Forums - Politics Discussion - London bridge *Multiple Accidents* Breaking news multiple fatalities confirmed.

Hiku said:
Johnw1104 said:

That passage is taken out of context, much like I see gun rights activisits (for the record I'm not anti-gun) use the one where Jesus instructs his apostles to arm themselves, ommiting what comes after where he uses that to prompt his arrest and insists they engage in no violence.

The passage you quoted is from a parable Jesus was telling his followers about a nobleman-turned-king and how he treated his followers as a lesson as to why one should keep faith in God even when times are hard or he seems unworthy of it. At no point did Jesus actually condone killing in the name of God (and in fact in the parable they were being killed for not earning their King interest on money he left them to invest as opposed to some lack of religious devotion, "interest" being a concept Jesus also found reprehensible), but unfortuantely as he was telling the parable and speaking the words of the King within it we've seen that quote taken out of context and propogated across the internet.

It didn't mention God, so when you say he didn't condone killing in the name of God, are you saying he condoned killing in his own name?
Or are you saying that he was merely quoting the words of another man who said those things?

From what I can tell, people are divided on that issue. Some Bible scholars believe that Jesus did condone killing in this paragraph, while some don't. One of them pointed this out in relation to Luke 19:27:

"Now all this was as if our Lord had said, Thus shall I at length appear, not as a temporal sovereign, but as the great eternal Judge and victorious Ruler over all; when, having received power and dominion from my Father, I shall bring all to their final account, and with infinite ease triumph over those who reject and affront my authority: take heed, therefore, that you be not found in their wretched number, as many will be who pretend most eagerly to desire the Messiah’s appearance."

"I shall bring all to their final account" (refering to the "wretched") doesn't sound very nice.

But anyway, my issue with religion is not just that among the good things, there may be dangerous things. It's also the whole fundamental idea that people are encourage to have very strong convictions without proper evidence. And how this translates into other ereas of their life, such as politics.

I said "God" as he was speaking on God's behalf, and the nature of his relationship with God spawned many, many competing Christian Sects, so I won't get into that lol

As I said, that passage was from a parable Jesus was telling; the King himself suggested that they kill in his name and not for faith-based reasons but rather over money and respect. Jesus was using the story not to suggest that people should kill one another in the temporal world, but rather as an example of what will happen should you stray from your faith and suddenly be confronted by God's judgement (as in should you die in the midst of being a doubter). Death is almost always unexpected, and the reason he used the parable was to demonstrate that one should maintain their faith even when they have reasons for doubt or times are tough, lest they be caught unready for death when it comes. A central theme of Christianity is the belief that one day the world will indeed come to an end, the savior will return, and all will be judged for their sins. Even then, he suggested the doubters would be the "least" of heaven, while the faithful would be the "greatest", so it's not even clear that he was saying those people would go to Hell.

If there's one group Jesus legitimately seemed to dislike, it was not those who one would expect the religious to dislike but is rather those who claim to be believers, make a big show of being believers, and benefit from being believers, but aren't actually so. It's why in the Sermon on the Mount he specifically warned against large congregations for prayer or wearing your religion on your sleeve, suggesting prayer should be done in private so that it may be sincere.

Otherwise, I wouldn't worry to much about the word "wretched" as it is not an insult, but rather indicates suffering. It was used a lot, such as when Solomon explains how God will save the wretched of the earth, and I'm pretty sure if we lived in the 1st century AD or earlier we'd agree that very nearly everyone led very "wretched", painful lives.

Finally, it's true that religion provides answers and doesn't necessitate critical thought (though it has certainly spurred it on for centuries), and inolves believing things that lack proper evidence. Unfortunately, that's something we're all eventually forced to do regardless of whether or not we subscribe to any particular religion. We all still have our own sense of what behavior is right, wrong, or at the very least should and should not be done, and no amount of philosophizing ever actually yields us foundational facts on which to construct a society. For now we all just have to discuss the issue and see how we feel about things at any given moment, but it will always include the adoption of things not based in fact.



Around the Network
Hiku said:
eva01beserk said:

I cant say I know of such group, but if they just dont promote such pasages, but dont condem them when they are brought up(if thats what they do) then its the same thing. Wich again is the point of cristinitys reform. They dont promote such barbarity, but acknoledge is in the book and say its not good anymore and all that. wich is a wold of diference.

And to the second point of the 24% who belive is 100% word of god. The reform tells them that before jesus it was a diferent time and it as allowed but that all change and now anyone who acts that way will suffer under gods hand.  So they still belive is 100% word of god, but they know that is no longer permited, well at least the majority of them do. Wich is why islam is so dangerous right now, they got no such notion of the passage of time. They still think what applys then, still does now.

Well, one that I was thinking of is my friends brother. I don't know if he condemns it, because maybe you can't condemn one part without condemning it all. He just avoids it. And I think that's often the case for the bible as well. I at least can't seem to find any info on these passages generally being condemned by Christian churches. Can you give me a link to that?
I just assumed they gloss over it, by not talking about it. Like some other things. Such as how you're apparently not supposed to eat shrimp. Or how the size of the firmament in the Bible was wrong. I think instead, if the subbject comes up, they commonly debate the interpritation of these passaages.

As for the second point, yeah I think Christian societies have generally moved further away from the teachings of the bible and they're less heavily integrated in our society than in Islam based cultures.

I agree with you there that its normal than when one part is questioned then they start questioning other things untill questioning the entire thing.

But I dont think that I can provide a link as to some proove as I long separated from any religious gathering, read any passage, or even heard any online sermon or rebutal. Dont think I can even stomac a video just to prove a point. But something that should be quite comon, wich was when I was a regular atendant at church, was what you mentioned. They read some story and skiped the awfull parts, like god ordering to kill and burne villages wit women and children, even the catle sufering. but when asked why they skiped certain parts, or bringing a certain brutal part to their atention, they never deny such passages, they faced it head on and do some kind of mental gymnastics to say it was ok back then, but now its not and they dont aprove. I think thats something that should be easy to find online of some pastors defending the horrble verses in the bible.

To your second point. That might be the key here. We stood up to crazzy cristians rules, like gay, divorce, adultry, apostesy and all that nonsense that was punishable before. Back then people still thought it was crazzy but obey because of the consecuenses of speaking back. That might be the issue now with islamic territories. They might be good people but their law will send them to prison or even kill them if they try to change something. They might be a majority of civilized people but they are to afraid to try to do anything.



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

Johnw1104 said:
Hiku said:

It didn't mention God, so when you say he didn't condone killing in the name of God, are you saying he condoned killing in his own name?
Or are you saying that he was merely quoting the words of another man who said those things?

From what I can tell, people are divided on that issue. Some Bible scholars believe that Jesus did condone killing in this paragraph, while some don't. One of them pointed this out in relation to Luke 19:27:

"Now all this was as if our Lord had said, Thus shall I at length appear, not as a temporal sovereign, but as the great eternal Judge and victorious Ruler over all; when, having received power and dominion from my Father, I shall bring all to their final account, and with infinite ease triumph over those who reject and affront my authority: take heed, therefore, that you be not found in their wretched number, as many will be who pretend most eagerly to desire the Messiah’s appearance."

"I shall bring all to their final account" (refering to the "wretched") doesn't sound very nice.

But anyway, my issue with religion is not just that among the good things, there may be dangerous things. It's also the whole fundamental idea that people are encourage to have very strong convictions without proper evidence. And how this translates into other ereas of their life, such as politics.

I said "God" as he was speaking on God's behalf, and the nature of his relationship with God spawned many, many competing Christian Sects, so I won't get into that lol

As I said, that passage was from a parable Jesus was telling; the King himself suggested that they kill in his name and not for faith-based reasons but rather over money and respect. Jesus was using the story not to suggest that people should kill one another in the temporal world, but rather as an example of what will happen should you stray from your faith and suddenly be confronted by God's judgement (as in should you die in the midst of being a doubter). Death is almost always unexpected, and the reason he used the parable was to demonstrate that one should maintain their faith even when they have reasons for doubt or times are tough, lest they be caught unready for death when it comes. A central theme of Christianity is the belief that one day the world will indeed come to an end, the savior will return, and all will be judged for their sins. Even then, he suggested the doubters would be the "least" of heaven, while the faithful would be the "greatest", so it's not even clear that he was saying those people would go to Hell.

If there's one group Jesus legitimately seemed to dislike, it was not those who one would expect the religious to dislike but is rather those who claim to be believers, make a big show of being believers, and benefit from being believers, but aren't actually so. It's why in the Sermon on the Mount he specifically warned against large congregations for prayer or wearing your religion on your sleeve, suggesting prayer should be done in private so that it may be sincere.

Otherwise, I wouldn't worry to much about the word "wretched" as it is not an insult, but rather indicates suffering. It was used a lot, such as when Solomon explains how God will save the wretched of the earth, and I'm pretty sure if we lived in the 1st century AD or earlier we'd agree that very nearly everyone led very "wretched", painful lives.

Finally, it's true that religion provides answers and doesn't necessitate critical thought (though it has certainly spurred it on for centuries), and inolves believing things that lack proper evidence. Unfortunately, that's something we're all eventually forced to do regardless of whether or not we subscribe to any particular religion. We all still have our own sense of what behavior is right, wrong, or at the very least should and should not be done, and no amount of philosophizing ever actually yields us foundational facts on which to construct a society. For now we all just have to discuss the issue and see how we feel about things at any given moment, but it will always include the adoption of things not based in fact.

I'd have to look further into the context of that story, although I'm surprised that I haven't seen it being mentioned in defense of that paragraph before.

As for the wretched, I wasn't particularly concerned with what they'd done to earn that title, but rather what would be done to them. As the eternal judge, I will bring those who reject my authority to their final accor, having recieved power and dominion from my father.
That doesn't sound like he's quoting someone else, as he refers to those who pretend to desire the Messiah, as you mentioned.

Lastly, there are certainly times where everyone will find themselves in situations where they'll have to rely on things not based on fact. But in situations where that information is readily available, some people more commonly recognise when you should question things and come to your own conclusion. Those who do not are more easily taken advantage of, unfortunately.



ArchangelMadzz said:
Aeolus451 said:

I'm not abandoning them. i just don't see the point of repeating myself to someone who's done almost nothing in a thread about a recent terrorist attack but argue with people who are making valid points in this. 

Most of what I have done is made factual statements against provably inaccurate claims. The fact you can't even concede to simple factual points has me wonder why I'm replying. 

First statement I replied to, Immagration is at fault for recent attacks in the UK. False, all known attackers in the UK have not been immigrants.
Second statement: Their mosque had something to do with it. False, their mosque reported them. 

Why are you making something so simple so difficult?

They were not factual statements especially when you keep trying to reword them to better argue against me. You provided no proof so drop the factual hogwash. 

When you let in immigrants that do not adapt and accept the ways of the society that they move to and they create these communities that are almost exclusively of them, it becomes an environment that's the perfect breeding ground to radicalize any disgruntled muslim in that country. So it is a immigration problem because a part of immigrating to another country is integrating into it's society, learning their language and adopting their values/ways. They are not being radicalized from over the net but rather in their neighborhoods. Terrorist groups/extremists need a lot of support from their communites to function. Turning a blind eye to them is aiding them. If every muslim turned in any muslim who was extremist or saying certain things, terrorism wouldn't be a problem anymore.

Just because a person within a mosque reported a few people within that mosque doesn't mean that some of the mosque don't agree with the extremists or agree with reporting them. 



Aeolus451 said:
ArchangelMadzz said:

Most of what I have done is made factual statements against provably inaccurate claims. The fact you can't even concede to simple factual points has me wonder why I'm replying. 

First statement I replied to, Immagration is at fault for recent attacks in the UK. False, all known attackers in the UK have not been immigrants.
Second statement: Their mosque had something to do with it. False, their mosque reported them. 

Why are you making something so simple so difficult?

They were not factual statements especially when you keep trying to reword them to better argue against me. You provided no proof so drop the factual hogwash. 

When you let in immigrants that do not adapt and accept the ways of the society that they move to and they create these communities that are almost exclusively of them, it becomes an environment that's the perfect breeding ground to radicalize any disgruntled muslim in that country. So it is a immigration problem because a part of immigrating to another country is integrating into it's society, learning their language and adopting their values/ways. They are not being radicalized from over the net but rather in their neighborhoods. Terrorist groups/extremists need a lot of support from their communites to function. Turning a blind eye to them is aiding them. If every muslim turned in any muslim who was extremist or saying certain things, terrorism wouldn't be a problem anymore.

Just because a person within a mosque reported a few people within that mosque doesn't mean that some of the mosque don't agree with the extremists or agree with reporting them. 

So if you look at my original comments they weren't factual? Please tell me what the facts are otherwise.

The parents of the attackers have spoken out. They do not have criminal records. They speak english, They have worked jobs. 

Assimilation is important, I would assimilate to any society that I move to, if it's a society I wouldn't want to assimilate to (ie. Saudi Arabia) I wouldn't live there. But in this case, it isn't relevant as they did assimilate. 

But when they turn them in, nothing happens (that we know of). One of the attackers last night is already confirmed to have been on a watchlist after being reported by his friend. Our Police force has been cut considerably in recent years by the government, meaning with all the other duties they have, they don't have the manpower to effectively tackle terrorism without taking important resources from somewhere else. We are incapable of doing it because our police force has been sucked dry. The men and women of our police force are fantastic and dealt with it greatly. They just don't have the resources to effectively deal with this, that is a major reason why (as well as particular muslims being trash) this is happening. 

That's true. But it also doesn't mean you're allowed to assume the entire mosque is behind them, all we know is that they had reported him. 



PS4 and PC gaming

 

PC Specs:
AMD Ryzen 9 3900x
Zotac Nvidia RTX 2070 Super
32GB DDR4 Corsair Vengence Ram 3200 mhz
1TB Samsung Qvo SSD
Corsair Spec-Delta Case
Asus ROG B450-F Motherboard

Around the Network
CaptainExplosion said:
konnichiwa said:

Even if they kill themself with a suicide bomb they seem to create more terrorists.

Well we have no other options at this point, and racist sociopaths like Trump and his butt buddy Putin are indirectly making more terrorists.

Oh, so Obama must have been a racist too to help create so many.



ArchangelMadzz said:
Birimbau said:
This is this the beginning of a new normal for Europe. At least UK will regain the control of its borders after leaving Europe Union of Socialist Republics.

The last 2 terrorist attacks here have been from people born in the UK. Immigration didn't really have anything to do with it. 

So your saying the imported Wahhabist had not effect on them? Muslim in Europe had been generally peace prior to the refugee influx. Now we are seeing domestically born Muslims committing acts of terror. I tend to think there is a connection.



End of 2009 Predictions (Set, January 1st 2009)

Wii- 72 million   3rd Year Peak, better slate of releases

360- 37 million   Should trend down slightly after 3rd year peak

PS3- 29 million  Sales should pick up next year, 3rd year peak and price cut

ratuscafoarterea said:
deskpro2k3 said:

 

 

 

I'm not defending islamic terror, but I think I made my point. (i can add more to this list)

Actually, what is your point? Yes there may be a few retards that commit mass-murders in the name of Christianity but that doesn’t changes the fact that Christianity has reformed and it doesn’t promote killing. On the other hand Islam hasn’t reformed and many imams promote killing of innocents.

Also, these retards that have committed murder in the name of Christianity or white power are an internal Western problem, as most of the West is Christian, radical Islam committing mass murder in the West and other Christian countries (Russia) is an external threat.

 

the only ones on that list that actually killed in their minds for God were the abortion clinic guys, and maybe the mosque killer (hard to say if for Christ or anti Islam). I mean really... The columbine killers had nothing to do with religions at all. Neither did most on that list.



End of 2009 Predictions (Set, January 1st 2009)

Wii- 72 million   3rd Year Peak, better slate of releases

360- 37 million   Should trend down slightly after 3rd year peak

PS3- 29 million  Sales should pick up next year, 3rd year peak and price cut

They kill for their religion as their religion commands.

This will end in civil war.



To the white people who are saying that islam has nothing to do with Terrorism

 

Shut the fuck up, you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Look at Sikh Terrorism and realize that really only added through the community itself silencing the extremists voices.