Author Topic: [NEWS] Feminists chant Allahu Akbar.  (Read 10735 times)

It's apparently the job of a Christian to kill homoloveuals, though.

>Not in the new testament

That's pretty ironic then considering the most powerful countries in the world are majority-Christian, and the United States has oppressed minority political and religious groups due to their religious faith. Remember the Red Scare, when atheists were singled out as "communist infiltrators?" So much for the first amendment."Put homoloveuals to death" and "stone the unbelievers" aren't up to much interpretation either.

what is crusades
what is the reconquista
what are the forced conversions in north america
what are the massacres during the protestant reformation
what is the turmoil in england and france
what is the thirty years war and the schmalkaldic war
what is the ottoman empire (considering we're talking about history here, being dead doesn't exactly matter)
[/quote]

All still killed considerably less then Muslims and the Jihads

how come you didn't apply any of this logic to what you said 2 sentences ago
also apparently eastern orthodoxy just doesn't exist? what

Eastern Orthodoxy was considerably smaller and weaker than Catholicism.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that Christianity was suddenly super-tolerant. A lack of central authority just means that each state will start their own crusades instead of all acting as one. As I mentioned, a lot of pretty gruesome massacres happened due to the Reformation. On both sides. Additionally, Islam hasn't have a central authority since the caliphates, and even then, it was disputed at best. So it did have a Reformation in a way.

There were far less wars int he name of religion and calling a crusade of your own is just laughable.

Otherwise known as Judaism, a religion not exactly known for excessive violence. And the existence of the New Testament doesn't make the Old Testament "invalid" - it's still part of the Bible.

Because until recently it would be Self Delete to attack people of a different religion when your a minority in their country.

That's like saying the Bible needs changes at a fundamental level because it advocates killing homoloveuals and unbelievers. I'd agree with that statement, but it's just not realistic. You can by being reasonable in ignoring outdated parts of the Bible, just as you can with the Quran. And if so... congratulations! That's what the majority of Muslims actually do, just like how it's the majority of what Christians do. But we elect the fundies into government anyway.

You seem to forget that the old testament is a story of the jews and the founding of the religion. The new testament is what your actually suppose to follow

Again Islam has no "new testament"

Anyway my quote already linked to a previous argument where all the crap you spewed was already debunked

(wrote this before beachbum's reply) the Annoying Orange card here is the protestant reformation, which was by all means a political movement to separate from the oppressive catholic church, however if the argument for islam is "it's in the book, therefore people believe it," then the same standard has to apply to christianity, or any other religion.

take note that judaism has all the awful stuff in the old testament without the protestant reformation (also, christians definitely still teach from supposedly obsolete and backwards old testament content depending on your denomination, speaking from experience as someone who grew up in a southern baptist household). does that mean the jewish are inherently violent? absolutely not, because at the end of the day they're just words on a page. religious individuals decide which parts of their text are most important to them, and if you've ever been to church on any sort of regular basis, you'll know that they only emphasize the parts they want to talk about. and this varies from denomination to denomination, church to church, pastor to pastor, and certainly, individual to individual.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2017, 08:15:50 PM by otto-san »

take note that judaism has all the awful stuff in the old testament without the protestant reformation (also, christians definitely still teach from supposedly obsolete and backwards old testament content depending on your denomination, speaking from experience as someone who grew up in a southern baptist household). does that mean the jewish are inherently violent? absolutely not, because at the end of the day they're just words on a page. religious individuals decide which parts of their text are most important to them, and if you've ever been to church on any sort of regular basis, you'll know that they only emphasize the parts they want to talk about.

Like I said Judaism never really had that power since they didn't have a sovereign state until recent times

Like I said Judaism never really had that power since they didn't have a sovereign state until recent times
so is it a problem with government and politics or a problem with fundamentally evil individuals? i'm having a very hard time seeing the things going on in the middle east as anything other than a political phenomenon

so is it a problem with government and politics or a problem with fundamentally evil individuals? i'm having a very hard time seeing the things going on in the middle east as anything other than a political phenomenon

I mean the jews tried to rebel from the Romans but they got their stuff kicked in

I mean the jews tried to rebel from the Romans but they got their stuff kicked in
smh piss-poor k/ds

in any case, i definitely don't think islam has nothing to do with anything here; the contents of the koran obviously give people ideas about how to vent and direct their frustrations, though i would be hesitant to say that all of this is purely and exclusively because these people follow islam. if there were nothing to fight against, they would not be fighting. if there were no oppressive regimes to overthrow, there would be no rebellion. what i'm seeing right now is a region breaking itself down so it can build itself back up and correct the social contract. and at the end of it all, this will probably result in a cultural shift that will probably coincide with some form of "new islam" (which is actually just a new application of the text to new cultural standards). i think that this could've all easily happened without islam, it just would've been boring old rebellion and riot.

smh piss-poor k/ds

in any case, i definitely don't think islam has nothing to do with anything here; the contents of the koran obviously give people ideas about how to vent and direct their frustrations, though i would be hesitant to say that all of this is purely and exclusively because these people follow islam. if there were nothing to fight against, they would not be fighting. if there were no oppressive regimes to overthrow, there would be no rebellion. what i'm seeing right now is a region breaking itself down so it can build itself back up and correct the social contract. and at the end of it all, this will probably result in a cultural shift that will probably coincide with some form of "new islam" (which is actually just a new application of the text to new cultural standards). i think that this could've all easily happened without islam, it just would've been boring old rebellion and riot.

Would you be in favour of an open borders policy? Strict vetting? Or closed borders when it comes to unstable regions like the middle east?

Would you be in favour of an open borders policy? Strict vetting? Or closed borders when it comes to unstable regions like the middle east?
strict vetting is the obvious best case choice but the cost and time it takes to vet people will make this solution come under question.

Would you be in favour of an open borders policy? Strict vetting? Or closed borders when it comes to unstable regions like the middle east?
i think it'd certainly be nice to let people come into a safe region to escape those hecklands, but obviously national security interests are important and there has to be some kind of vetting procedure. i think the priority of these groups lies in their home regions and not abroad, but since they want to be taken seriously internationally, they're going to target others that they see as current or future opposition as well.

would anyone like to actually loving point out direct quotes from the bible that advocates for killing non-believers or are we going to keep continuing to dance around this strenuous connection at best
yes, they're both branches of the same religious tree and the Islamic God is the same as the Christian God, but that's not as important as the prophets who teach the values of each religion

you have Jeeeeeeeeeeesus who was all for salvation and redemption and nonviolence, he never taught his disciples to kill all nonbelievers, in fact one of the ten commandments is "do not kill"
then you have Muhammad, the most back-asswards guy ever in retrospect, who tells people that jihad is a must, had a child wife, and taught the idea that it is morally JUST to kill infidels because they would all go to heaven

I'm also going to keep linking this video until this idea that "izlum s peezfl" dies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TAAw3oQvg

i think it'd certainly be nice to let people come into a safe region

Ok this is all the countries with a forgetton of Muslims in it


Strict vetting is fine until you realize you have nothing to screen them against
« Last Edit: January 26, 2017, 11:03:04 PM by Red Spy »

why don't we ever hear about indonesian terrorists? or nigerian or indian? is it because it's only the middle east that's had such an intense power vacuum recently? or because muslims are bad people?

It's because 99% of the time, the terrorsts follow an extreme islamic ideology so it's better and just as accurate to use that than to make 50 names to fit in for the countries

why don't we ever hear about indonesian terrorists? or nigerian or indian? is it because it's only the middle east that's had such an intense power vacuum recently? or because muslims are bad people?

I would consider those Nigerian prince scandels to be an act of terrorism

It's because 99% of the time, the terrorsts follow an extreme islamic ideology so it's better and just as accurate to use that than to make 50 names to fit in for the countries
so generalizations for the sake of convenience