Well he certainly didn't help with that image problem he was talking about. Jeez.
forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting
posted
Total Posts
56,373
neither of you know if the attack was religiously motivated.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sus ... ck-n689076Railey2 wrote:
neither of you know if the attack was religiously motivated.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/osu-attack-sus ... d=43827435
Foxtrot wrote:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sus ... ck-n689076Railey2 wrote:
neither of you know if the attack was religiously motivated.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/osu-attack-sus ... d=43827435
“I can’t take it anymore. America! Stop interfering with other countries, especially the Muslim Ummah. We are not weak. We are not weak, remember that.”
This suggests a nationalistic motive more than it suggests religious dogmatism. A distinction that I'm sure most people wouldn't even think of these days, when all you read about is ISLAM ISLAM ISLAM, plastered all over the news with emotionally charged articles to go with.
I don't know. It might very well be religiously motivated. Maybe we'll never know. Either way, he surely didn't improve his religion's image, because people will associate his crime with islam no matter what his motivation turns out to be in the end.
The problem is with fundamentalism not with the religion itself
Christianity is adapting to the modern times because many of its proponents live in educated and modern countries so know not to do retarded shit
Whereas a lot of Muslims come from shithole countries with no education or social progress so they end up backwards and violent
Christianity is adapting to the modern times because many of its proponents live in educated and modern countries so know not to do retarded shit
Whereas a lot of Muslims come from shithole countries with no education or social progress so they end up backwards and violent
LMFAO FUCKIN HOLLERINGJellyblob56 wrote:
fuckin peanut head lookin ass
Are you kidding me, Railey? Did you completely ignore the "Muslim Ummah", which is a very religious term that just means "all Muslims with a common ideology"? And the fact most of the Muslim countries are, guess what, Islamic republics, which adhere to the Islamic law dictated in the Quran? Muslims are the one who plaster religion on every action they commit, not the media.Railey2 wrote:
“I can’t take it anymore. America! Stop interfering with other countries, especially the Muslim Ummah. We are not weak. We are not weak, remember that.”
This suggests a nationalistic motive more than it suggests religious dogmatism. A distinction that I'm sure most people wouldn't even think of these days, when all you read about is ISLAM ISLAM ISLAM, plastered all over the news with emotionally charged articles to go with.
I don't know. It might very well be religiously motivated. Maybe we'll never know. Either way, he surely didn't improve his religion's image, because people will associate his crime with islam no matter what his motivation turns out to be in the end.
I've spent some time thinking about what exactly sets a bigoted mindset apart from a more normal, open-minded one. One central difference seems to be, that bigots are way more inclined to use "all-or-nothing"-thinking, they find it harder to form nuanced opinions.Jellyblob56 wrote:
Well, if it's a Muslim, it's a good chance it is. After all, they are told to do so by the fucking Quran. Radical or not, if you support the Quran you're a fucking monster. All of it is hate.Railey2 wrote:
neither of you know if the attack was religiously motivated.
I have no problem with religion, really. Christianity has some fucked up shit too, all religions do. If you've noticed though, Christianity has been conforming to fit current times. Take a look at how most Christians treat LGBT. On the other side you have Islam. I wouldn't say the religion is changing as a whole like Christianity. After all, how can a religion based on killing, deception, etc be turned into something good? A religion of barbarians.
And this is blatantly obvious but of course that doesn't mean each individual is a monster themselves. I just don't see how you can say you're so devout to your religion and then turn around and not follow anything in your holy book. All they do is blindly pray.
I mean, I don't hate Muslims, I really don't. I just think a lot of them are uninformed.
[/img]
religion war go
As an example, you said: "if you support the Quran you're a fucking monster. All of it is hate."
A quick google search brought this up:
Quran letters: 320015 letters
Quran words: 77439 words
Quran verses: 6236 verses
Quran chapters: 114
Are you implying that there is not a single teaching to be found on these pages that is at least neutral? And the Quran isn't even the only book that is important for Islam, it's just the most important one.
Since most bigots seem to think in black and white, they often assume that if you are not black, you must automatically be white. If you felt the urge to call me an apologist just for what I've written above, maybe it's time to do some soul-searching? Anyway, to answer your questions..
The most important characteristic for modern, progressive Christians, is intellectual laziness concerning their own religion. The way Islam could become something good is by throwing the Quran out, just like most "progressive" Christians threw the bible out. Narrow the holy text down to a couple nice quotes and forget about the rest. By doing that, I'm sure you can cherry-pick a version of Islam into existence that is practically identically to modern Christianity. And in fact, we can see that happening in many parts of the world, where the youngest generation of Muslims is far more accepting and tolerant than the older generations.
Christianity did it, Islam can do it too. I'd rather have them both disappear forever, though.
"I am killing you because your people oppress my community, that also happens to be an islamic community"Foxtrot wrote:
Are you kidding me, Railey? Did you completely ignore the "Muslim Ummah", which is a very religious term that just means "all Muslims with a common ideology"? And the fact most of the Muslim countries are, guess what, Islamic republics, which adhere to the Islamic law dictated in the Quran? Muslims are the one who plaster religion on every action they commit, not the media.Railey2 wrote:
“I can’t take it anymore. America! Stop interfering with other countries, especially the Muslim Ummah. We are not weak. We are not weak, remember that.”
This suggests a nationalistic motive more than it suggests religious dogmatism. A distinction that I'm sure most people wouldn't even think of these days, when all you read about is ISLAM ISLAM ISLAM, plastered all over the news with emotionally charged articles to go with.
I don't know. It might very well be religiously motivated. Maybe we'll never know. Either way, he surely didn't improve his religion's image, because people will associate his crime with islam no matter what his motivation turns out to be in the end.
"I am killing you because your people don't adhere to my religious teachings"
first is nationalistic. Second is religious dogma. His quote suggested the former, not the latter. It might turn out to be the latter when more information is revealed.
Here is an example of a recent conflict (in the first world), that was nationalistic, but not religious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles
Sometimes these conflicts involve religious identities, but the onus is on identity, not on religious.
You simply read the phrase "muslim ummah" and assumed religious dogmatism. Ummah just means community. The more obvious conclusion would be that he did it for "his people", instead of doing it for "his religion". It's a very important difference.
"Since most bigots seem to think in black and white, they often assume that if you are not black, you must automatically be white."Jellyblob56 wrote:
First of all, I clarified that I'm not talking about all muslims and that I was making the situation look more dire than it is in retrospect but how is anything I said wrong?
Really, Railey. Download a copy of the Quran. Just jump to random pages. This idea that the opposing idea is pushing-- that the the Quran has to be good because it's a "holy" book is just preposterous.
[...]
What I have had on the otherhand is you try to belittle me because of what I think whilst completely ignoring mahogany's comment and how I said I agreed with it.
I never pushed the idea that the Quran is a "good" book. I don't even disagree with Mahogany (except that I think that religion is also the problem, in addition to fundamentalism, so you might even call my stance more extreme than Mahogany's). I think the Quran is a book that contains many dangerous thoughts, many even utterly reprehensible.
What a religion was founded on doesn't really matter. As I said before, most religious texts are subject to (very) free interpretation and have to be followed selectively, because they stand in conflict with themselves. If you are familiar with European history, you know that Christians too have killed "infidels" across the continent, all backed up by their religious teachings. We've had the inquisition, genocides in africa, north america and the middle east to spread Christianity, even in parts of asia. Christianity's body count is probably higher than the one of Islam, so which religion is really "based off of killing"?Jellyblob56 wrote:
And like I said before, this religion is completely based off of killing, deception, and strict ideology whereas Christianity has proven to be much more flexible and supported by morals that are accepted even currently. Even then, all the "bad parts" have been completely brushed aside; completely ignored by those following the religion because they want theirs to be the best. They want theirs to be perfect. The Quran tells them to spread their religion like a plague and kill all who don't submit to it. Maybe I am bigoted, but I have stated my reasons and have yet to be told anything that I feel makes more sense.
If you want to be convinced that Islam can change, look at the history of Christianity. The Quran might be more explicit than the bible, but goddamn. We're already seeing loads of moderate Muslims in this day and time. How can you claim that change is impossible? There are so many people that already turned it into something good.
I can tell the difference.Jellyblob56 wrote:
You need to be able to differentiate generalizations from bigotry. Not all generalizations are bad, sure, they may be on a topic that is not so good but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Generalizations exist because they can be useful in situations where a particular group is taking part in a particular crime / activity / etc.
Good morning.
good morning :>
I need to testplay some of your maps again some time!
I need to testplay some of your maps again some time!
Except Christianity is different because unlike the Quran, the Bible does not encourage or support acts of violence. There is no part in the Bible that advocates for genocide, so you really can't blame everything that happened in the Crusades on Christianity. The Bible advocates against violence.
The Crusades were a response to Muslim aggression and expansion, iirc correctly because the Byzantine emporor requested assistance from the pope. And keep in mind then the medieval period was a more violent and militaristic society, wars and massacres happened back then regardless of the religion of the nation.
I'm sick of this myth that Christianity is just as bad as Islam. These things are not the same.
The Crusades were a response to Muslim aggression and expansion, iirc correctly because the Byzantine emporor requested assistance from the pope. And keep in mind then the medieval period was a more violent and militaristic society, wars and massacres happened back then regardless of the religion of the nation.
I'm sick of this myth that Christianity is just as bad as Islam. These things are not the same.
This has to be the most uneducated argument that has ever occurred in this thread and it is quite disappointing. No where in the Quran does it promise it's followers 72 virgins you idiot. That is just heresay derived from poor translations. The Quran is no more violent than the Bible is and if you were to just look at the old testament you'd see that it's a lot more violent than Quran is. The Quran does not promote violence, what it does promote though is using violence to counter violence, unlike the new testament of the Bible which promotes passive action in the face of violence.
The problem does not lie within the religion but lies under groups such as ISIS that misconstrue the words of the Quran to brainwash it's believers to make them fall into their corrupt agendas.
The problem does not lie within the religion but lies under groups such as ISIS that misconstrue the words of the Quran to brainwash it's believers to make them fall into their corrupt agendas.
Good post Jelly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnkPmeF3fSY
People take the old testament out of context. The old testament laws are not for people now days, they were the laws for the ancient Jews.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnkPmeF3fSY
People take the old testament out of context. The old testament laws are not for people now days, they were the laws for the ancient Jews.
>Brazil
aand nothing of value was lost.
aand nothing of value was lost.
My edge exceeds the sharpness of the sharpest katana forged in the depths of 日本 folded over ten thousand times that can cut though tank barrels with a single slice.
you can just simplify that to "fucking edgy"
People have a hard time understanding that it is possible for a holy book to advocate for conflicting values. Yes, the bible advocates a lot against violence, but it also advocates for violence.B1rd wrote:
Except Christianity is different because unlike the Quran, the Bible does not encourage or support acts of violence. There is no part in the Bible that advocates for genocide, so you really can't blame everything that happened in the Crusades on Christianity. The Bible advocates against violence.
The Crusades were a response to Muslim aggression and expansion, iirc correctly because the Byzantine emporor requested assistance from the pope. And keep in mind then the medieval period was a more violent and militaristic society, wars and massacres happened back then regardless of the religion of the nation.
I'm sick of this myth that Christianity is just as bad as Islam. These things are not the same.
God himself commits genocide multiple times in the old testament where he drowns every living being on earth except for Noah and his gang. Or when he nukes Sodom and Gomorrha. Or when he kills Egyptian firstborns (innocent children, supposedly).
Again, what you say sounds like a bigoted opinion: The King James Authorized Bible has 783,137 words. It was written by hundreds of people over centuries, in a time where religious persecution was almost a social norm. You think there is not a single part that could be interpreted to justify crimes against humanity?
If count the number of violent verses in each book, in relation to the number of verses that advocate for peace, the Quran might come out on top. I'm not denying that. But the initial argument was my answer to the question: "Is it possible to modernize an allegedly barbaric religion?" The answer is:
Islam is just like Christianity neither completely barbaric nor completely civilized, as their holy texts both propagate a broad range of ideas that you have to pick from to arrive at your personal interpretation of the religion, which then might turn out to be barbaric or civilized (or anything in between).
Islam can be a religion of peace. It can also be what ISIS makes it, a religion of war. It might be that it is easier to arrive at the religion of war interpretation by reading the Quran than it is to arrive at it by reading the bible (which does make it "worse", as in "more dangerous"), but the point still stands. Both can be reformed and were successfully reformed in the past and present.
That guy must be immortal, surviving a fucking plane crashJellyblob56 wrote:
Jesus Christ, bad shit is happening left and right. https://www.yahoo.com/news/colombia-aut ... 32692.html
Sounds like only 1 possible survivor as of now. "An ambulance transporting a male passenger with oxygen and covered in a blanket arrived on a stretcher to a local hospital, Blu Radio reported. He was apparently alive."
Hope that he's not the only one.
To say that the Quran is rooted from evil and violence is ignorant to say the least and even more ignorant to misinterpret it's words in the exact same way extremists interpret it, who themselves, go against it's teachings. The Quran doesn't go against other religions in the way you see it. The Quran does not teach active violence, it teaches reactionary violence; really easy to take the same popular passages that everyone uses to berate the readings to backup your argument isn't it?
What the Quran is rooted from is human nature. Unlike every other religion e.g. Christianity, which tells you to turn the other cheek when you are hit, Islam is the exact opposite, teaching you to do the same to them to what they did to you and it is this fact that makes people so sure that this religion is evil incarnate. The Quran was written during a time in which Muslim's faced strong hostility and oppression from Meccans much like the persecution of the Christians from Jews and Romans but unlike Christians who simply ran away, Muslims chose to fight. Because of this, the way the Quran is written sounds extremely hostile to non-believers when in truth, those 'non-believers' actually refer to the Meccans. Despite this, the fundamentals of Muhammad was intact and something you clearly chose not to include, plain and simply put, the one part of the Quran that everyone loves to ignore, "do not cause harm to those that do not harm you". During Muhammad's conquest he sought out the most peaceful ways to triumph over the Meccans but he did not dismiss the fact that at times, violence was necessary because it was human nature. This is what differentiates it from other religions, it does not condone violence against the peaceful but it does tell you that if someone told you to catch his hands, don't catch em, don't be a bitch and fucking throw them back.
What the Quran promotes heavily, and by heavily I mean heavily, is the persecution and damnation of those who cause harm to you; the unjust (evil-doers) and the people who choose to oppress others (the crime of Al-Fitnah). Those who take action are rewarded, those who laze about are not, because obviously, they are lazy fucks. This is where the religion falls to a grey area and can be misinterpreted and used to take advantage of it's people. The belief of Muslim's is that they know what is best, they are the judges of what is right and wrong and especially with the current Caliph being the leader of ISIS, shit is not looking good in their morals department. This does not mean however that the religion is evil, it simply means some people are crazed lunatics and some people are stupid followers, oh hey, hello North Korea.
Now look at it from an Arab-Muslim's perspective, the west, most specifically America has committed much worse atrocities to the Arab-Muslim people than they have to us, all because of America's greed for oil. In their eyes, we're the big bad. That's what all their kids are taught and they use Islam as a tool to further their own agenda. Looking at it from their perspective, I can easily see how many Muslims can fall pray into believing extremist factions because let's face it, our countries are absolute assholes.
You think Islam is evil? No, it is not religion; the Quran may do
a horrible job of conveying it's message and morals but the Quran itself is not evil and if you read it at least close to its entirety you'd know that. The ambiguity of the religion plays a big part as to why Islam is a problem but the Quran itself is not the source of the evil, it's the people. Don't blame the Quran, just blame Muslims in general, fuck Muslims. Everyone who believes Islam is a religion based on evil fall under the category of propaganda-induced brainwashing.
TL;DR THE QURAN IS A GOOD BOY BUT IT DON'T MEAN HE'S A PUSSY
What the Quran is rooted from is human nature. Unlike every other religion e.g. Christianity, which tells you to turn the other cheek when you are hit, Islam is the exact opposite, teaching you to do the same to them to what they did to you and it is this fact that makes people so sure that this religion is evil incarnate. The Quran was written during a time in which Muslim's faced strong hostility and oppression from Meccans much like the persecution of the Christians from Jews and Romans but unlike Christians who simply ran away, Muslims chose to fight. Because of this, the way the Quran is written sounds extremely hostile to non-believers when in truth, those 'non-believers' actually refer to the Meccans. Despite this, the fundamentals of Muhammad was intact and something you clearly chose not to include, plain and simply put, the one part of the Quran that everyone loves to ignore, "do not cause harm to those that do not harm you". During Muhammad's conquest he sought out the most peaceful ways to triumph over the Meccans but he did not dismiss the fact that at times, violence was necessary because it was human nature. This is what differentiates it from other religions, it does not condone violence against the peaceful but it does tell you that if someone told you to catch his hands, don't catch em, don't be a bitch and fucking throw them back.
What the Quran promotes heavily, and by heavily I mean heavily, is the persecution and damnation of those who cause harm to you; the unjust (evil-doers) and the people who choose to oppress others (the crime of Al-Fitnah). Those who take action are rewarded, those who laze about are not, because obviously, they are lazy fucks. This is where the religion falls to a grey area and can be misinterpreted and used to take advantage of it's people. The belief of Muslim's is that they know what is best, they are the judges of what is right and wrong and especially with the current Caliph being the leader of ISIS, shit is not looking good in their morals department. This does not mean however that the religion is evil, it simply means some people are crazed lunatics and some people are stupid followers, oh hey, hello North Korea.
Now look at it from an Arab-Muslim's perspective, the west, most specifically America has committed much worse atrocities to the Arab-Muslim people than they have to us, all because of America's greed for oil. In their eyes, we're the big bad. That's what all their kids are taught and they use Islam as a tool to further their own agenda. Looking at it from their perspective, I can easily see how many Muslims can fall pray into believing extremist factions because let's face it, our countries are absolute assholes.
You think Islam is evil? No, it is not religion; the Quran may do
a horrible job of conveying it's message and morals but the Quran itself is not evil and if you read it at least close to its entirety you'd know that. The ambiguity of the religion plays a big part as to why Islam is a problem but the Quran itself is not the source of the evil, it's the people. Don't blame the Quran, just blame Muslims in general, fuck Muslims. Everyone who believes Islam is a religion based on evil fall under the category of propaganda-induced brainwashing.
TL;DR THE QURAN IS A GOOD BOY BUT IT DON'T MEAN HE'S A PUSSY
Wallllllzzz of text.
I typed and am browsing this forum in my phone btw so everything seems longer.
I typed and am browsing this forum in my phone btw so everything seems longer.
What God did in the New Testament is of no relevance. What is important is what the religion tells it's followers to do now. And as I said, the Bible does not advocate for violence. It advocates against violence, and people who commit violence in the name of Christianity, of which there are not many despite is being one of the popular religions of the world, are simply misinterpreting the Bible. Saying that all religions are the same because people can interpret things however they like is a stupid argument.Railey2 wrote:
People have a hard time understanding that it is possible for a holy book to advocate for conflicting values. Yes, the bible advocates a lot against violence, but it also advocates for violence.
God himself commits genocide multiple times in the old testament where he drowns every living being on earth except for Noah and his gang. Or when he nukes Sodom and Gomorrha. Or when he kills Egyptian firstborns (innocent children, supposedly).
Again, what you say sounds like a bigoted opinion: The King James Authorized Bible has 783,137 words. It was written by hundreds of people over centuries, in a time where religious persecution was almost a social norm. You think there is not a single part that could be interpreted to justify crimes against humanity?
If count the number of violent verses in each book, in relation to the number of verses that advocate for peace, the Quran might come out on top. I'm not denying that. But the initial argument was my answer to the question: "Is it possible to modernize an allegedly barbaric religion?" The answer is:
Islam is just like Christianity neither completely barbaric nor completely civilized, as their holy texts both propagate a broad range of ideas that you have to pick from to arrive at your personal interpretation of the religion, which then might turn out to be barbaric or civilized (or anything in between).
Islam can be a religion of peace. It can also be what ISIS makes it, a religion of war. It might be that it is easier to arrive at the religion of war interpretation by reading the Quran than it is to arrive at it by reading the bible (which does make it "worse", as in "more dangerous"), but the point still stands. Both can be reformed and were successfully reformed in the past and present.
Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ - Mathew 22:30-39
The seconds greatest commandment in the Bible is 'Love your neighbor as yourself'.
You never directly rebutted any of the verse of Jelly, you didn't rebut anything from the video I posted. Your text is based on nothing but the claim that Islam only advocated violence in the face of aggression, which is completely unsubstantiated and demonstrably untrue. You have an ex-Muslim, an expert on religion who says that ISIS represents Islam, you you claim that anyone who thinks that is 'ignorant'. Your opinion stems from this modern idealistic notion to refuse that any religion or culture can inherently be bad or promote violent ideals, despite overwhelming evidence in behaviour of Muslims and in the source text they follow.EneT wrote:
To say that the Quran is rooted from evil and violence is ignorant to say the least and even more ignorant to misinterpret it's words in the exact same way extremists interpret it, who themselves, go against it's teachings. The Quran doesn't go against other religions in the way you see it. The Quran does not teach active violence, it teaches reactionary violence; really easy to take the same popular passages that everyone uses to berate the readings to backup your argument isn't it?
What the Quran is rooted from is human nature. Unlike every other religion e.g. Christianity, which tells you to turn the other cheek when you are hit, Islam is the exact opposite, teaching you to do the same to them to what they did to you and it is this fact that makes people so sure that this religion is evil incarnate. The Quran was written during a time in which Muslim's faced strong hostility and oppression from Meccans much like the persecution of the Christians from Jews and Romans but unlike Christians who simply ran away, Muslims chose to fight. Because of this, the way the Quran is written sounds extremely hostile to non-believers when in truth, those 'non-believers' actually refer to the Meccans. Despite this, the fundamentals of Muhammad was intact and something you clearly chose not to include, plain and simply put, the one part of the Quran that everyone loves to ignore, "do not cause harm to those that do not harm you". During Muhammad's conquest he sought out the most peaceful ways to triumph over the Meccans but he did not dismiss the fact that at times, violence was necessary because it was human nature. This is what differentiates it from other religions, it does not condone violence against the peaceful but it does tell you that if someone told you to catch his hands, don't catch em, don't be a bitch and fucking throw them back.
What the Quran promotes heavily, and by heavily I mean heavily, is the persecution and damnation of those who cause harm to you; the unjust (evil-doers) and the people who choose to oppress others (the crime of Al-Fitnah). Those who take action are rewarded, those who laze about are not, because obviously, they are lazy fucks. This is where the religion falls to a grey area and can be misinterpreted and used to take advantage of it's people. The belief of Muslim's is that they know what is best, they are the judges of what is right and wrong and especially with the current Caliph being the leader of ISIS, shit is not looking good in their morals department. This does not mean however that the religion is evil, it simply means some people are crazed lunatics and some people are stupid followers, oh hey, hello North Korea.
Now look at it from an Arab-Muslim's perspective, the west, most specifically America has committed much worse atrocities to the Arab-Muslim people than they have to us, all because of America's greed for oil. In their eyes, we're the big bad. That's what all their kids are taught and they use Islam as a tool to further their own agenda. Looking at it from their perspective, I can easily see how many Muslims can fall pray into believing extremist factions because let's face it, our countries are absolute assholes.
You think Islam is evil? No, it is not religion; the Quran may do
a horrible job of conveying it's message and morals but the Quran itself is not evil and if you read it at least close to its entirety you'd know that. The ambiguity of the religion plays a big part as to why Islam is a problem but the Quran itself is not the source of the evil, it's the people. Don't blame the Quran, just blame Muslims in general, fuck Muslims. Everyone who believes Islam is a religion based on evil fall under the category of propaganda-induced brainwashing.
TL;DR THE QURAN IS A GOOD BOY BUT IT DON'T MEAN HE'S A PUSSY
B1rd if you just want to argue about Islam and Christianity how they are practiced in the present, then there is not much of an argument to be had. Islam is clearly fucked in large parts of the world, Christianity isn't.
You have to admit that there are many parts in the bible that advocate for violence though.
You have to admit that there are many parts in the bible that advocate for violence though.
I'm not just arguing about how they are practiced in the present, which is generally a good indicator, I'm arguing about their fundamental theological principles. And yes my claim is that Islam advocates violence and Christianity doesn't. And as far as I know there is no part of the Bible that advocates for violence, except for laws in the old Testament that were meant for governing the ancient Jewish people. So far you've yet to provide any evidence that it does.
you're saying the old testament is not relevant to Christianity? That's just factually wrong. I already provided multiple examples where god himself committed genocide, including the murder of innocent children. What else do you want?B1rd wrote:
I'm not just arguing about how they are practiced in the present, which is generally a good indicator, I'm arguing about their fundamental theological principles. And yes my claim is that Islam advocates violence and Christianity doesn't. And as far as I know there is no part of the Bible that advocates for violence, except for laws in the old Testament that were meant for governing the ancient Jewish people. So far you've yet to provide any evidence that it does.
all differences aside, this is a very polite discussion so far. I'm liking it. At least we don't have people slandering each other :v
You make me repeat myself but I'll say it again: What God Himself does and what the Bible advocates his followers to do are not the same. You can argue the morals of what God did all you want but there's no way you can twist that into saying that it's telling Christians to go and kill people or commit genocide. I never said the Old Testament is irrelevant, you're just putting words into my mouth, I said that certain laws in it are not applicable today. The Old Testament creates the historical setting for the New Testament.Railey2 wrote:
you're saying the old testament is not relevant to Christianity? That's just factually wrong. I already provided multiple examples where god himself committed genocide, including the murder of innocent children. What else do you want?
I didn't want to bother because quoting shit is a hassle on phone, but if you want me to then sure. But rebutting, I won't do, what I will do is translate them to their true meaning which Jellybean has clearly misinterpreted.B1rd wrote:
You never directly rebutted any of the verse of Jelly, you didn't rebut anything from the video I posted. Your text is based on nothing but the claim that Islam only advocated violence in the fact of aggression, which is completely unsubstantiated and demonstrably untrue. You have an ex-Muslim, an expert on religion who says that ISIS represents Islam, you you claim that anyone who thinks that is 'ignorant'. Your opinion stems from this modern idealistic notion to refuse that any religion or culture can inherently be bad or promote violent ideals, despite overwhelming evidence in behaviour of Muslims and in the source text they follow.
The idolaters refer to the Meccans, this isn't actually a teaching, more like a record of history which is basically what the Quran is. The forbidden months refers to the months that are sacred to the Arabic Pagans (The most common religion and the religion of the Meccans), once, some of Muhammad's followers killed some Meccans during these months and Muhammad disapproved of this act as he wished to show respect to the Meccan's religion. He then halted actions and waited until the sacred months were over for him to make his move. "Kill all the Meccans you can find as they have sinned against us", simple, "but if they repent for what they have done then cause them no more harm, because our God is a forgiving God".Jellyblob56 wrote:
9:5) And when the forbidden months have passed, kill the idolaters wherever you find them and take them prisoners, and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent and observe Prayer and pay the Zakat, then leave their way free. Surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.
This one is taken out of context, not having the previous part of it completely takes it out of the meaning it's meant to have. What it basically says is "To kill is a crime, but to prevent a man from believing in his religion, his God; to prevent access to his holy temple, to kick us out of our own homes... The crime of oppression towards a group of people is a bigger crime than killing. You are not to fight them in our holy temple but if they start to fight with you, then you may kill them". Self-defence, no? Except in those times they didn't know the meaning of cutting back and just killed them.Jellyblob56 wrote:
2:191 And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-al-Haram (the sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.
Another one taken out of context without any regard for the time and situation this was written. Due to the oppression Muslims faced, not many were too fond of fighting against the Meccans. What the English translation does not include is the word Jihad is used and while it may be seen as a bad word nowadays, it means fighting for your God/fighting for the cause of truth/what is right. So to translate it "Why are you so scared of fighting when there is no better feeling than fighting for what is right? Do you not want to fight? Do you love being oppressed?"Jellyblob56 wrote:
2:216 "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
Excuse me? No, the Arabs were split between 2 tribes, Muhammad's and the Quraysh and Muhammad had finally established a 10 year treaty with Quraysh in which they would no longer cause harm to the other, but in that time hostilities rose and Banu Kabr, from the Quraysh side attacked one of Muhammad's followers. The treaty stated that if a person were to face aggression from someone from the other tribe then the tribe that person is allied to is allowed to retaliate. In retaliation Muhammad brought his army up to Mecca's door and before the Quraysh could send them a messenger pleading for innocence, Muhammad was already assaulting the city. Despite this, absolutely no one was killed as Muhammad told his men to only fight when fought against and successfully drove them out with no bloodshed.Jellyblob56 wrote:
Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. The verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did).
BREAK TIME, I'm hungry
I don't think any of us like Muslims or Islam as a religion tbh so we can all agree to that.Railey2 wrote:
all differences aside, this is a very polite discussion so far. I'm liking it. At least we don't have people slandering each other :v
its super easy to go from the Sodom and Gomorrah story to killing gay people. Since god is perfect, that means his actions are likewise perfect. Super easy to twist.B1rd wrote:
You make me repeat myself but I'll say it again: What God Himself does and what the Bible advocates his followers to do are not the same. You can argue the morals of what God did all you want but there's no way you can twist that into saying that it's telling Christians to go and kill people or commit genocide. I never said the Old Testament is irrelevant, you're just putting words into my mouth, I said that certain laws in it are not applicable today. The Old Testament creates the historical setting for the New Testament.Railey2 wrote:
you're saying the old testament is not relevant to Christianity? That's just factually wrong. I already provided multiple examples where god himself committed genocide, including the murder of innocent children. What else do you want?
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
This is a pretty biased site, but they quote all their stuff. Some of it might be misinterpreted, but you know. It's not hard to see how someone could arrive at a violent interpretation of Christianity.
What God himself does is different from what he tells other people to do, but they are equal in that both are used to justify behavior of all sorts, progressive or not. You might not call it a direct advocation of violence, but it is at least heavily implied simply by the fact that you have a supposedly perfect god who is a murderous maniac. If god is good, and god slays the innocent, then slaying the innocent is good. I call that advocating for violence.
What makes it so complicated is that the bible advocates for peaceful behavior at the same time. As you said: Loving your next is one of the core values.
Fuckin' get this dickwad out ^Tornado wrote:
xd