Meh bullshit either way, I dare to say that out of every one they interviewed nobody was actually Christian.
Faith is bullshit anyway, it's the number 1 fucking reason to start another bullshit war
I guess the important point is that most westerners, even devoted christians are not aware of the crazy, violent and barbaric parts in the bible or try to write them off as something ancient not to be followed literally in todays society. I mean, there are certain christian groups that actually fully accept the backwards, violent and hateful parts of the bible but it is always a subject of great controversy and people like that are a fringe minority.
Regardless of weather they are a minority in the whole of islam or not, the fundamentalists, devoted to take the barbaric parts of the Quran as a literal command are way more outspoken, passionate and organized than any nutjob christian minority. I personally believe that islamic extremists just in and by themselves are not the absolute center of the problem since there is no direct gain for anyone involved, other than the gratification of enforcing your fundamentalist believes. In the history of human conflict, organized violence on a massive scale always serves to achieve some political or economical goal different from the often superficial ideals of the actual boots on the ground. Muslim extremists could, I believe, very much be the result of such a group gone out of control. They just keep on fighting without rime or reason, without anticipation of any substantial, concrete or constructive final goal. A bunch of weaponized fanatics running wild, broken up into barely organized cells of various sizes in various places, still united under a central ide that are still managing to attract new recruits.
But ultimately, I see fundamentalist islamic terrorism today as one last, violent eruption from a decade old conflict grown completely out of control. The political and cultural development in the war-town middle east will lastingly determine how and when this whole thing will end, not any western surveillance or refugee policy that will just marginally reduce the impact this whole development has on western society at a great cost for the internal cultural and political climate. It's like a fire that is best not fed more fuel because the only other alternative would be committing to a full on fire cleansing that could likely cause more unrest and conflict. Its a tragic and unfortunate consequence but not a matter that can be lastingly resolved in any way by changing things in the west or by commiting mroe acts of violence in the middle east. The best course of action would be to let the last embers of violence burn out while bracing for the inevitable consequences for western society as best as we can. People always expect great action in response to great tragedy but the only way more warfare would achieve anything would be if it ended in a complete genocide of anyone potentionally dangerous to the west. And I don't think anyone should roll out the nukes, ever.
[QUOTE=Strontboer;49258315]Faith is bullshit anyway, it's the number 1 fucking reason to start another bullshit war[/QUOTE]i wouldn't call it the nr 1 reason, it's more of an excuse. the actual reason is more often than not something political, with faith/ethnicity providing the scapegoat.
Yeah obviously none of these people are Christian. Christians don't only study the "positive" parts of the bible.
[QUOTE=Strontboer;49258315]Meh bullshit either way, I dare to say that out of every one they interviewed nobody was actually Christian.
Faith is bullshit anyway, it's the number 1 fucking reason to start another bullshit war[/QUOTE]
I wish I was as enlightened as you.
Doing this in The Netherlands is kind of proving nothing though. Even the religious people here don't give a fuck about their religion. Of course we have some hardliners, but we aren't a very religious people anymore.
We even have a famous atheist pastor.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaas_Hendrikse[/url]
It seems like I got something different out of this video than other people did? Not that Christians or religions are evil, but that the bible is outdated and Christians no longer regard it as an absolute religious authority, and by extension that the same is true for Muslims and the Quran. And that to paint Christianity as good and Islam as bad because of the contents of their holy books is hypocrisy. As one of the youtube commenters said, "religion is what you make of it."
This guy looks like Mac from It's Always Sunny
[img]http://i.imgur.com/8jDDjtE.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Strontboer;49258315]
Faith is bullshit anyway, it's the number 1 fucking reason to start another bullshit war[/QUOTE]
how is it anywhere near #1... it's 99% political shit than religion...
Congratulations, this video successfully showed that people are ignorant of what's in the Bible and that quoting things out of context is as useful as always.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49262517]Congratulations, this video successfully showed that people are ignorant of what's in the Bible and that quoting things out of context is as useful as always.[/QUOTE]
It made an extremely valid point - that people have this idea that Islam teaches hateful things when there's just as much fucked up shit in the bible that they're turning a blind eye to.
Isn't that the old testament though
[QUOTE=sgman91;49262517]quoting things out of context[/QUOTE]
fairly sure the context won't help.
[QUOTE=Elspin;49262882]It made an extremely valid point - that people have this idea that Islam teaches hateful things when there's just as much fucked up shit in the bible that they're turning a blind eye to.[/QUOTE]
Half the stuff they quoted were descriptive, not proscriptive statements, and none of them applied to modern day Christians, unlike the Quran, which all applies equally today as it did back then. They may be ignorant of it, that I'm not denying, but even if they did know, it wouldn't have any real effect on their practicing of Christianity.
Also, the majority of the bad stuff in Islam comes from the hadith, not the Koran. People make the false comparison between the two as if they both are the complete description of their religion.
[editline]6th December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=AK'z;49262967]fairly sure the context won't help.[/QUOTE]
The first quotation about eating the flesh of your children was descriptive about famine, not God telling them to do something. Context ALWAYS matters.
Was honestly expecting at least one of them to get mad when they revealed the ruse at the end
[QUOTE=Radical_ed;49262956]Isn't that the old testament though[/QUOTE]
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (NIV, Matthew 5:17–18)
Pick and Choose isn't how a Religion or a Faith works...
My favorite part of this is that half of them switched to English when told it was the bible.
"What the fuck"
"Seriously?"
"What the hell?"
I'm envious of folks raised in a culture where a second language is taught from such an early point that this is possible. I will never learn a second language to the point where I would change to that language when confronted like this.
[QUOTE=Elspin;49262882]It made an extremely valid point - that people have this idea that Islam teaches hateful things when there's just as much fucked up shit in the bible that they're turning a blind eye to.[/QUOTE]
I think the difference is that people here know that shit is wrong while middle eastern countries still behead and stone people.
[QUOTE=Sharker;49264906]I think the difference is that people here know that shit is wrong while middle eastern countries still behead and stone people.[/QUOTE]
France stopped beheading people about 50 years ago, and have you not seen how many people want to bring back the death penalty/ make it more severe?
I don't get the point that people are illustrating. Pointing out the insanity of the old testament and new testament doesn't somehow justify the Korans backwardsness.
Not a single country blindly abides by the christian books like Saudi Arabia or ISIL do with the Koran. The worst christianity has is countries like Uganda killing homosexuals and perhaps the Lords resistance army.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49265191]I don't get the point that people are illustrating. Pointing out the insanity of the old testament and new testament doesn't somehow justify the Korans backwardsness.
Not a single country blindly abides by the christian books like Saudi Arabia or ISIL do with the Korean. The worst christianity has is countries like Uganda killing homosexuals and perhaps the Lords resistance army.[/QUOTE]
because it implies that it's more to do with how deep religion can get its hooks into the government rather than the specific religion itself. you may notice most predominantly christian western countries have a thing called "separation of church and state," which even in entirely modern countries is semi-frequently campaigned against by right-wing hardliners like Marine Le Pen
[QUOTE=Cone;49265341]because it implies that it's more to do with how deep religion can get its hooks into the government rather than the specific religion itself.[/QUOTE]
But most sects of Islam are designed entirely around being the government. The Caliph is supposed to rule a state and the state is supposed to adhere to Islamic values.
The supreme leader of Iran is their religious leader. The King of Saudi is an Imam and the leader of ISIL styles himself Caliph.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49265561]But most sects of Islam are designed entirely around being the government. The Caliph is supposed to rule a state and the state is supposed to adhere to Islamic values.
The supreme leader of Iran is their religious leader. The King of Saudi is an Imam and the leader of ISIL styles himself Caliph.[/QUOTE]
Then why can you bring up only 2 Muslim theocracies?
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49265561]But most sects of Islam are designed entirely around being the government. The Caliph is supposed to rule a state and the state is supposed to adhere to Islamic values.
The supreme leader of Iran is their religious leader. The King of Saudi is an Imam and the leader of ISIL styles himself Caliph.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Cone;49265341]you may notice most predominantly christian western countries have a thing called "separation of church and state," which even in entirely modern countries is semi-frequently campaigned against by right-wing hardliners like Marine Le Pen[/QUOTE]
let's cut the fat here: do you think Marine Le Pen is any less eager to justify invading countries and persecuting minorities based on religious and ethno-nationalist lines? perhaps by, say, lionizing a certain bigoted, invasion-happy, borderline authoritarian state leader as "defending Europe's Catholic heritage?" i brought her up for a reason, i'd thank you to not cut it out.
[QUOTE=Fayez;49265761]Then why can you bring up only 2 Muslim theocracies?[/QUOTE]
Most Islamic countries are either ruled by a class of religious holymen or are "Islamic Republics", having Islam established as the foundation of their systems. Also most Muslims are intolerant twards homosexuals and a dozen or so Islamic countries have killing apostates and homosexuals codified into law.
Both Christianity and Islam are abhorrant but at [I]least Christians don't follow christian teachings[/I].
Everyone knows the old testament isn't canon anymore.
Fuckin scrubs.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;49264986]Even though I'd say English is pretty popular among the Dutch, it just kinda baffles me how most Americans, or Anglophones, are really comfortable about English being the most popular language and don't learn any other language. I believe learning a new language adds up a lot more than that language, it changes the way you think, it makes your perspective wider about other cultures and tolerance since good amount of culture come through as you are pushing to learn the language.
I think you folks are missing quite a lot. Don't they teach Spanish or something to you at high school, obligatory? Anything?
[/QUOTE]
There is generally a choice of languages at the high school level, depending on how well funded the school is. There are no options for foreign language in most public school systems earlier than high school. You might get some in junior high, but nothing else.
This winds up with foreign language showing up too late in childhood development to be embraced effortlessly.
The US has a couple of unfortunate factors that discourage foreign language here. The first is that we, almost universally, tie public school funding to LOCAL property taxes. We treat schooling as a state issue and provide federal funding on top of it. The local property tax chain, however, means that schools in rich neighborhoods get boatloads of funding, while schools in less wealthy areas often can barely scrape by. If they lack the funds, then they need to cut programs, and if I was an administrator, I'd certainly put foreign language on the chopping block if it meant I could save history or math.
The second issue is more complex. The US has a great deal of different languages spoken inside its borders, but you never really need anything other than English for most of the United States. This also leads to the question of "what language do I choose"? I grew up in California, which had a large Spanish speaking population, but a miserable public school system. So I was fortunate enough to have an easy choice for a second language, but the school system was utter shit and so were all the Spanish teachers. Everyone, without exception, including the kids who NATIVE Spanish speakers, crashed and burned with shocking regularity in the program. But what about places like Montana, Washington, or Idaho? A second language is really meaningless there.
If you have no need for a second language, and you don't even have anyone around to practice that second language on, then how will you convince the population as a whole to pick up a second language? Or support schools teaching their children second languages? I absolutely agree that it expands your horizon, as it gives you insight into how other cultures think. Complex thought and language are intertwined heavily, so having more than one language to pull from can expand how you think in a very tangible fashion, but good luck convincing other folks of that. =/
Are there really people that defend Christianity? Islam is bad, but so is Christianity, I think that's quite well known, no?
I get some feeling that the whole bible is some sort of moral code. Depends how you look at it. You know, the book of Acts in the New Testament can be interpreted as a witness account. it's a piece of contemporary evidence from the time of King Herod and Josephus (ancient history).
Point is, certain books of the bible have different intentions and purposes.
also, like in the video, it's pretty invalid just to look at sentences on their own and make some sort of judgement. sgman91 is on the right here
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
