Gwazi Magnum

State-Church Separation

ActRaiserTheReturned said
Magic Magnum:Under the logic that whatever is in the Bible is approved by God, do you then come to the conclusion that witchcraft is approved by God?

Did God allow his disciples to practice witchcraft?
Did he order his followers to do witchcraft?

Because that's exactly what he did with things such as rape, stoning of children etc.

Sexual Liberation in Frozen?

ActRaiserTheReturned said
What I said was that any incest at all, is filthy and disgusting. Incest is filthy and disgusting with same sex or opposite sex "relationships".

Ah I see.

Though if you're just against incest I think we get the idea it doesn't matter their sexuality already.
There's no need to note lesbians separately in that sense.

It'd be like me saying "I'm against murder, and involvement of Bisexuals".
It's not really needed, if I'm against murder it's given I'll probably still be against it if the murderer is bi.

Superpower For Hire, AKA PMCs

Mainly what the others have already said, there's no financial gain.

The only argument I can see somewhat working is if a company wanted to start the war and simply hired mercenaries to be the guns for it. But even then it doesn't really add up cause business make money by making and selling products, not by having a lot of guns and taking places over. Maybe since corporations can work in the trillions at times they could end up having a corporation war (assuming it could ever be hid from the government), but that's hardly the same as merc's going rogue and taking over things on their own.

A topic about topics: Argument concerning arguments

mdk said
When a squabble gets continually longer with each post, that means that the people involved aren't interested in resolving the issue, or in learning any lessons, or in growing, or whatever. The only exception to the rule is when a single piece of information, for instance a related experience, or a quote from a reputable source, drives your response to be longer than the original question asked.

So what are people interested in accomplishing, by posting increasingly longer arguments?

I don't think this is the case.

Some people just naturally take longer to explain their point than others.
Sometimes the original statement/question sparks a complex topic, so you need to expand it and bring in more detail/info to truly address it.

Like when I debate I'm going to go in with a stance/opinion, that's true. Everyone enters such conversations with certain beliefs they hold to be correct, but that doesn't mean your not open to learning new things, or are open to change. It's just that you need see the proof to be convinced, and you aren't just going to change your mind because people disagree with you.

Most of the times I see people say stuff like "They talk a long time/make long posts. They don't care about learning stuff" it's usually a case of the people making that claim are the kinds of people who personally don't care for long debates, preffering for the duration to be short and/or just a small amount of words per post. It's not a style of debate/conversation they're used to so it takes them back and they read others doing at as wanting to be right or dominant.

When in truth, just as humans vary in most areas we also vary in how we communicate, how we learn etc. This is just one of those cases where some people communicate better in longer debates than others.

Sexual Liberation in Frozen?

Dark Wind said Just saw Frozen finally. Loved it.

However, the topic of the "Let It Go" scene has apparently come up in many articles. Some have reported a dislike for the character of Elsa letting her hair down and then transforming appearance into a more sexualized "empowered" woman.

Personally (at least for now), I feel like these articles are grasping at straws mainly because compared to other disney characters (Jasmine, Pocahontas, Ariel), Elsa seems pretty tame. And for that matter, what is so terrible about "sexiness" anyway? Don't get it twisted, objectification is wrong. However, I find this attack on sexual liberation to be oddly misplaced.

Thoughts?

I never saw the movie myself but I went ahead and looked this scene up.
They're grasping at straws... This stuff happens all the time... *Gasp* Her hair is down! Skin shows! Sexualization!

ActRaiserTheReturned said
No. I'm implying that anything involving incest is filthy and unacceptable. Including with the Lesbian involvement with it.

So you're against homosexuality? :P
Ok, I see a man and a woman being married as an unnatural abomination.
I shall now prevent you from marrying the person you love, does that sound fair?

Dark Wind said
Not arguing against this. But kids do pick up things and lessons from media. Parents should probably show a little more control on what their children watch. Or at least take the time to explain certain things to them.

We should definitely keep aware of what media is teaching our kids.

I am very against censoring/limiting/controling what our children see.
Doing so simply blinds them from things and leaves from unprepared for such things when it pops up in the real world.

We're best off letting your child be exposed to it all, but being there to assist them, answer questions and encourage their curiosity.

Part of this involves knowing the messages the media is saying just so you know what they're telling your kid and can act/respond accordingly.
Like, if media says something like "You should be thin or no one will love you" that's obviously something you need to teach your child isn't the case, teach them to be happy with who they are and that media can be wrong.

Actually, the best thing you can probably do for your kids is not teach them anything directly. But rather just teach them to become critical and aware thinkers, so they are able to observe things rationally and make their own decisions rather than simply believing whatever they get told.

Turtlicious said
No? It's weird that the first thing you'd think of racism, not everyone sees other people as inferior dude. Maybe you should join us forward thinkers in the 21st century. lmaoWhat I was talking about.

So... because she prefers the company of men to women and has a pet tiger she's transgender? o.O

Talk about totally missing the point of what being transgender is...
There are tons of girls who prefer to be around boys than girls and they definitely still feel/identify as a woman.

State-Church Separation

ActRaiserTheReturned said For now, I'll say, all those Bible verses you came up with are in the OT.

Which is still the Bible, still Christianity and still stuff God approved.

And even then if you look at the Bible there's not really much to say the OT can be ignored, but a lot saying we should still listen to it.
On top of that, why would an all knowing god make rules that were later meant to be changed? And on top of that, if they were meant to be changed why would we go ahead and say they are to always be obeyed if they weren't supposed to?

ActRaiserTheReturned said Not one of them are based on Christianity.

Is it in the Christian Bible? Yes? Then you're right, it's not based on Christianity, it is Christianity.

ActRaiserTheReturned said Technically you would say that while those acts could be repeatable, some of them clearly aren't even by OT standards, and the ones that are at least repeatable like the Levitical Laws still aren't Christian, and definitely not repeatable.

If it's in the Christian bible then it's Christian.
If it's mentioned/supported multiple time's then it's repeatable.

So according to your own God, these acts you label as barbaric are both Christian and repeatable.

ActRaiserTheReturned said I don't think Science is contradictory. However, certain long standing hypothesis were once held as theories until more information had been collected and proven past hypothesis such as theories as false. ((For that matter, even if Creationism is wrong, it doesn't mean Evolution is correct, since more data can be collected, enough to conceivably come to the conclusion that there's some other answer)).

Science already admits that anything it says could be proven wrong.
But they go with what has the most compelling proof and evidence at the time.

Evolution has a lot of it, Religion has none other than the Bible.
Which doesn't even count because it's evidence on account of it claiming to be evidence.

Which makes as much sense as me going "I'm psychic because I say so. I say so because I'm Psychic" and never doing anything to show I'm Psychic but expecting people to believe me.

State-Church Separation

ActRaiserTheReturned said To say the least cannibalism is a medical nightmare.

That's true. But in the end that's a risk up to the individual to be taking. It's not like vaccines where following an unsafe practice puts others in danger.
I'd compare it more to like eating that cupcake you know will just wreck your body. Is it bad? Yes. But if you still want to then go for it.

Note: This is obviously assuming this is cultural and not simply hunting and killing people. And even then the one who is deceased should of been ok with their body being eaten beforehand.

ActRaiserTheReturned said Also, any argument I've heard claiming that the Bible condones rape (Such as the Hebrews taking women from the enemy) are out of context arguments and completely missing the point of what the text is obviously saying. Even the wiping out of cities to the last infant, old man, woman, etcetera, deals with supernatural issues the Jews obviously no longer face. I don't see giants, or angels impregnating women in the news. In addition to this fact, please keep in mind that these acts of violence were done as a one time occurrence, and there is no need for believers in Christianity to ever replicate them. -_-

Not really... :/
And I'm pretty sure you were one of the people present the last time this topic came up and I went Bible quote crazy to prove it did support rape.

*Quick back checking*

You were, it was 2 months ago though: http://www.roleplayerguild.com/topics/14035/posts/ooc?page=4#post-330624

Though it's a mountain of a post so if you prefer I'll just list the related quotes below.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24
Zechariah 14:1-2
Deuteronomy 21:10-14
Judges 5:30 - This may not be rape, but it definitely supports kidnapping women and owning them as property. And if that property were ever to be something such as a sex slave, then it's rape.
Numbers 31:7-18
Deuteronomy 20:10-14
Judges 21:10-24
Judges 19:1-30

That's basically 8 cases either outright against saying it does support rape very damn close and if not rape is suggesting something just as bad or simply some loophole.
This also confirms it's not a one time occurrence if I can get this many quotes of it from Bible.

And the whole "Taking it out of context" thing doesn't really work... If we were to go that I could take something like Hitler's Mein Kampf and say something along the lines of "All those things of Hitler hating Jewish people are just out of context for what's meant to be being kind to one another, and how some supernatural event killed 6 million Jewish people with gas".

But we can agree on one thing here, that there's no need for Christians to ever be replicating these barbaric acts.

ActRaiserTheReturned said Also, another issue with the wiping out of civilizations by the Old Testament believers comes from the fact that there were curses carried by the neighboring civilizations

Ok stop right there... Curses?
You should probably stop and try to show how curses actually exist.
Cause right now this is 100% fantasy I'm reading here...

Note: Curses work great on weapons when fighting ghosts :P

ActRaiserTheReturned said Bear in mind that these people, were so evil that they would sacrifice their own children

And so did Christianity.

There was the case with Abraham being tested with his son Isaac. He may of been stopped, but Christian followers were just as willing to kill their children for God as those evil people you reference.

Plus there's all the passages of stuff such as stoning your child for misbehaving, which is debatibly worse than child sacrifice. At least with sacrifice it's for your god, with the stonings it's simply because you as a parent would kill your kid for saying no to something. I mean seriously, that's some worst parent's of history awards right there... How the hell did these people ever survive to pass on their genes?

ActRaiserTheReturned said but the fact of the matter is that the circumstances in the Bible are far different than God just being a maniacal Dictator enforcing his will on poor, innocent Humanity and delighting in the slaughter of their children, which they probably didn't care about anyway, at least for the most part. Also, like I said, the things that happened back then are un-repeated and according to the will of God, unrepeatable.

Except as the Bible clearly shows this stuff does repeat... a lot.

And so far we've seen nothing but God saying it's ok for Christians to kill their children and to kidnap and rape people.

ActRaiserTheReturned said Now on to the issue of double standards held by prominent Anti-Christian thinkers.

Well this should be fun :P

ActRaiserTheReturned said I had always thought philosophy was the proper love and acquirement of the studious acknowledgement of not only how the mind works, if such knowledge is available for studying, but also in applying one's mental faculties towards various beneficial mindsets. Not just loving and practicing a particular school of thought, mind you, but trying apply various sensible ways of living, working, contemplating, and interacting with other people in ways that would kind of "Roll the snowball down the hill" as it were. Like, leads to like, in other words, discovering ways of learning that expand on previous knowledge. I'm not sure how to make my understanding of Philosophical study concise and to the point, but what I"m saying is, those people, while perhaps having noble intentions of teaching others what to think, or maybe how to think, they strip the conscience, and even consciousness of others away by most definitely instructing them in horrid or incompetent manners.

Well to start with they're not Philosophers, they're scientists and spokespeople. There's a difference, Philosophy openly encourage's thought in any manner. The kind where they don't really care if you're relgious, atheist, Cthulhu etc. As long as you'r constantly thinking and asking questions, and often these can be questions that are almost unprovable or insanely abstract such as "How do I know you don't see the grass as red?" or "This is all a dream/fantasy".

Scientists are more specific, they focused on observable, provable facts. Like honestly, would you want people who were say... researching your vaccine, treatment, medicene etc to be a Philosopher who goes "I theorize this is all a make believe world. So if we sprinkle this dust and just think really hard, he'll get better"? You wouldn't, you want hard facts running the show and that's what the scientists are for. They still encourage asking questions, to quote Richard Dawkins "Science is very humble in that we admit we do not know everything" and it always has more to learn. But it is not going to treat your ideas with seriousness unlike Philosophy unless if you have some hard proof and evidence to back it up with. So if you go up to a scientist and say "I have a theory God/Christianity is true" and then as proof you pull up the Bible... and to prove that you quote the Bible... You're going to get laughed/ridiculed rather hard.

Note when I was in High School Philosophy was my favourite class. I loved the open-ended thinking, the theories, always being to ask why and how. It is an amazing field to dive into if what you're looking for is both mental and spiritual growth and improvement. But it is definitely not what you go to when trying to prove things as fact.

ActRaiserTheReturned said Dawkins at one time suggested that religious people should be ridiculed. He did not even confine his arrogant, blithering, vocal arachnoid skittering of a voice through the minds of us mortals to the subject of Evolution, which is what he always goes on about, he was attacking religion specifically, and more importantly any individual of religious phenomenon. Particularily (spelling)? adherents of the Catholic faith, for believing in their miracle of tran-substantiation. In other words, he said, in almost these exact words, that if you hear someone say they believe that their communal wafer/wine is literally the body and blood of Jesus Christ, you should mock them, ridicule them, in public.

I've seen a good amount of his talks and lectures, I know fully well he's like this and says stuff like this on a constant basis.

This was mainly answered though in the last post already. But to repeat quickly, Richard Dawkins is a scientist. He uses proof and evidence as ways to treat things as fact and educate the world. If he see's people going around pushing something that not only lacks the evidence to support it, but outright dismisses most of Science's progress as false, he's going to have issues. And note that he did use to be a Christian so he's not saying it from a foreign/un-understanding view point. He's lived it, and he get's what it's like to be a Christian. He simply doesn't give much room/patience for people trying to dismiss science and replace with something unproven. The fact he refer's to Religion as a virus is probably because of how Religion has that way of getting into peoples heads and making them drones. Quoting the book, protesting the non-believers, listening to their pastor, ignoring science, little to no exploration and thought on their own initiative.

It is honestly about the same kind of loyalty/fear you see in cases like North Korea or the Nazi's. Belief that whoever/whatever is above you and better than you. You must worship him, you are nothing compared to them, they are always right etc.

ActRaiserTheReturned said Yes. But the other side of the debate has some plenty of experience which mirrors theirs, just in reverse. The only difference is that people are being taught contradictory information in schools five days a week instead of two days a week.

What in Science is it you think is contradictory? o.O
Note: Contradicting with your religion doesn't count. Religion is not science and it's not a fault of science that it doesn't fit with Religion until Religion was scientifically prove itself to be correct (and note you've got compete with tens of thousands of other religions first also).

ActRaiserTheReturned said The only fault that seems to lie on the Christian side of the matter IMHO is that we are not teaching our children "enough", and not just in quantitative education, but quality based education of the Church would make our children smarter, more contemplative, more experienced in the important things in life, and more mature of a person, not a block head hick, red neck that people stereotype the people of the Church as.

Oh dear Fthagan please no.

Religion barely teaches anything outside of "This book is true, believe this book and do not listen to anything that says otherwise".
What exactly is it you see in Religion that makes you feel it can educate people just as well as science can?

ActRaiserTheReturned said Before you say, "Well Science is being taught in logical and empirical manner in order to educate the child how to think effectively", no truer half truth was ever spoken. The truth is, that the world, and cosmological phenomenon is for people to acknowledge, to look at, study, and interact with in ways that help them learn. There's nothing wrong with that. The only problem is that there is nothing that conclusively or in my mind even reasonably disproves what a 'proper' tenant of Christianity is.

That's because Christianity has the burden of evidence here. Science has a long history of proving itself, Christianity is the one coming up and claiming they're right and bring no proof to the table. They need to prove their right before being treated as so, not being treated as right until proven false. In a sense just look at science as "False until proven otherwise". Otherwise we'd have people saying shit like "I think there's a dwarf riding a carriage around the earth with suns as wheels while shooting lightning out of his nipples" and be unable to argue it until only recently when we could look at the sun in space and confirm there's no dwarf there.

ActRaiserTheReturned said The thing is that religion is something that is broad. It's like saying oh, I'm not sure of the right example that "Philosophy makes people dull, uninteresting and lazy" I'm sure that maybe a philosophy that does such a thing exists, there is still a philosophy out there called Hedonism that exalts pleasure as the highest good, and another philosophy that exalts duty and the shunning of emotions, kind of like Star Trek Vulcans do. :D. So me saying "Philosophy holds science, medicine, etcetera" back, is essentially the same thing as claiming religion does those things. A truer half-truth was never spoken. :| It doesn't matter if it makes sense. It matters if it is ethically and honorably sound. For someone to say that religion holds people back by doing those things would be prejudiced and unacceptable if these concepts were anthropomorphisized.(Spelling?) ;)

Except when it goes as far as to say certain things in Science are false, and actually pulls shit like trying to get equal time on the show cosmos it is infringing on science. Because it is outright barging in and saying "You're wrong! I'm right! Out of the way science dorks! It's time to praise JESUS!!!".

ActRaiserTheReturned said I can get the source(s) for this.

Can I see it then? :P

ActRaiserTheReturned said Well for one thing Christianity's proper tenants (proper tenants is the key phrase) is only followed by acknowledging the sanctity of life. Also, lying and deceiving people is not in the proper tenants of Christianity.

And how exactly are you determining with tenits and such in the Bible are meant to be taken literally, and which are figurative in this sense?
Cause all the quotes on rape, murder etc were dismissed as misinterpretations, how do I know these acts of good simply aren't those misinterpretations.

ActRaiserTheReturned said Certain people among the Chinese call him Monkey Man. To my knowledge it's a cultural reference towards him sabotaging the country. I agree with them that he is doing this. However, Hoover could have been claimed to have been sabotaging the nation decades ago. It doesn't mean he was trying to bring down the Republic like Senator Palpatine. Although, I don't think Barrack Obama is as moral as Darth Sidious IMHO. (/oh snap!!!).

And what exactly is it that Obama did that makes you hate him so much?

Faction Ideas

Hold on, what's Vahara?

Did you post this in the wrong topic by chance?

Driver who killed teen now suing dead boy's family

Goldmarble said
Awww, no snowballing?

No not this time. :P
This a rare moment where it does not snow in Canada. XD

State-Church Separation

You weren't the one ignoring the different points and simply trolling the thread. So I'll bother replying to this post, still not wasting my time on So Boerd though.

ActRaiserTheReturned said Maybe usually. Christianity has, however, gotten rid of foot binding in the Far East, not to mention widow burning in India, and cannibalism in different parts of the world. I'm not saying that the Church being the same as the State is good. I'm just saying that the Church has done plenty of good people either dismiss, don't agree with or would rather lie about.

To claim no religious people ever went out to help people would be a lie, so I admit people have done some good under religion.
But you can say the same for most religions/beliefs, good people in an otherwise nasty religion wanting to help people.

But this still does nothing to prove the Religion correct, which you do need to address if you want one in State.
Then even if there's some good in the Religion, there is a lot of bad such as homophobia, supporting rape, kidnapping, theft, murder, slavery etc. which we can't ignore.

It's almost the same as saying "Look at the Nazi's, sure they killed 6 million Jews in terribly inhumane ways. Responsible for many rapes, slaves, murders, thefts, kidnappings etc.
But did you see the good they did with the Boy scouts?".

Also technically speaking, Cannibalism has nothing wrong to it.
It's cultural difference, where we have been raised that it's respectful to our dead to bury them.
Other culture's respect their dead by eating the corpse. Logically speaking both are fine and do no harm.
But in a society where we have been raised to see Canabalism as immoral it is something where initial reactions are going to be taken back.

If you're meaning the catching/kidnapping and murder of people for the purpose of eating them then you're right. That is wrong.
But that isn't wrong for the fact they are consuming human flesh, it's wrong because you murdered people.

ActRaiserTheReturned said As for the European Paganism/German thing. While you do have your points, some of them are not pertinent. For one thing, the tenants of genuine Christianity is not the same thing as priests or people who pretend to be Believers of Jesus joining the Church for political gain/power. For another thing, genuine adherence to Christianity has certainly been a great boon for societies when it's tenants are followed consistently, in addition to the removal of foot binding, widow burning, and cannibalism. For example, Pat Robertson, as absurd the things he says often is, seems to genuinely be a caring man, by organizing the Seven Hundred Club to feed starving people who need help. The Bible explicitly says that we are to be compassionate towards the Orphan, the Widow, and "To do violence to no man". To not be angry with reason, and of course, to "Render unto Caesar what is Caesars".

This is assuming stuff like rape, murder etc is not supported in the Bible. Which it does.

ActRaiserTheReturned said Christianity is a religion of order, which makes it easier to work with people in authority, at least under certain favorable conditions. It isn't likely with the hostility towards Christianity these days, that it should ever find it's place in genuine power again. There's too much prejudiced, half truths and misleading entrendes, inuendos and bald faced lies covering history, and educational institutions. What Humans don't understand is that it's time to stop coating their minds with mental junk food like the clinical psychobabble that infests our judicial systems, the hypocritical, mind-mulchingly obnoxious double standards spewing from the mouths of the diarretics like Doctor Spock, Richard Dawkins, Henry Kissinger (called our soldiers useless hunks of meat, basically), and yes, our own dear Presidente' in Messianic Annointed One In Chief, Barrack Obama (Sounds like a Klingon name), Diane Feinstein, and the Posthumous blow hards like John Dewey, Margaret Sanger, and Christopher Hitchens.

It's all pretty accurate accounts of people being murdered and killed in the name of Religion.
And really only takes a little looking in the Bible to find that God is more than ok with these sorts of acts.

And in a society where Christianity has been the main force behind things such as homophobia, racism, anti-vaccine, anti-science etc?
It's pretty understandable as to why people do not like Christianity.

Also how do you think people like Dawkins, Hitchen's etc. have double standards?

ActRaiserTheReturned said Pretend, that Dawkins and Hitchens were right about Evolution just for a moment.

No pretending needed, Evolution is a proven scientific fact. The only thing that can be proven better is the theory of Gravity.

ActRaiserTheReturned said I have listened to their bullshit plenty of times, and I will not for a moment believe they actually want you to "Think For you're self". They immediately jump to the conclusion, at least from what I've seen, that you are a bloody imbecile, if you don't believe in Evolution.

I will admit they do react pretty hostile to Religion and religious folk. But they're reasoning is that it is far too common to see Religion censor their followers.

For example, a child is born into a strong Christian family. They tell him evolution is false, God is real and not to question it. If he does question this he is declared to be speaking blashphemy, and he is almost never given answers outside of "Because God/The Bible says so". He is punished for thinking, and he is punished for asking questions. Science doesn't do this, it encourages asking questions and testing them. That's the whole point of experiments and studies, asking why something happens and finding it out, rather than simply saying "Oh we already know the answer, it's god" and leaving it at that.

Religion is effectively stopping many people from being free thinkers, and this holds back technology, medicine, education, and one's very ability to learn if they are taught asking questions is a bad thing and/or that they already have all the answers. So for people of science and learning like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens to not take kindly to religion makes sense, it infringes on every last thing that they stand for and that has been proven to not only be true, but help and benefit society.

ActRaiserTheReturned said This kind of attitude is VERY strong in secular blowhards like them. The spirit of freedom is not so strong when covered with the Secular Papal Bull that progressive serpents and goats want our America to be enslaved under.

The wording here is throwing me off. :/
Are you saying that the Pope is a bad thing wanting to in slave people? Or that he's the opposite?

Either way I will note my knowledge on the Pope specifically is not the best.

However generally the Pope has proven to be a bit more agreeable than many Christians. But even then you got glaring issues such as covering up the molesting/rape of little boys by priests, the fact they advocate helping the poor but go around with Golden Crosses and the like etc.

ActRaiserTheReturned said Under proper Christian tenants and the right man in the White House, we would not have someone so disrespectful (if not out right Anti-semetic) to Israel as Barrack Obama in office. We would have Jew lovers in office. :|

The hatred of Jew's is something I never understood from Christianity. They were meant to be the original followers, plus Jesus himself was meant to be Jewish.
So the fact they see Jewish as something bad... That's just one of the more puzzling contradictions that Christianity has. :/

ActRaiserTheReturned said We would not have to worry about Drones killing us on American soil.

How exactly would Christianity prevent this? o.O
Christianity has been proven time and time again to be one of the most violent things in human history.
If anything I'd expect more drones, only it's aimed at "Blasphemy speakers" or those who aren't Christian.

ActRaiserTheReturned said We would not have had a weirdo Senator (Barrack Obama) wanting to back a bill that if passed, would allow infants who survived botched abortion attempts to be starved to death.

Since when was this ever a law?

ActRaiserTheReturned said We wouldn't have weirdos sentencing a man in Arizona to a jail sentence for having a Bible service on his own property on a flimsy, lame as all Hell technical excuse.

Is this one of those "War on God" things? I don't recall any case of someone being arrested for having a service.
What's the source of this? I have a feeling this was less a service and more forcing kids to listen to something they didn't want to be at.

ActRaiserTheReturned said We wouldn't have that Waco crap. . . That Ruby Ridge Crap, or that Bundee Crap going on now.

How exactly would these cases be stopped by Christianity?
From what I gathered on these cases (which isn't much cause google isn't recognizing the terms being used), Christianity would cause more deaths in the name of god.
It would do nothing to prevent them.

ActRaiserTheReturned said Would a Christian leader lie about the Benghazi incident?

Lying about incidient's has nothing to do with Religion and more "Does this info coming out expose/inconvenience us? Yes? Cover it up", you don't need to be part of any Religion to be guilty of this.
But if anything Religion is definitely guilty of covering things up/lying about them, for one easy example the molesting/rape of little boys by priests.

ActRaiserTheReturned said This Jack Ass In Chief didn't inherit what he made. He has turned the death of our nation's power and credibility into a macabre master piece of gibbering horror, regret and underhanded cunning met with the cooperation of the weirdoes who were gullible and insane enough to vote for him.

Oh yes, cause that's totally what a world leader wants, to sabotage the country they lead. :P