Sri Lanka massacres

They word it like that so they don't imply that there is a Holy war taking place. The attacks on the West(basically anyone not a muslim), which is a mainly Christian society, are in the name of Islam. A very extreme form but Islam nonetheless. The attacks on Muslims are not done by extreme Christians, they are just crazy westerners who do it in retaliation.
 
Obsessed with Obama (and Hilary).

You realise they are just private citizens now?

A bit shortsighted, millions of people are still interested in what they have to say. I also notice you didn’t reply to the points raised by others, just went for an easy one liner presumably because you had no logical response to make.
 
and the thread has gone full idiot, again.


As someone said earlier in the thread, the attacks were on both churches and hotels/restaurants, at a time of year when the locals are celebrating non christian holidays as well as christian ones.

Rather like "happy holidays" isn't anti christian, but rather recognises that Christians aren't the only ones celebrating in December/January.

As to the what holiday did Easter replace, oddly enough there were spring festivals (around the same time period as Christian Easter*) that were co-opted by the Christian faiths, in much the same way as there were Midwinter festivities/celebrations that happened to just be at the same sort of time as the early Christian churches decided to celebrate Jesus's birth (despite there being no proof of his actually birth day, it just happened to be an easy one to work with and conicidentlayy meant the pagan festivals could effectively continue under a new name).
 
Last edited:
Worship is a verb, worshippers is a noun.

Yes, and the title implies the worship takes place on a Sunday. Not that they worship Sunday. Unlike saying they are Sunday worshippers.

Why not just call them what they were, Christians?

It's just terminology! There are rather more important things to worry about, but if it makes you feel better here's a random selection of articles where "Sunday worshipers" has been used without offence, so why should Easter worshipers somehow create some dubious attempt by whatever blah blah blah CT nonsense going on.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-35150670/church-of-england-could-close-thousands-of-churches

https://international.la-croix.com/...s-of-pakistan-terror-attacks-remembered/7170#

https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/...n-london-as-traditional-denominations-decline

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...d-burn-churches-in-latest-Nigeria-attack.html

https://catholicherald.co.uk/issues/january-5th-2018/how-to-save-the-english-church/
 
Whats with the double standard reporting of this...

The whole world cound't shut up about Christchurch, it was everywhere... so much so that Facebook is now banning all far-right groups.

There are active Islamic groups on facebook that preach hate and destruction of the western world..
 
and the thread has gone full idiot, again.

As someone said earlier in the thread, the attacks were on both churches and hotels/restaurants, at a time of year when the locals are celebrating non christian holidays as well as christian ones.

They were, and both called that out in their tweets. Obama for example said "The attacks on tourists and Easter worshippers". So clearly, the hotel/restaurant point is irrelevant in that regard as they weren't being grouped in with the others.

Rather like "happy holidays" isn't anti christian, but rather recognises that Christians aren't the only ones celebrating in December/January.

True, but could you explain who else might have been celebrating in those churches that day? The locations attacked. Was it Jews? Buddhists? Hindus? Pastafarians? No, no it wasn't. It was one group with a shared identity.
I bet they certainly don't refer to themselves as "Easter worshippers'. In fact, strangely, they actually have a widely used term. Oh yes, Christians.

Actually, does this mean because some people are clearly offended by it that the mods will now ban the term 'Easter Worshippers' like they did 'Person of Colour'?
 
It's just terminology! There are rather more important things to worry about, but if it makes you feel better here's a random selection of articles where "Sunday worshipers" has been used without offence, so why should Easter worshipers somehow create some dubious attempt by whatever blah blah blah CT nonsense going on.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-35150670/church-of-england-could-close-thousands-of-churches

https://international.la-croix.com/...s-of-pakistan-terror-attacks-remembered/7170#

https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/...n-london-as-traditional-denominations-decline

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...d-burn-churches-in-latest-Nigeria-attack.html

https://catholicherald.co.uk/issues/january-5th-2018/how-to-save-the-english-church/

Sorry Pudney, that's not how it works. For example I posted many many links to the mods showing them that the term 'person of colour' isn't offensive but they still deemed otherwise. So if people find it offensive, it's offensive. Simple as.
 
I figure they are wording the reports for these attacks in such a way in a hope of diverting a very nasty global conflict, there is an elephant in the room and no one will make eye contact with it.
 
Why do people think (hope?) that some sort of Muslims vs the world conflict is coming?

I'd be much more concerned about China and Russia, especially once resources start dwindling.
 
Back
Top Bottom