Europe submits voluntarily

[angelo]

If you were a Muslim would you march and protest against murders and in favor of women's equality and gay rights?

Most muslims are not in favor of these things.

Survey after survey say different!

I think angelo is simply against immigration regardless of his views and I cant see how this equates to trying to kill.

Anti immigration? I think not. Anti moslem ? Yes!

That's a ridiculous argument. First, Israel is not involved in most of the trouble spots, which disqualifies "US and Israel" as common denominator. If you meant "US or Israel", then you would be technically right (as US is involved in most trouble spots) but that would be just as reasonable as saying that the United Nations is involved in the worst trouble spots of the world.

He moved the goalposts by saying "worst". Since the worst trouble spot is the Middle East his moved goalpost is correct.

 

[angelo]

Anti immigration? I think not. Anti moslem ? Yes!

I think you need to read this:

The revival of group hatreds in this country has dismayed and even frightened me ever since it began in the late 1960s.

When I was in high school and college, in the late 1940's - early 1950's we all remembered Hitler very well. Teachers taught us that Hitler was terrible, not because he hated the wrong group, but because hating any group is illogical, unscientific and leads ultimately to violence. Groups are grammatical fictions; only individuals exist, and each individual is different. Sometime while I was busy and didn't notice, Political Correctness took over Academia and they stopped teaching that. They started teaching that Hitler was terrible because he hated the wrong group, but it's okay to hate other groups.

Logic has nothing to do with it; logic itself is now suspect (just as it was in Nazi Germany.)

This rebellion against rationality originally intended to make Radical Feminism and its doctrine of male fungibility respectable, and it succeeded, at least in the major media, but it also made fungible group hatred respectable in general. Now the anti-Semites and all the other hate mongers are crawling out from under their rocks, and Academia does not have the ammunition to argue against them. Academia cannot argue the rational principle that hatred of any group does not make sense; they dumped that when they dumped logic (as a "male" perversion.)

The argument between Left and Right now consists only of debating which are the correct groups to hate.

- Robert Anton Wilson​

It's sensible to be anti-Islam but that's no reason to be anti-Moslem*.

Show

(* And yes, it's okay to spell it "Moslem". Systems of transliteration from foreign alphabets are not a natural phenomenon to be discovered; they're invented conventions. "Muslim" is an attempt to anglicize Arab pronunciation; "Moslem" is an attempt to anglicize Iranian pronunciation. To go along with the fiction that it's wrong to write "Moslem" is to go along with the fiction that Iranians are less truly Islamic than Arabs; it's submission to Arab anti-Iranian bigotry.)

Hating Islam with a vengeance as I do is logical! To follow a pedophilic war monger who executed all who stood up to him, made up messages from Allah as he needed them, used terrorism to subdue infidels. I just cannot respect a people that accept that, and also claim he was the best man that ever lived. Compare the teachings of the Christ as told in the N/T to the violence as in the Koran.

 

[angelo]

Yes; and the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. But that doesn't mean good men have an obligation to stand up to the evil and get themselves hurt or killed for nothing when they're too weak to win. There's a reason conquered people act like conquered people.

If you were a Muslim would you march and protest against murders and in favor of women's equality and gay rights?

Most muslims are not in favor of these things.

True; but the point is it isn't fair to blame the minority who are in favor of them for keeping a low profile. Anybody who hasn't gone on a suicide mission has no business sending someone else on one.

There are many conquered people in the world. Not many blow up a bus full of civilian men and women and children!

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Most muslims are not in favor of these things.

Survey after survey say different!

So, survey after survey says that most Muslims are in favor of women's equality and gay rights?

(TSwizzle was saying that they were not).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Compare the teachings of the Christ as told in the N/T to the violence as in the Koran.

Alright, then:

10:17 As Jesus was resuming his journey, a man came running up to him, and threw himself on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to gain eternal life?”18 “Why do you call me good?” answered Jesus. “No one is good but God.

So, Jesus teaches that no one is morally good, except for Yahweh. But what does Jesus say about Yahweh?

5. 17 Do not think that I have come to do away with the law or the prophets; I have not come to do away with them, but to complete them. 18 For I tell you, until the heavens and the earth disappear, not even the smallest letter, nor one stroke of a letter, will disappear from the law until all is done.

Among other things, Jesus say that Old Testament Law came from Yahweh (regardless of whether it was still applicable).

But what does Old Testament Law say?

Purely for example:

22:23 If there be a young lady who is a virgin pledged to be married to a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 22:24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones; the lady, because she didn't cry, being in the city; and the man, because he has humbled his neighbor's wife: so you shall put away the evil from the midst of you. 22:25 But if the man find the lady who is pledged to be married in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her; then the man only who lay with her shall die: 22:26 but to the lady you shall do nothing; there is in the lady no sin worthy of death: for as when a man rises against his neighbor, and kills him, even so is this matter; 22:27 for he found her in the field, the pledged to be married lady cried, and there was none to save her. 22:28 If a man find a lady who is a virgin, who is not pledged to be married, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 22:29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the lady's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has humbled her; he may not put her away all his days.

And that's the law passed by the entity who, according to Jesus, is the only morally good entity.

But wait, Jesus also mentioned the prophets. Here's an example including one of them - and Yahweh:

15:32 While the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 15:33 Those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. 15:34 They put him in custody, because it had not been declared what should be done to him. 15:35 Yahweh said to Moses, The man shall surely be put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside of the camp. 15:36 All the congregation brought him outside of the camp, and stoned him to death with stones; as Yahweh commanded Moses.

The prophet stones the man to death for gathering sticks, following the command from the only entity who is morally good according to Jesus - namely, Yahweh.

A bit more:

14: 26. If any one comes to me and does not hate their father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers, and sisters, yes and even their life, he can be no disciple of mine.

Would you like me to go on?

 

[Bomb#20]

If you were a Muslim would you march and protest against murders and in favor of women's equality and gay rights?

Most muslims are not in favor of these things.

Survey after survey say different!

I think he meant most muslims are not in favor of women's equality and gay rights. I think all three of us are in agreement on that point.

Hating Islam with a vengeance as I do is logical! To follow a pedophilic war monger who executed all who stood up to him, made up messages from Allah as he needed them, used terrorism to subdue infidels. I just cannot respect a people that accept that, and also claim he was the best man that ever lived.

The great majority of people of all faiths believe monstrously evil nonsense, for no better reason than that they were told it in their impressionable years by somebody else who believed it due to the same cause. If everybody took his stupid faith literally we'd have bludgeoned one another back to the stone age centuries ago. People of faith who manage to live decent lives do it by compartmentalizing their faith into a theoretical corner of their minds while letting their natural goodness have control in practice; then they reconcile the two by a hundred varieties of emotionally comforting illogic. The individuals who manage to accomplish the mental gymnastics it takes to do that deserve respect -- not for the beliefs or for the gymnastics, but for having enough natural goodness to keep their faith in a permanent wrestling hold. When a follower of the pedophilic war monger succeeds in not wanting to hurt anyone in the face of believing the best man who ever lived wants him to hurt people, that's a lot of natural goodness. Has your natural goodness passed a test that difficult?

So don't respect "a people". "People" is a plural word. "A people" is a grammatical and conceptual error. Respect people. Disrespect other people.

Compare the teachings of the Christ as told in the N/T to the violence as in the Koran.

It seems to me the differences are lost in the noise, compared to the commonality that Jesus and Muhammad both agreed that unbelievers deserve to be tortured for eternity. No matter what Muhammad would have done to me, Jesus would have felt I deserved worse.

There are many conquered people in the world. Not many blow up a bus full of civilian men and women and children!

The conquered people Loren was referring to were the decent Moslems, conquered by the Islamo-Nazis they can't overpower and can't help living among.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The flip side of this is you'll be perceived as siding with those hotheads. All the hotheads need is for the average people not to resist them--and by that standard the Muslims are pretty much conquered.

My my! Aren't we really concerned about all these hotheads! You talking about Netanyahu? You talking about our president who sends drones after people he doesn't know? Are you talking about Curtis Lemay? McArthur, Petraeus, etc. Hotheads are made not born. Hotheads are allowed to fester in societies that do not have a means of limiting their destructive power.

And the Muslim lands do nothing about the hotheads because to do so would be anti-Islamic.

And the western lands do nothing because it would not be politically correct.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes; and the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. But that doesn't mean good men have an obligation to stand up to the evil and get themselves hurt or killed for nothing when they're too weak to win. There's a reason conquered people act like conquered people.

In other words, the Islamists have conquered the Muslim lands.

 

[angelo]

Alright, then:

10:17 As Jesus was resuming his journey, a man came running up to him, and threw himself on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to gain eternal life?”18 “Why do you call me good?” answered Jesus. “No one is good but God.

So, Jesus teaches that no one is morally good, except for Yahweh. But what does Jesus say about Yahweh?

5. 17 Do not think that I have come to do away with the law or the prophets; I have not come to do away with them, but to complete them. 18 For I tell you, until the heavens and the earth disappear, not even the smallest letter, nor one stroke of a letter, will disappear from the law until all is done.

Among other things, Jesus say that Old Testament Law came from Yahweh (regardless of whether it was still applicable).

But what does Old Testament Law say?

Purely for example:

22:23 If there be a young lady who is a virgin pledged to be married to a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 22:24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones; the lady, because she didn't cry, being in the city; and the man, because he has humbled his neighbor's wife: so you shall put away the evil from the midst of you. 22:25 But if the man find the lady who is pledged to be married in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her; then the man only who lay with her shall die: 22:26 but to the lady you shall do nothing; there is in the lady no sin worthy of death: for as when a man rises against his neighbor, and kills him, even so is this matter; 22:27 for he found her in the field, the pledged to be married lady cried, and there was none to save her. 22:28 If a man find a lady who is a virgin, who is not pledged to be married, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 22:29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the lady's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has humbled her; he may not put her away all his days.

And that's the law passed by the entity who, according to Jesus, is the only morally good entity.

But wait, Jesus also mentioned the prophets. Here's an example including one of them - and Yahweh:

15:32 While the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 15:33 Those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. 15:34 They put him in custody, because it had not been declared what should be done to him. 15:35 Yahweh said to Moses, The man shall surely be put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside of the camp. 15:36 All the congregation brought him outside of the camp, and stoned him to death with stones; as Yahweh commanded Moses.

The prophet stones the man to death for gathering sticks, following the command from the only entity who is morally good according to Jesus - namely, Yahweh.

A bit more:

14: 26. If any one comes to me and does not hate their father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers, and sisters, yes and even their life, he can be no disciple of mine.

Would you like me to go on?

That's exactly what I mean. One has to dig into the O/T to find bloodshed. That's why it's called the N/T, it replaces the old.

 

[angelo]

If you were a Muslim would you march and protest against murders and in favor of women's equality and gay rights?

Most muslims are not in favor of these things.

Survey after survey say different!

Hating Islam with a vengeance as I do is logical! To follow a pedophilic war monger who executed all who stood up to him, made up messages from Allah as he needed them, used terrorism to subdue infidels. I just cannot respect a people that accept that, and also claim he was the best man that ever lived.

The great majority of people of all faiths believe monstrously evil nonsense, for no better reason than that they were told it in their impressionable years by somebody else who believed it due to the same cause. If everybody took his stupid faith literally we'd have bludgeoned one another back to the stone age centuries ago. People of faith who manage to live decent lives do it by compartmentalizing their faith into a theoretical corner of their minds while letting their natural goodness have control in practice; then they reconcile the two by a hundred varieties of emotionally comforting illogic. The individuals who manage to accomplish the mental gymnastics it takes to do that deserve respect -- not for the beliefs or for the gymnastics, but for having enough natural goodness to keep their faith in a permanent wrestling hold. When a follower of the pedophilic war monger succeeds in not wanting to hurt anyone in the face of believing the best man who ever lived wants him to hurt people, that's a lot of natural goodness. Has your natural goodness passed a test that difficult?

So don't respect "a people". "People" is a plural word. "A people" is a grammatical and conceptual error. Respect people. Disrespect other people.

Compare the teachings of the Christ as told in the N/T to the violence as in the Koran.

There are many conquered people in the world. Not many blow up a bus full of civilian men and women and children!

The conquered people Loren was referring to were the decent Moslems, conquered by the Islamo-Nazis they can't overpower and can't help living among.

You mean those decent Moslems who voted for the terrorist Hamas, and now find they can't vote them out now?
The more than 90% of them who think it's their duty to murder a Jew, any Jew? The very same decent moslems who hate the West with a vengeance?

 

[bigfield]

That's why it's called the N/T, it replaces the old.

:laughing-smiley-014

 

[Angra Mainyu]

That's exactly what I mean. One has to dig into the O/T to find bloodshed. That's why it's called the N/T, it replaces the old.

Actually, I quoted the New Testament in order to get to the Old Testament. In fact, I quoted parts of the New Testament in which Jesus is endorsing Yahweh, Moses, etc. (apart from the point about abandoning their families; that's just NT alone).
Saying that the New Testament replaces the old fails to take into account the fact that the Old Testament is endorsed repeatedly by the New Testament, including but not limited to the quotations that attribute claims to Jesus (and the idea that that's the reason for the name is mistaken).

And that's all around the New Testament. The examples I provided should have convinced you, but there are plenty more.

Purely for example:

You know who they were from whom you learnt it; 15 and that, from your childhood, you have known the sacred writings, which can give you the wisdom that, through belief in Christ Jesus, leads to salvation. 16 All scripture is God-breathed: helpful for teaching, for refuting error, for giving guidance, and for training others in righteousness; 17 so that God's people may be capable and equipped for good work of every kind.

However, and regardless of which translation is more accurate, in that passage Paul states that he is talking about the writings that Timothy had known from infancy/childhood, and which Paul calls “sacred writings”. Given that those writings included all of Old Testament Law, plus the events depicted in the Old Testament and which I addressed earlier in this essay, one should reckon that the author of this epistle believed that all of those writings – which include moral atrocities, false moral claims or implications, etc. - were profitable for moral teaching, and in fact were inspired by Yahweh.

If you want violence directly from the NT, how about:

5.21 “You have heard that it was said to the ancient ones, ‘You shall not murder;’✡ and ‘Whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that everyone who is angry with his brother without a cause § will be in danger of the judgment. Whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ * will be in danger of the council. Whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of Gehenna.

That's also bloodshed - or more precisely, burning.

More on that:

27 “You have heard that it was said, § ‘You shall not commit adultery;’✡ 28 but I tell you that everyone who gazes at a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it away from you. For it is more profitable for you that one of your members should perish, than for your whole body to be cast into Gehenna.* 30 If your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off, and throw it away from you. For it is more profitable for you that one of your members should perish, than for your whole body to be cast into Gehenna.

Yes, granted, Gehenna is not real. But Christians believe it is. So, how is that better than believing Muhammad was good?

That aside, the vast majority of Christians do not only claim to follow Jesus, but also the father, who engaged in all of the OT atrocities. Even if Christians believe that OT law was replaced, why is following Muhammad any better than following the monstrous Yahweh? Granted, Yahweh never existed and Muhammad did, but Christians do believe Yahweh exists. So, why would you think it's better?

 

[angelo]

All holy books are rantings of deeply disturbed people. Having said that, it's more than likely that any terrorist attack, anywhere in the world is committed by a follower of the pedophile rather than a follower of Jesus, or of Yahweh!

 

[bilby]

The New Testament replaces the Old.

The KJV only includes an Old Testament because the printers in the early seventeenth century had a massive oversupply of paper and ink, and insisted on using it all.

Or something.

 

[untermensche]

All holy books are rantings of deeply disturbed people. Having said that, it's more than likely that any terrorist attack, anywhere in the world is committed by a follower of the pedophile rather than a follower of Jesus, or of Yahweh!

The US launched a massive terrorist attack on Iraq in 2003.

It has launched countless terrorist drones.

The US is the worlds leading producer of terror and destruction.

Nobody else comes close.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The conquered people Loren was referring to were the decent Moslems, conquered by the Islamo-Nazis they can't overpower and can't help living among.

You mean those decent Moslems who voted for the terrorist Hamas, and now find they can't vote them out now?
The more than 90% of them who think it's their duty to murder a Jew, any Jew? The very same decent moslems who hate the West with a vengeance?

There are a lot of decent ones. Palestine is a special case--they've been controlled by the crazies for generations now, fed a constant diet of hate. Blame the scumbags that have been manipulating them for nearly 70 years.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The New Testament replaces the Old.

The KJV only includes an Old Testament because the printers in the early seventeenth century had a massive oversupply of paper and ink, and insisted on using it all.

Or something.

The real story is that books 5500 BC to about 1500 ADHD were considered pretty magical. Just the fact that somebody could pick up a text and read a dead persons thought just blew everybody's mind. Oral societies had a pretty fluid idea of truth. Our rigid and monolithic idea of Truth is a product of the post-printing press world. So medieval Christians were fine with contradictions in holy texts. Pre-printingpress humans turned to figures of authority to settle conflicts. As long as Christians had the Pope liturgical problems weren't problems at all. The older the text the more mind-blowing the "magic". The age of a text was a fetish of sorts.

That's what's so bizarre with the Reformation an Ad Fontes. The Bible was never meant to be interpreted literally. No pre-printing press book was. They all assumed that any conflict would be settled by those in charge. On the contrary conflicts in the text just added a little mystery. And that was cool.

Sorry if this wasn't news and yes I understand your post was in jest.

 

[DrZoidberg]

That's why it's called the N/T, it replaces the old.

:laughing-smiley-014

We actually don't know that. More likely the New Testament was intended like a companion to help better understand the Old Testament. And then it just got a life of its own. And it's relation to the OT is unclear.

Don't forget that the Torah canon of contemporary Judaism was compiled after Christianity was already a thing. Back at 33 AD there was a whole bunch of Torahs. All very different. So the need for a companion was obvious. That's BTW an (unverified) theory of how Christianity came about. It was (aledgedly) a group of Rabi scholars who lost the debate and got kicked out from the Jewish community. The dates match. But data is low. So its just speculation

 

[arkirk]

You mean those decent Moslems who voted for the terrorist Hamas, and now find they can't vote them out now?
The more than 90% of them who think it's their duty to murder a Jew, any Jew? The very same decent moslems who hate the West with a vengeance?

There are a lot of decent ones. Palestine is a special case--they've been controlled by the crazies for generations now, fed a constant diet of hate. Blame the scumbags that have been manipulating them for nearly 70 years.

Palestine is indeed a special case...fed a constant diet of Israeli violence. You seem blind to the fact that Israeli weapons are so extremely destructive they cannot be used hardly anywhere (let alone in Gaza) without massive civilian casualties. The Israeli leadership knows this, but they just keep fueling the hatred in those they have already disenfranchised and humiliated. Hamas was born of Israeli violence. Yes it is violent, but only about 1/100 as violent as the IDF. I believe it would be equally violent if it could. It is up to the Israelis to deescalate this situation. There is nothing any Palestinian can do to lower tensions in the face of the Netanyahu government.

 

[Jayjay]

:laughing-smiley-014

We actually don't know that. More likely the New Testament was intended like a companion to help better understand the Old Testament. And then it just got a life of its own. And it's relation to the OT is unclear.

Don't forget that the Torah canon of contemporary Judaism was compiled after Christianity was already a thing. Back at 33 AD there was a whole bunch of Torahs. All very different. So the need for a companion was obvious. That's BTW an (unverified) theory of how Christianity came about. It was (aledgedly) a group of Rabi scholars who lost the debate and got kicked out from the Jewish community. The dates match. But data is low. So its just speculation

Eh, I think it might as well be the other way around: the Old Testament was preserved to bolster the new one, to give it some historical grounding to distinguish it from an average crazy cult that just pops out of nowhere. The early Christians probably weren't that much into the Torah and might not have even heard of it outside Jewish circles. It was more likely all about the stories that were later compiled into the New Testament.