Religion of peace--seriously?
- Thread starter GOHOX69
- Start date
Correct. There were some unfounded reports, a couple of which law enforcement officials checked on.
The apologists here are ignoring history and are ignoring how Muslims treat their own. What did the Armenians do ? How about homosexuals in Islamic countries? Or women that dare to step out from under the thumb of their master? Everything is our fault is all you hear from the morons.
No, I don’t. I can be critical of violence in all its forms. I can also look beyond religion to consider how other factors, socio-economic, environmental, circumstantial or otherwise, contribute to violence. I beg you to find an example of my having a particular blind spot.
Which is why I don't get why many of the democrats on here don't have a bigger distain for islam. It is easily the worst major religion who's disdain for human rights should make it impossible to defend.
There are pockets of islam where they are the minority in countries that they assimilate very well. Given the majority, things go down hill in a hurry. Hello to sharia law and goodby to basic human rights.
I don't think that many on here know the tenets of sharia law and actually how widespread those beliefs are this isn't a 10% thing, this is way higher than that. Check the link I posted earlier.
You always say that, but I also consistently notice that in any thread like this, you're seemingly "defending" it and choosing to bash Christianity. So, maybe you should just sit these threads out or start your own threads about Christianity. Again, you're a good troll.
There isn't consensus on that.
Scholars now believe Mary and Joseph were both in their teens.
Regardless, Mohammed married a 5 year old girl. The two aren't comparable.
All cultures have done all of those things. Islam is late to the party.
They are quite different by OUR STANDARDS... NOW. But, again, judging people of the past by today's standards is only useful to a certain extent. Basically, it only reinforces the standards in-place NOW. In five hundred years, you can bet your ass that things we do will be considered barbaric.
You can count on two things on this board -
1. A "religion of peace thread" after any awful act by a muslim.
2. Radio silence by those same people after something like the NZ mosque killings.
1. A "religion of peace thread" after any awful act by a muslim.
2. Radio silence by those same people after something like the NZ mosque killings.
Kind of shows that morality isn’t dependent on some fixed divine revelation.
I can't look beyond religion? Really? Seems you just made that up. You obviously did since that's not the case.
Do us a favor...look "beyond religion" and explain to us how two kids who listened to Jay Z and watched The Walking Dead just happened to blow up the Boston Marathon after going to a radical Mosque. Two kids that were as non-radical and American as apple pie before their trips into that mosque.
What non-religious factors are there for people who actually use religion and admit to it being their reasoning for blowing up Christian churches all across a country as revenge for a mosque shooting in a country thousands of mile away?
Blind spot found.
Yes...there are always other factors at play for abnormal/ violent behavior, but to ignore a common theme or to pretend that it's mere coincidence when evidence points directly to a religious narrative is a bigger blind spot than any I have.
One thing that needs to be said about this topic - "Islam" of course is made up of two main sects. I'm not overly familiar with Shia vs Sunni in terms of theological differences. But my sense is a majority of the ISIS types are Sunni. Now, I also tend to think the Shia are just as bad with backing Hezbollah and hating on Israel, but just throwing it out there as maybe a good idea to not lump all Muslims into the same basket.
Absolutely not. The "divinity" is evolving as well. It must be... even the "Holy Scriptures" evolved. There should be NEWER Testaments all the time. Actually, there are. But, there's a lot of power, control and profit in insisting that literal interpretations of standards written-down 2000-6000 years ago still hold the same literal value now.
3. Dems are bad because Dems embrace Islam and bash Christians.
Don't forget the sub-sects. Like Wahhabi Islam. It's sorta like Pentecostal Protestantism with a really bad temper.
Then you might not want to make Biblical claims from any perspective at all.
It's revealing of some strange, binary thinking. You have to be for or against one OR the other, and ALL the time.
I am so thankful that we do live in a time where offering our opinions doesn't get us tortured and killed.
But where does the 12 yrs come from is my question. BTW, supposedly Joseph never fathered any children with Mary acc to some religious teachings (I think prob. Cath) so she remained a virgin and Jesus did not have any siblings. However, other teachings say he had brothers. Not sure if anything in the Bible about that. The new Testament is very quiet about polygamy, but I bet it was still prevalent. Maybe Joseph had other wive(s). I doubt the Romans forbade it.
And now you have destroyed the notion of a perfect standard.
With all due respect, I don't give a shit about the religion or the era, never should a 5 year old girl be considered marriage material.
I lambaste Trumptwits for false equivalencies all the time. This is by far the worst. This is some serious libturd thinking.
Repulsive and reprehensible.
People here have attacked mosques. People here have attacked - and killed - Muslims. People here have attacked and killed people because they THOUGHT they were Muslims. Good US god-fearing Americans have carried out these attacks and murders. You seem to think that's ok because it hasn't reached the levels seen in attacks by radical Muslims. I don't excuse one bit of it by anyone.
So your argument is that Jesus was a pedophile, but Muhammad was really a pedophile.
That number comes from academics. Google for how they arrived at that consensus. I don’t think Jews were polygamists. Catholics like to pretend the siblings were from a prior marriage. Protestants accept that Mary had sex with Joseph and produced actual siblings.
Did I say that?
Did I say that the Boston Marathon kids weren't radicalized? Was I exonerating the role of religion in their act?
I don't know. Let's investigate. Maybe just general hatred, sense of victimhood, zest for some retaliation for some real and/or perceived wrong? The thing is, FAUlty, what I'm not willing to do is simply say, "Islam, it's Islam's fault" and close the case. I don't do that when the shoe is on the Christian's foot, either. You have to consider that if Islam is such a massively populated religion, that within that there are countless, or at least hard-to-count, leaders within. So while one leader over here might be radical or fundamental or whatever, preaching retributions or retaliations or whatever violence (or even subtle hints as such) there is a leader over there preaching something entirely different. Same with Christianity. When viewed through the lens of someone in the Middle East, violence at the hands of the USA may be perceived as Christian colonialist action. And they may be right, regardless of how we might like to think of the USA as a secular, or at least multi-faith institution (I am suspicious of our history as being one of Christian white supremacy, but not necessarily with full consciousness, but that's a whole other discussion).
So, what, exactly, is my blind spot? You argue that I ignore religion. Weird argument given all I did was acknowledge that religion is often but one factor.
Again, how, exactly, is acknowledging other factors necessarily ignoring the religion factor?
It's almost like you had an emotional, irrational defense response that actually, when you take a deep breath, reveals that you actually are in agreement with me, only difference being you prefer to blame it all on a religion while sort of blind-spotting how/when the "competing" religion does similar shit.
Basically, when someone does bad shit in the name of Islam, or appearances suggest Islam is a factor, there is condemnation of the entire religion. Certain folks think this is problematic and argue as such, often pointing out that Islam isn't entirely unique in its violence. Then the narrative becomes that these folks are defending Islam and bashing Christianity. Actually what's happening is that both religions are being both defended and condemned.
But this is what we do to deal. Some deal with this shitty world by reducing complex issues to simple tropes: X is bad, Y is good. Others have a tolerance for deeper inspection and investigation. Those preferring simple tropes find this threatening for some reason. I'll never fully understand that.
I seem to think it's OK? Really? What bullshit. Where do you get the idea that I believe attacking people for any reason is OK?
But that's where you want to take this because you're the one who keeps trying to defend terrorism and you don't want to be the only one condoning atrocities in the name of religion. Sorry...they're all bad. But some are way worse than others.
I'm not saying that it's "okay for 5 year olds to be wives." I'm simply saying that it was okay THEN! And, your not giving a shit about context and detail is something you choose to ignore at your own peril. It merely helps to strengthen the resolve you have about it NOW. That's fine... but, choosing to be ignorant will have its hiccups somewhere down the line. You can be opposed to it without having a searing hatred toward people who have been dead for centuries and the behavior that is no longer even practiced. Holding a grudge only hurts the person with the grudge.
No one is defending terrorism, except people who choose to carry it out. They have justified it.
So... what is your remedy? Would you suggest a ban on all religion, perhaps?
You think Westboro is the beginning and end of Christianity-related violence (or even violent rhetoric)?
I could argue that trying to legislate discrimination against LGBT is an act of violence.
Point being it's easy to look at this or that bombing and get all up in arms over this or that religion, or sect of a religion, what have you. Every time this happens our attention is diverted from much more subtle forms of violence attributable, at least in part, to a racial and/or religious and/or ethnic and/or national bias. I mean, we're at war constantly, the US is by far the most violent country in the history of the world, and we're mostly shoulders-shrugged okay with it. Why? Because the USA is our bias. From out perspective, we (generally) think we're in the right. Are we? Are we sure?
Last edited:
And here you are pulling out strawmen and appropriating them to me after saying I have blind spots. Apparently you think I have said or believe "Islam, it's Islam's fault" and are considering that to be my "blind spot", which is not the case at all.
I've defended Islam on several occasions on this from people who want to bash it entirely due to the bad apples. But when unforgivable atrocities are done in the name of Allah, I also call them out and attribute their insane zealotry for whatever blame it deserves. It seems to be then when we veer off into these "Stop blaming Islam" tangents..which was never the case to begin with.
Okay, cool. But you have to admit you interpreted my post horribly. Like crazy horribly.
My remedy? I don't think there is one. However, I think a good place to start is to stop retreating to the corners of "Yeah but the Bible/ Mohammed says", every time one of these things happens and people so desperately want to avoid looking at the truth when it comes to the acts of individuals not representative of either religion as a whole.
I didn’t think you did, but religious people do.
The enemy of their enemy is their friend... They hate Christianity to the extent they're willing to defend anyone and anything that hates it even more.
