[OnTheIce]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BRAH BRAH:

Family Guy mocks Jesus all the time, when was the last time Christians committed an act of Terrorism because of it?

The difference being that the Bible has an Old Testament of how things used to be, and a New Testament of how things are now. Most scholars agree that the Bible is also written by different people at different times, and is self contradictory, but still holds great moral and spiritual significance for those who follow it.

The Koran is supposed to be the literal word of god himself, dictated to Mohammed who then dictated it from memory to his friend who could read and write.

The Bible is thus more open to interpretation. It isn't quite as specific about murdering infidels, killing people for apostasy, cutting off the hands of thieves etc. There is a lot of nasty stuff in there, no doubt, but the Koran contains actual commands, directly from the mouth of god, to do those things.

Jesus actually told his followers to 'suck it up and move on', where Mohammed said to kill them all and let God sort it out. Christians do terrorism, just look at the Northern Irish conflict, and some other nasty stuff in the South Pacific. But it goes against what Christ taught. Whereas this act in France is right out of the Koran.

So if the Koran was re-written to reflect more civilized beliefs, all this stuff would calm down?

Are these people not smart enough to factor in common sense and basic human dignity or do they need a book of stories from an imaginary 'god' to tell them that?

[martin14]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

factor in common sense and basic human dignity

You must be kidding.

[martin14]

14.27 Two armed men have been reportedly spotted in the woods outside Villers-Cotterets.

Our photographer Heathcliffe O'Malley, who is on the N2 outside of Paris, near the village of Longpont, has just spoken to a man who was warned to leave a local restaurant "because the police were coming".

The restaurant owner said that he had been told "two armed men are in the woods".

Police are gathering in what looks like a farmhouse, outside the village.


Just airstrike it.

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

There is a lot of nasty stuff in there, no doubt, but the Koran contains actual commands, directly from the mouth of god, to do those things.

actually, the Muslims claim that it was the archangel Gabriel who came to Mohammed and told him this is what God wants you to remember and then get someone to write it down. Technically, if you believe in this, it was second hand or third hand.

[Mowich]

[andyt]

Sure sure, we are all Charlie. Today. Just like "bring back our girls" was the big twitter movement of a few weeks ago. This will prove to just be more slacktivism.

Most big news corps won't even re-print the offending cartoons.

[DrCaleb]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Are these people not smart enough to factor in common sense and basic human dignity or do they need a book of stories from an imaginary 'god' to tell them that?

You just described Radical Christians, Radical Buddhists and Radical Islamists in one sentence. Maybe even radical Hare Krishna's and Radical Shinto's too.

[andyt]

I'll trade you radical Hindus (who are very much acting up in India) for those radical Buddhists. The Buddhists have no God, and really you never hear about radical Buddhists anyway. You have clashes between Buddhists and others in Sri Lanka and Myanmar, but in both cases it is about immigrants not being wanted, not religious conflict. I guess "Emptiness is great" just doesn't make for a good rallying cry.

[martin14]

Latest

15.22 Peter Foster, US Editor, reports:

Anjem Choudary, the extremist British Muslim cleric, has been upsetting America after he was granted an “opposing view” editorial comment slot by USA Today, one of the country’s top-selling newspapers.

The article, headlined “People know the consequences”, defended the attack on Charlie Hebdo as the predictable consequences of “insulting the Messenger Muhammad” and the killings as death sentences sanctioned under sharia law for those who seek to defend the prophet’s honour.

[Jabberwalker]

“insulting the Messenger Muhammad” and the killings as death sentences sanctioned under sharia law for those who seek to defend the prophet’s honour.


That idea alone defines Islam as a sort of death cult rather than the "religion of peace". Christians would have done things like that in the past (not consistently) but not for a long time. The fundamental difference is that nowhere does Jesus advocate death for anybody, anytime with only a few oblique references like that occurring in a couple of parables that make reference to Rabinic law. If Christians have killed in the name of Christ, they are not Christians by definition. If it is written in the Koran that infidels should die under any circumstances at all, this "religion" has no place among modern humans. We can't afford to think like that, anymore.

[OnTheIce]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

You just described Radical Christians, Radical Buddhists and Radical Islamists in one sentence. Maybe even radical Hare Krishna's and Radical Shinto's too.

Let's cut to the chase here.

Radical Islamists are the worst of the bunch. Hands down. No debate.

Let's stop with the apologist BS regarding Islam.

[BartSimpson]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Let's cut to the chase here.

Radical Islamists are the worst of the bunch. Hands down. No debate.

Let's stop with the apologist BS regarding Islam.

[DrCaleb]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

You just described Radical Christians, Radical Buddhists and Radical Islamists in one sentence. Maybe even radical Hare Krishna's and Radical Shinto's too.

Let's cut to the chase here.

Radical Islamists are the worst of the bunch. Hands down. No debate.

Let's stop with the apologist BS regarding Islam.

Who is this 'we' you speak of?

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

Judging by your past posts, gays and people in Detroit (or is it all blacks?) better start to worry as well.

Judging by YOUR past posts (that seethe with anti-Semitism) then the Jews have cause to be concerned about your allegiance to the moslems.

[stratos]

$1:

stratos wrote:
Quote:
Which is 100% not what I was saying or leading to. I did not justify the actions of the gunmen. I did not justify, excuse or trivialize what they did and I sure as heck didn't say they had every right to shoot a bunch of people.



you say this now but wrote this


Quote:
And you provoke them anyways again and again, you have your own special role in creating the problem in the first place.



Thus Justifying their actions.


Actually no I didn't justify their actions. What I posted was stating that they played a role in creating a situation of reaction, just as me expressing myself here has created a situation of reaction with you replying.... Would you not agree?

When I say they provoked these clowns again and again, I did not say that they shouldn't express themselves nor did I even say they deserved to get shot and killed for what they did.

Leading from that, would you agree that these extremists are violent, close minded fools who use their screwed up interpretations to justify their violent actions in almost all cases?

Yes?

Then are you surprised at all that they eventually carried out their threats?

Yet in your own refuting you once again point out that the victims are at least partially to blame for the attacks thus you imply that the attacks are justified.

Stop trying to wiggle out of your words either write what you mean to write or stand by what you have written.