Former religious adviser to Osama Bin Laden denounces the Paris attacks by the Islamic State as agai - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49166170]Christianity is much more peaceful because people pick and choose. They choose to ignore the insane violent stuff and the backwards stuff that doesn't match our modern western values. Christians are more accepting of Gay people now. Did the text suddenly change? Islam is progressing down the same path as Christianity. Its just gonna take them more time.[/QUOTE] Again, as I already said, the "insane, violent stuff" comes from the Old Testament. The Old Testament laws do not have bearing on the New Testament. That's got nothing to do with interpretation, it's because there's a prophecy in one of the Old Testament's books about a "new covenant" overruling the "old covenant". The text changed when the New Testament was written to supercede the Old, and it was written in the first place to fulfill a prophecy from the Old about this superceding.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;49165804]What, and that somehow excuses killing people? [/QUOTE] Please explain to me how killing people who broke a peace treaty, invaded, and slaughtered people isn't justified? I guess the US was in the wrong for declaring war on Japan after Pearl. [QUOTE]Does this excuse KILLING PEOPLE.[/QUOTE] Uh, it kinda does, people die in war. What would happen if a country, say China, suddenly marched into the US embassy and tortured and killed everyone inside? Even with our "superior values" of today, the US would still declare war. And guess what? People kill each other in war. [QUOTE]Oh so the Quran isn't divinely inspired and was just written by barbaric iron-age tribes? Thanks for proving my point. A book inspired by any divine being of unquestionable morality wouldn't contain this shit.[/QUOTE] One of the charges brought against the Nazi leadership was "[I]Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace[/I]" so by your logic the Allies were "barbaric iron-age tribes". [QUOTE]How is it cherrypicking? Cherrypicking implies that [B]there is some context in which the commands written down would be moral[/B], and that's not the case.[/QUOTE] I dunno, killing people who broke treaties, attacked, and were killing your people sounds pretty moral to me. Unless you're saying people shouldn't kill in self defense. [QUOTE]There [B]is no context[/B] in which it is morally okay to say "Kill the polytheists", no matter if that is preceded with "They broke treaties" or "They were mean people :("[/QUOTE] Breaking treaties has, and always will be, a major diplomatic offense. One that justifies war. Oh, and that whole "mean people :(" thing, would you wish death upon "mean people :(" who invaded your country and slaughtered your citizens? By your logic, the Nuremberg trials were immoral because they charged people to death for breaking treaties, leading to the greatest war in the history of mankind, and being "mean people :(" by exterminating 10 million.

I often think that if the Moslems had stayed in Arabia instead of going out to conquer and dismember the great old civilizations of Rome and Persia things might have been better in the region.

[QUOTE=Govna;49165934]A lot of people try to draw comparisons between this and the Old Testament to Christianity. One thing I want to point out ahead of time is that this is disingenuous. While the Old Testament does say a lot of deplorable things, it specifically states a prophecy that removes its religious laws from Christianity. So no, these religions are "not just as bad as the other is", like a lot of people try to argue. Christianity is much more peaceful than Islam is.[/QUOTE]You're spot on with everything but I really want to emphasize this just because I'm so glad somebody else is aware of this because [I]holy shit[/I] it drives me up the wall when people compare the two. Plus Jesus [U]specifically[/U] said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" which is Christianity acknowledging a separation of church and state, Islam however... [quote=Muslims 19:4294]When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them[/quote] It's pretty clear that through the jizya that Muslims are not to accept infidels as anything other than second-class, which would presumably exclude their governments. [quote=Quran 12:40]If not Him, ye worship nothing but names which ye have named,- ye and your fathers,- for which Allah hath sent down no authority: [B]the command is for none but Allah:[/B] He hath commanded that ye worship none but Him: that is the right religion, but most men understand not.[/quote]Okay, so this might need some context:[quote=Quran 9:3]And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith.[/quote] I think that's pretty fucking clear, especially from where I'm sitting because I'm actually a heathen. Nothing in the Quran has anything nice to say about us. So with that said: [QUOTE=Fayez;49165758]Why do people on this forum love to cherry pick?[/QUOTE]Find a line in the Quran that explicitly says something nice about pagans, heathens, or other polytheists. [editline]22nd November 2015[/editline] Long story short, it's going to take some miracle for me to accept Islam itself is compatible with Western society. Either that or somebody rewrites the Quran. [editline]22nd November 2015[/editline] OH AND [quote=Quran 5:80]You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide.[/quote]Muslims who are friends with disbelievers go straight to hell. Also, [quote=Quran 3:28]Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.[/quote] Muslims can be pretend friends with infidels to make their lives easier. These aren't cherrypicked either, there's no missing context here and there certainly isn't some special circumstances either.

[QUOTE=Da Bomb76;49164776]This is horseshit and anyone who reads the Quran knows it.[/QUOTE] It's not really the text, it's how people practice it.

Islam actually IS compatible with western lifestyle, as every religion is. Fuck, look up the Islamic golden age. The Muslim empires were centers of learning with massive contributions to science and tolerance for centuries, some of which which was unthinkable for the era. They were at their prime, they didn't go around murdering Jews, Christians for shits and jiggles, because they were learned people and highly sophisticated societies. If the Mongols hadn't sacked Baghdad for laughs, the Muslim world and probably the rest of the world would be in a MUCH better position. The fact is, Islam was more "modern" than Christianity was for a long, long time. It can be again, it'll just take some time because of political climate of the Middle East. Look at Tunisia for example, that place is doing pretty damn well if I do say so myself. Sadly some countries such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan still value religion as a very effective social control tool, so they'll be very literal when it comes to Islam.

[QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;49167439]Islam actually IS compatible with western lifestyle, as every religion is.[/QUOTE]We're not talking about lifestyles. [QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;49167439]The Muslim empires were centers of learning with massive contributions to science and tolerance for centuries, some of which which was unthinkable for the era. They were at their prime, they didn't go around murdering Jews, Christians for shits and jiggles, because they were learned people and highly sophisticated societies.[/QUOTE]Nobody who isn't a complete idiot will dispute the scientific and mathematical contributions of Muslim scholars, but do note that the great architectural triumphs and other accomplishments were the only outlets of artistic displays allowed. Those cool geometric patterns in those palaces in mosques built during the Middle Ages? Yeah, that was the pinnacle of art in the Middle East and it was derived from the works of mathematicians who had few other outlets to express themselves. Islam didn't make this wonderful society, it was just a cool place [I]compared to most of Europe at that time[/I] which is actually a very eurocentric point of view. Just because Europe was a shitty place during that era doesn't mean shit, Asia had plenty of technological marvels (especially in China) and that's not even addressing what was going on in South America during that time. Fact of the matter is compared to our standards today they didn't measure up and since the culture has largely remained the same those issues still remain and it's a central point in criticism of Islam. When people criticize Saudi Arabia as a backward nation? Yeah, that's because Saudi Arabia is using the same metric to govern it's citizens that was used during the Islamic Golden Age. Bottom line is Islam as a religion (and by extension all pious Muslims as defined by the Quran itself) refuses to recognize the legitimacy of any government that does not recognize Allah as the supreme authority which is the central issue here. We're not the ones with the problem, we recognize their right to worship as one of several inalienable rights, and we codified such liberties into law; that is precisely why Islam is not compatible with us and it never will be.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49167560]We're not talking about lifestyles. Nobody who isn't a complete idiot will dispute the scientific and mathematical contributions of Muslim scholars, but do note that the great architectural triumphs and other accomplishments were the only outlets of artistic displays allowed. Those cool geometric patterns in those palaces in mosques built during the Middle Ages? Yeah, that was the pinnacle of art in the Middle East and it was derived from the works of mathematicians who had few other outlets to express themselves.[/QUOTE] It wasn't Islam itself that started the Islamic golden age. It was the monopoly the Empires had on the Persian trade routes, the tolerance of the rulers (varied on the Caliphate) and the fact that the Empire allowed intellectuals/merchants to travel safely and gather under one roof. Also, keep in mind that you had to become a Muslim to get any respect as a scholar. The Arab and Turkish conquests were like that of the Mongols. They just put themselves ontop of already existing cultures and governing structures and provided stability for short periods of time. Their unified empires spread around the great ideas of Persia, India and North Africa. [QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;49167439]Islam actually IS compatible with western lifestyle, as every religion is. Fuck, look up the Islamic golden age. The Muslim empires were centers of learning with massive contributions to science and tolerance for centuries, some of which which was unthinkable for the era. They were at their prime, they didn't go around murdering Jews, Christians for shits and jiggles, because they were learned people and highly sophisticated societies.[/QUOTE] They conquered for the sake of conquest. This is a fact. Islamic society during the Caliphates and Ottoman Empire established non-muslims as secondary citizens. Although liberal during the early European medieval period, quite backwards today. [QUOTE=Govna;49166248]Again, as I already said, the "insane, violent stuff" comes from the Old Testament. The Old Testament laws do not have bearing on the New Testament. That's got nothing to do with interpretation, it's because there's a prophecy in one of the Old Testament's books about a "new covenant" overruling the "old covenant". The text changed when the New Testament was written to supercede the Old, and it was written in the first place to fulfill a prophecy from the Old about this superceding.[/QUOTE] Most of the Christians that follow the old testament ignore the crazy stuff. Also the new testament has some crazy homophobic/pro slavery stuff in it as well. I can't argue theology as a non-christian but the old testament should still apply. Fact is, what has made our society advance is people putting aside their religion and using their own morality and rational thinking.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49167591] They conquered for the sake of conquest. This is a fact. Islamic society during the Caliphates and Ottoman Empire established non-muslims as secondary citizens. Although liberal during the early European medieval period, quite backwards today.[/QUOTE] Yeah I don't think anyone will deny that, but my point is Muslim countries aren't completely incapable of having democracy and other western ideals, places like Tunisia are rapidly westernizing thanks to exposure of Western life via television and internet, most Muslims aren't going to want to live how countries like Saudi and Pakistan live once they start experiencing what more modern states are like. Hell,the Persian people are noted for being pretty modern and welcoming despite the horrid government imposing awful laws. Regardless of what Islam is or wants, Muslims themselves will want change, it's insane some people (not saying you or JumpinJackFlash) think that the Muslim world will never change because of Islam when it's already experiencing change in some areas. We'll get there eventfully, it'll just take some time. People like Malala are going to help us reach it faster.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49167591]It wasn't Islam itself that started the Islamic golden age. It was the monopoly the Empires had on the Persian trade routes, the tolerance of the rulers (varied on the Caliphate) and the fact that the Empire allowed intellectuals/merchants to travel safely and gather under one roof. Also, keep in mind that you had to become a Muslim to get any respect as a scholar.[/QUOTE]Oh yeah, good work on pointing this out. I had forgotten to include that second-class (at best) aspect of Christians and Jews, I think that's still true today as Christians in the region are often really meek and frequently bullied unless they basically fortify their towns or live under a secular regime. [QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;49167692]Regardless of what Islam is or wants, Muslims themselves will want change, it's insane some people (not saying you or JumpinJackFlash) think that the Muslim world will never change because of Islam when it's already experiencing change in some areas. We'll get there eventfully, it'll just take some time. People like Malala are going to help us reach it faster.[/QUOTE](I know, I get what your saying) Mostly I think the change is coming in the form of an acceptance of Western ideals which includes a degree of atheism or just plain "I don't know" agnosticism. Really most of the West seems to be more spiritual than dogmatically religious and yeah I'm including my country in that too. Since Islam has been a very, very important pillar in Middle Eastern culture and an element of stability and order so these things that [I]directly[/I] challenge it are seen as a threat by the usual stubborn types. This makes the ideological terrorist who has a firm belief in his goal, and through him the supporters/sympathizers can fund an effort that will recruit the disenfranchised and fearful masses that make up the bulk of these groups. What's a disturbing thought is if ISIS got organized, right now they have no commissar-like individual who can keep the rank and file motivated and guided. Everything they have is still partially ad hoc which is good for us, but if they really, really buckled down it would become increasingly more difficult to fight them. This extends not only to organizational structure but also to attending to their logistical needs, I assume their deal with rebel forces in the northern portion of Syria is still in effect that trades ISIS crude for rebel food and supplies. Plus if they manage to start armoring their troops (making body armor is not hard at all, especially if it is just a helmet) then that's going to really mix shit up on the ground.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;49164159]Well yeah, Islam does forbid killing innocent people. The question is [I]what is defined as an innocent person in Islam?[/I][/QUOTE] The answer to this is, "anyone who follows Islam." If you don't follow Islam, Islam doesn't see you as innocent. That's how Mohammed and his successors took over the middle east. Not saying all muslims believe that way, but their religion itself states it pretty clearly. Same with Christians and the Mosaic Law, I guess.

[QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;49167692]Yeah I don't think anyone will deny that, but my point is Muslim countries aren't completely incapable of having democracy and other western ideals, places like Tunisia are rapidly westernizing thanks to exposure of Western life via television and internet, most Muslims aren't going to want to live how countries like Saudi and Pakistan live once they start experiencing what more modern states are like.[/QUOTE] These Muslims countries are becoming successful democracies [I]because[/I]of the fact that their citizens are putting aside Islamic traditions and values and replacing them with western values. Islam as practiced by most Muslims is incompatible with the west because its adherents demand that everybody adhere to what they follow. [url]http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/[/url]

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49166964] Find a line in the Quran that explicitly says something nice about pagans, heathens, or other polytheists.[/QUOTE] Find a line in the Communist Manifesto that explicitly says something nice about Capitalism. Find a line in the God Delusion that explicitly says something nice about religious people. Books of ideology don't praise ideology opposed to their own. [QUOTE]OH AND Muslims who are friends with disbelievers go straight to hell.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=5&tAyahNo=81&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0"]Commentary from one of Muhammad's companions provides context.[/URL] Basically, it means if you take people fighting against Islam as friends, you receive punishment. [QUOTE]Muslims can be pretend friends with infidels to make their lives easier. These aren't cherrypicked either, there's no missing context here and there certainly isn't some special circumstances either.[/QUOTE] Huh? How did you get that from that quote? Where are you getting these passages? Because they are not Quran.com. Surah 3:28 is better translated as: [QUOTE]Let not believers take disbelievers as allies rather than believers. And whoever [of you] does that has nothing with Allah , except when taking precaution against them in prudence. And Allah warns you of Himself, and to Allah is the [final] destination.[/QUOTE] Which is pretty self explanatory.

[QUOTE=Fayez;49167961]Find a line in the Communist Manifesto that explicitly says something nice about Capitalism. Find a line in the God Delusion that explicitly says something nice about religious people. Books of ideology don't praise ideology opposed to their own.[/QUOTE]So you're saying that Muslims really do consider heathens to be their ideological enemies. Got it. [QUOTE=Fayez;49167961]Basically, it means if you take people fighting against Islam as friends, you receive punishment.[/QUOTE]Define "fighting against Islam" exactly, because it's [I]pretty clear[/I] that merely refusing to convert while also refusing to be subjugated by Islamic law is cause to maim and kill a kafir, so one would assume that befriending them is entirely off the table as well. [QUOTE=Fayez;49167961]Huh? How did you get that from that quote? Where are you getting these passages? Because they are not Quran.com. Surah 3:28 is better translated as:[/QUOTE]... Yeah, I'm not seeing a difference here.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;49164159]Well yeah, Islam does forbid killing innocent people. The question is [I]what is defined as an innocent person in Islam?[/I][/QUOTE] Irrelevant at all. Innocent person is innocent. ISIS has been shown to breach Islamic rules numerous times, this is not about religion for them.

[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;49168228]Irrelevant at all. Innocent person is innocent. ISIS has been shown to breach Islamic rules numerous times, this is not about religion for them.[/QUOTE] Except it's absolutely relevant, because innocence in Islam is very clearly defined, and there are passages that state extremely clearly that it's totally fine (and even required in some cases) to injure or kill those who aren't innocent. Now, we obviously wouldn't say something like "the Bible says to cut the hands off thieves, so Christians should all be doing that," and we shouldn't say the same for Muslims, but it's extremely important to understand that those passages exist for the purposes of informed and nuanced discussion.

[QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;49167439]Islam actually IS compatible with western lifestyle, as every religion is. Fuck, look up the Islamic golden age. The Muslim empires were centers of learning with massive contributions to science and tolerance for centuries, some of which which was unthinkable for the era. They were at their prime, they didn't go around murdering Jews, Christians for shits and jiggles, because they were learned people and highly sophisticated societies. If the Mongols hadn't sacked Baghdad for laughs, the Muslim world and probably the rest of the world would be in a MUCH better position. The fact is, Islam was more "modern" than Christianity was for a long, long time.[/QUOTE] the reality of the fact is that islam was just lucky it burst out of the arabian peninsula to conquer two great empires and then ruled over a largely christian or zoroastrian populace who did all of the actual work (or recently converted ones to islam) as soon as islam got entrenched by the high middle ages, the golden age was over. it's like a tapeworm becoming convinced it's responsible for all of the shit flowing past it

[QUOTE=Fayez;49166599] I dunno, [B]killing people who broke treaties, attacked, and were killing your people sounds pretty moral to me[/B]. Unless you're saying people shouldn't kill in self defense. Breaking treaties has, and always will be, a major diplomatic offense. One that justifies war. Oh, and that whole "mean people :(" thing, would you wish death upon "mean people :(" who invaded your country and slaughtered your citizens? [/QUOTE] Oh, it's definitely not moral. It feels good, sure, to have blood spilled for your own blood, but that's not [B]moral.[/B] And fuck your appeal to Hitler shit, completely irrelevant here. We're talking about a divinely inspired book, from which I expect better than "spill more blood, don't attempt diplomatic discourse, just be true to your base, apelike instincts and fucking murder those heathen bastards, [I]unless they turn to Allah[/I]". The Nuremberg trials WERE immoral for imposing death sentences. We as the human race should be above this childish eye for an eye shit. Now imagine if we had divine power behind us. You know what I would expect? I'd expect something like "Should they break their treaties, cut all ties with them, lest they begin to discriminate and kill people and drive them from their homes, then it becomes your God-given duty to stop them. If they attack you, defend yourselves. Do not rampage and massacre or take slaves. Should someone become an apostate or be a disbeliever you shall guarantee them safe passage in your lands." etc etc

[QUOTE=Da Bomb76;49164776]This is horseshit and anyone who reads the Quran knows it.[/QUOTE] I am talking about the ORIGINAL idea. It all changed over the years of course, especially 1100 under Al Ghazali.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49166619]I often think that if the Moslems had stayed in Arabia instead of going out to conquer and dismember the great old civilizations of Rome and Persia things might have been better in the region.[/QUOTE] I often think if Israel never existed the region would have been stable.

[QUOTE=Bucketboy;49170004]I often think if Israel never existed the region would have been stable.[/QUOTE] Israel isn't the problem. Israel is a response, a growth created by the instability and conditions of the region. If it hadn't been Israel and Judaism, it would have been any other ethnic group, any other feudal country and any other religion.

[QUOTE=woolio1;49170016]Israel isn't the problem. Israel is a response, a growth created by the instability and conditions of the region. If it hadn't been Israel and Judaism, it would have been any other ethnic group, any other feudal country and any other religion.[/QUOTE] Israel was a complete fabrication by the west when the colonies where finally rid of. And the way in which the colonies where divided up and spread around is one of the biggest causes of the instability in the region, Not Islam.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;49164159]Well yeah, Islam does forbid killing innocent people. The question is [I]what is defined as an innocent person in Islam?[/I][/QUOTE] People who aren't in their region? Other people in their region, Random people on the screen. Women. There are alot of words for death, killing and war in their book. So, It's understandable when "fundamentalist" start killing because its the fundamentals of their beliefs. Maybe its just their beliefs that are the problems here.

One of the most influential figures for radical Islam is Qutb. He did dislike israel but that wasn't his primary motivation, in his early years he was secular and a fan of globalisation. On a trip to america is decided he disliked America and the Americanisation of egypt so started cooking up some theories on how to oppose it, advocating forced conversion to islam + violent uprising against state. That said he was always considered radical (his ideas being very different from the majority of the egyptian people) he was an introvert angry at the world, he disliked sport and womens emancipation; he never married because "he never found a woman pure enough". He was one of Bin laden's mentors and founded the muslim brotherhood. Also pioneering the re-emergence of the idea that muslims should use violence to establish a state with sharia law. The Quran might have said a bunch of stuff about sharia law and use of violence but by that time most muslim religious figures had adopted a more moderate stance on this, muslims, jews, christians were happily coexisting despite their differences, in ottoman palestine there are stories of Christians celebrating Ramadan with their muslim neighbours and muslims celebrating christmas and easter. Radical islam is a relatively modern reactionary movement. [editline]23rd November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Passing;49170120]People who aren't in their region? Other people in their region, Random people on the screen. Women. There are alot of words for death, killing and war in their book. So, It's understandable when "fundamentalist" start killing because its the fundamentals of their beliefs. Maybe its just their beliefs that are the problems here.[/QUOTE] The value of human life is fundamental to muslims. the interpretations differentiate. A violent person will read violence and pacifist will read the total opposite. Normal people can become bad faced with bad situation. [editline]23rd November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;49166619]I often think that if the Moslems had stayed in Arabia instead of going out to conquer and dismember the great old civilizations of Rome and Persia things might have been better in the region.[/QUOTE] The conditions (inequality and disunity) which caused it to emerge would still be there so I think something similar would arise a couple of years later anyway.

[QUOTE=Jackald;49170313]Most religious texts have contradictory statements and vague lines open to interpretation. I don't know the qur'an in any detail. Most christians have to pretty much ignore most of the old testament and some of the more radical chapters in the new testament, like Leviticus. That guy was insane. Most of the "banned" substances in Christianity come from Leviticus. He banned stuff like: - Eating fat - Eating blood - Touching an unclean animal - Eating an animal which doesn't both chew cud and has a dividend hoof - Trimming your beard - Getting tattoos - Selling land permanently - No laying with another man - If a child curses his parents, kill the child There's some really good stuff in there like not killing or stealing and whatnot, but most modern christians will pick and choose from the bible what they do and do not follow. Unless they want to never move house, never shave, never eat chicken, and stone their child to death if he says "Damn you dad". Similarly, I suspect Islam probably has a ton of crazy stuff like that, so IS can probably justify a lot of stuff they do by picking and choosing obscure passages from the qur'an.[/QUOTE] Just a quick correction, the book of Leviticus is written "to the Levites," which were one of the twelve tribes of Israel. Leviticus wasn't a person. Canonically, the book is attributed to Moses. As for why Christians pick and choose, a lot of it comes from the interpretation that, due to the Christ and his whole dying thing, Christians can just ask for forgiveness if they break the Law. Of course, that has become "Christians don't need to follow the Law at all," which is technically correct, but not recommended. Then again, I'm not a theologian. I'm just a guy that spent a lot of time researching Christianity when I was younger.

[QUOTE=Jackald;49170313]Most of the "banned" substances in Christianity come from Leviticus.[/QUOTE] Leviticus is 27 chapters long and the first eight are extremely in-depth guides about properly sacrificing animals on an altar in the name of the lord. :disgust:

[QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;49167439] Look at Tunisia for example, that place is doing pretty damn well if I do say so myself.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21678721-rift-ruling-party-may-be-least-tunisias-problems-tunisia-confronts"]I wouldn't be too sure about that.[/URL]

[QUOTE=cherry gmod;49170071]Israel was a complete fabrication by the west when the colonies where finally rid of. And the way in which the colonies where divided up and spread around is one of the biggest causes of the instability in the region, Not Islam.[/QUOTE] You ignore the sectarianism and the fact that the region has never had borders based on national identities because of all empires, european and non-european.

[QUOTE=woolio1;49170016]Israel isn't the problem. Israel is a response, a growth created by the instability and conditions of the region. If it hadn't been Israel and Judaism, it would have been any other ethnic group, any other feudal country and any other religion.[/QUOTE] You have to be blind to 90% of the past 100 years of Middle Eastern history to believe Israel's existence isn't a major fuel for all conflict in the region.

[QUOTE=Jackald;49170313]Most christians have to pretty much ignore most of the old testament and some of the more radical chapters in the new testament,[/QUOTE]uh [quote=Hebrews 8:13]When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.[/quote]Old Testament rules are out. Why? Well earlier in Hebrews... [quote=Hebrews 8:7]For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.[/quote]That first covenant with Abraham didn't produce a righteous people, and so with the messiah (Christ) came a new covenant. [QUOTE=Jackald;49170313]like Leviticus. That guy was insane.[/QUOTE]You've already been told Leviticus wasn't a guy writing down some kooky laws, but what you haven't been told is Leviticus is one of the central fucking elements of the [B]Old Testament.[/B]