The Milo Yiannoppulos anti-cultural Marxism phenomenon

Being Gay doesn't give him a free pass, and I can refute themail claim that he "supports equality" with his own articles:
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/08/birth-control-makes-women-unattractive-and-crazy/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/17/gay-rights-have-made-us-dumber-its-time-to-get-back-in-the-closet/

http://yiannopoulos.net/2014/08/15/transgenderism-is-a-psychiatric-disorder-its-sufferers-need-therapy-not-surgery/

LOL what rights do the LGBT community ask for which the rest of us don't have?

Yes I do.


No you have not.
Or could you point to the post where you explained because I can't find it.

Islam was derived from Christianity.

I guess that's why Muslims believe that Jesus Christ was nothing more than a prophet. While Christians believe that he's God in the flesh. Because Islam was gotten from the beliefs of Christians.

I've seen it all today.

These are blatant lies. The Catholic church intentionally removed the law about graven images because when the church was being established in the 4th century, the already pagan romans wanted to have a mixture of their pagan beliefs along with Christianity when the religion was made legal in many parts of Europe.

Giving your own definition of what Idolatry is and ignoring what is in the King James Bible is flawed and deceptive.

You two are like a father denying his "illegitimate" child, but the fact is that you have no excuses for the sexism and intolerance in Christianity.

I don't personally like the guy, but tbf to him, it's pretty clear from these links that he's trolling and taking the piss, like last week I watched a video where he claimed lesbians don't exist (which is ironic coming from someone who is gay himself).

Just like Katie Hopkins, I think it's about seeing how far he can push it, an attack on political correctness and pissing off feminists (see 'Triggly Puff') and SJWs who don't realise he's just baiting them and can be very easy to upset. It may also be him seeing how far his devoted followers are willing to agree with him, I might be wrong, but I do get the sense some of his followers are so misogynistic they actually believe everything he says and take it seriously, which is a bit alarming in itself. But yeah, best not to take him seriously, he wants people to get upset.

Christianity was derived from Judaism, yet the Jews don't accept Jesus and many Christian beliefs. Changing certain parts of a religion does not change the original source material, but I wouldn't expect a delusional Christian fanatic to understand that.

There are more than 10 commandments. Read the verses in Exodus and see for yourself. Some verses will have to be condensed. The Jews and the Catholics condensed the same verse here. Unless you want to accuse the Jews of idolatry?



So you use the King James Bible? I think that says a lot about you. You do realise that is possibly one of the most unreliable Bibles that we have?

Show us where in the Bible, where JESUS CHRIST not Paul or some other prophet. Jesus himself, the man I follow and pray to showed sexism or intolerance.


I'm waiting.

Christianity wasn't derived from Judaism.

Where the hell are you getting all this from?

Christianity is the belief in Jesus Christ. Jesus telling us to follow the ten commandments etc, does not mean that Christianity was derived from Judaism. Christianity was created when Jesus Christ Died.

Do you reject Paul and the others then? Do you reject your God who allowed slavery and ordered brutal punishments such as stoning for certain "crimes"? Make up your mind.

Do you cut out the Jesus quotes from the Bible which preach what you like then reject the rest of it?

Jesus was a Jew (that's if he even existed). All of the other Christian prophets originally came from Jewish scripture.

The KJV is actually not an Alexandrian translation it was a translation of other Bibles collected during the persecution of Christians in the early days of the religion so how is it unreliable?

We have now at our disposal many more earlier NT manuscripts than the writers of the King James V bible did. The number of early Greek NT manuscripts we have now is about 5,700, where the authors of the King James V bible had merely half a dozen or so. From those half dozen or so, these manuscripts only dated to the earliest of about the 10th century. However, we now have our earliest manuscripts dating to within 30 years of when the original was published. P52 for example contains a fragment of Johns gospel and dates to around 125AD, and the Gospel of John is generally considered by scholars to have been written somewhere around 90AD to 100AD. Our major manuscripts though, which we have acquired much of our knowledge from, date to forth and fifth century, for example Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. The writers of the King James V Bible did not have codex Sinaiticus or Codex Vaticanus at their disposal.

The King James V Bible also breaks the Granville Sharp rule at Titus 2:13. Considering you are a Lutheran, and thus believe in the Trinity, it might actually be wise for you to learn why the King James V Bible is unreliable. Titus 2:13 is one of the strongest verses in support of the Trinity doctrine, but you wouldn't know that if you are reading the King James V Bible. You can find in the link below my debate with a Jehovah Witness on Titus 2:13 and also the King James V Bible and its unreliability:

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2949427&page=3&p=53539755#post53539755

The KJV Bible was gotten from over 5,000 scrolls the Textus Receptus that survived the persecution that were precise word for word apart from spelling.

Here's a brief history of the KJV Bible on this website and I'll post an excerpt.

http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/textus_receptus.html/


"The Traditional text of the New Testament has existed from the time of Christ right down to the present. It has had many different names down through the years, such as Byzantine Text, Eastern Text, Received Text, Textus Receptus, Majority Text, and others. Although no complete Bible manuscripts have survived which would allow us to date the Traditional text to the first century, there is a strong witness to the early existence and use of the Traditional text by the early church in its lectionaries."

Since Erasmus could not find a manuscript which contained the entire Greek Testament, he utilized several for various parts of the New Testament. For most of the text he relied on two rather inferior manuscripts in the university library at Basle, one of the Gospels and one of the Acts and Epistles, both dating from about the twelfth century. Erasmus compared them with two or three others of the same books and entered occasional corrections.... For the Book of Revelations he had but one manuscript, dating from the twelfth century, which he had borrowed from his friend Reuchin. Unfortunately, this manuscript lacked the final leaf, which contained the last six verses of the book. For these verses as well as numerous passages throughout the book... Erasmus depended upon the Latin Vulgate, translating this text into Greek. As would be expected from such a procedure, here and there Erasmus' self-made Greek text are readings which have never been found in any known Greek manuscripts - but which are still perpetuated today in printings of the so-called Textus Receptus of the Greek New Testament

Christianity wasn't derived from Judaism.

Where the hell are you getting all this from?

So what?


That means nothing.