “Q document,” The Gospel of Thomas, Secret Mark, and The Gospel of Peter.

As Funk stated clearly, the Seminar concluded that “the narrative contexts in which the sayings of Jesus are preserved in the Gospels are the creation of the evangelists. They are fictive [fictional] and secondary” (“The Emerging Jesus,” 11).

Evaluation

A Radical Fringe of Scholarship. The Jesus Seminar represents a radical fringe of New Testament scholarship, though one that unfortunately includes a large number of mainline scholars and pastors. The fact that some of their views are adopted by many contemporary scholars is not the point, for truth is not determined by majority vote. Most of the proofs they offer, in addition to the voting procedure, are uncompelling and often nonexistent except for quotations from one another and other liberal scholars as unimpeachable sources. While radical scholars are making considerable noise at the end of the twentieth century, in the broad range of Christian history they are a small minority.

Unjustified Antisupernaturalism. The radical conclusions of the group are based on radical presuppositions, one of which is an unjustified rejection of any miraculous interven­tion in history by God.

One of the chief grounds for rejecting the authenticity of the canonical Gospels is the assumption that any reference to a miracle is not credible. This presupposition crept into biblical scholarship by way of David Hume and David Strauss. David Hume’s antisupernaturalism is without foundation.

Unfounded Acceptance of Late Dates. Flowing from the presumption of antisupernaturalism is the tendency to posit dates as late as possible for the writing of the Gospels (at earliest, 70 to 100, and in some arguments later). By doing this they can create enough time between the events and the recording for eyewitnesses to die off and a my­thology to develop around the founder of Christianity. Thus they can say that 84 percent of the sayings of Jesus were invented later. However, there are problems with these late dates, and as archaeology broadens understanding of the first-century sources, the posi­tion is becoming untenable. Among problems:
• Manuscript evidence from the very early second century strongly argues for an Asian origin in the first century
• Gospels are cited in other first-century works.
• The Gospel of Luke was written before Acts, which has strong evidence for a date of no later than A.D. 60-62. This is well within the lifetime of Jesus’ contemporaries.
• The writings of Paul speak of the historicity of the most crucial events in the Gospels, the death and resurrection of Christ. Even critical scholars date 1 Corinthians to ca. A.D. 55- 56. This would place it within a quarter century of Jesus’ death in 33.
• Some critical scholars admit early dates for the basic Gospels. The late Bishop J. A. T. Robinson argued that they were written between 40 and 60. This would place the first records as close as seven years after the events they report.
• Even the later dates of the 60s through the 80s do not allow time for mythological distor­tions to develop. It has been demonstrated that even two generations is too short a period to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical fact.

Uncritical Acceptance of Q. The method by which the Jesus Seminar was able to come to their radical conclusions with a flourish of scholarly activity was simple. They demoted the first-century and eyewitness contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life (the four Gospels) to late works of mythology and replaced them with nonextant works, such as Q, and clearly apocryphal writings, such as The Gospel of Thomas. But Q is a purely hypothetical docu­ment. There are no manuscripts. No one ever quoted such a book or referred to its exist­ence. It is a purely hypothetical literary reconstruction based on unjustified presuppositions. It stands in contradiction to the known evidence.

Use of Thomas is questionable on a number of accounts. It is clearly a second-century work, well out of range of contemporaries to the events.

It has a heretical agenda, for its teaching is gnostic. Its claim to be written by an apostle places it in the category of legend. Interestingly, its use to disprove the resurrection over­looks the fact that the work purports to be the words of the resurrected Christ.

Scholars of the Jesus Seminar also use Secret Mark and The Gospel of Peter. Peter is a second-or even third-century apocryphal work that is infamous for its outlandish legends. No one living in recent history has ever seen Peter or the copy of Clement’s letter that supposedly contained it. How then can its content be used for scholarly judgment on the authenticity of the Gospels?

Circular Reasoning. The reasoning process of the Jesus Seminar is a sophisticated form of the logical fallacy known as Petitio Princippi, or begging the question. Its circular reasoning begins with a desupernaturalized view of a first-century religious figure and concludes at the same point.

Conclusion.

Despite their desire and achievements for drawing wide publicity, nothing is new in the Jesus Seminar’s radical conclusions. They offer only another example of unsubstantiated negative Bible criticism. Their conclusions are contrary to the overwhelming evidence for the historicity of the New Testament and the reliability of the New Testament witnesses. They are based on an unsubstantiated antisupernatural bias.

https://www.jashow.org/articles/jesus/the-jesus-seminar/

IOW, the Jesus Seminar worked very hard to deny the historicity of Jesus and authenticity of Scripture (documented even further since they convened), and failed miserably, because, as all "scholarship" with an agenda and not seeking truth, they "concluded" what they wanted to prove.

The fellow on the thread @mirraflake and I were disagreeing about, is a believer in the Jesus Seminar, that Jesus is not who He said He was, and what Scripture says He is, and he is the one who claimed that "bible-thumpers" were the ones who hated homosexuals most (not his exact words).

He was the one to whom I referred in the above statement.

@Mesaclone  @Cyber Liberty

[Cyber Liberty]

Thing that caught my eye at the commie Wiki site is "reversal of burden of proof."  Everything in the bible is considered a myth (lie) unless it can be proven true.  Nothing Jesus said was correct.

These people take themselves seriously, so I imagine you could write a whole book on how messed up they are, and how far they've strayed.  I remember a cult where everything Jesus said was considered to have been exactly backwards from what was meant.  "Broderhaus" or something like that.  They were murderous, killed people who left the cult.

[musiclady]

Thing that caught my eye at the commie Wiki site is "reversal of burden of proof."  Everything in the bible is considered a myth (lie) unless it can be proven true.  Nothing Jesus said was correct.

These people take themselves seriously, so I imagine you could write a whole book on how messed up they are, and how far they've strayed.  I remember a cult where everything Jesus said was considered to have been exactly backwards from what was meant.  "Broderhaus" or something like that.  They were murderous, killed people who left the cult.

The thing that's ironic, is that thousands of years of scholarship and research, (sometimes done by those trying to disprove Scripture, and realizing its authenticity in their efforts), the historic authenticity of Scripture, are completely dismissed, and these arrogant airheads dare to say that unless it agrees with them, it's not true.

As the article I cited concluded, this is nothing new.  People have been trying and failing to dismiss Jesus for two millennia, and this was just one more effort to do so.

And yes..... they're really, really "messed up."