Bryan Posted December 12, 2015 Report Posted December 12, 2015 Well the you should understand the violence it suggests is no less vicious than what some read from the Koran. I fully understand that there is a substantial difference. If you took the time to educate yourself, you would too.
On Guard for Thee Posted December 12, 2015 Report Posted December 12, 2015 I fully understand that there is a substantial difference. If you took the time to educate yourself, you would too. Sorry pal, educate yourself you'll find Christianity is as violent as it ever got.
Guest Posted December 12, 2015 Report Posted December 12, 2015 My point was in reference to the idea that people who follow the Koran are somehow more violent than the same dolts who follow the bible. Bigots don't seem to be able to see beyond the ends of their noses Well, they are, aren't they? Death to cartoonists, for instance, isn't something you learn at Sunday School
Guest Posted December 12, 2015 Report Posted December 12, 2015 No, Western media just doesn't also include the same focus and framing for acts of violence motivated by non-Islamic ideologies. I think they probably would, if the numbers were the same.
On Guard for Thee Posted December 12, 2015 Report Posted December 12, 2015 Well, they are, aren't they? Death to cartoonists, for instance, isn't something you learn at Sunday School Yep, cherry pick all you want. Doesn't make Christianity any less violent over all.
Guest Posted December 12, 2015 Report Posted December 12, 2015 Yep, cherry pick all you want. Doesn't make Christianity any less violent over all. Is that how you see that? Cherry picking? What about blasphemy? Apostasy? Along with cartooning, they will all get you killed by certain Muslims. And that's not mentioning the T word. They might get you killed by certain Christians, too, but probably not as much. I think, on balance, that those who are violent in the name of Islam are far more numerous than those who are violent in the name of Christianity. Do you disagree with that?
Bryan Posted December 12, 2015 Report Posted December 12, 2015 (edited) Sorry pal, educate yourself you'll find Christianity is as violent as it ever got. Ridiculously false. Only someone who has no idea what they are talking about would make such a statement. Edited December 12, 2015 by Bryan
On Guard for Thee Posted December 12, 2015 Report Posted December 12, 2015 Ridiculously false. Only someone who has no idea what they are talking about would make such a statement. Ditto.
On Guard for Thee Posted December 12, 2015 Report Posted December 12, 2015 Is that how you see that? Cherry picking? What about blasphemy? Apostasy? Along with cartooning, they will all get you killed by certain Muslims. And that's not mentioning the T word. They might get you killed by certain Christians, too, but probably not as much. I think, on balance, that those who are violent in the name of Islam are far more numerous than those who are violent in the name of Christianity. Do you disagree with that? Nope, I don't agree with that, and let's see you prove it.
dialamah Posted December 12, 2015 Report Posted December 12, 2015 (edited) I think they probably would, if the numbers were the same. And I seriously doubt that. Kony's Christian Rebels Still Threaten Central African Republic The militia emerged in northern Uganda in the late 1980s, spread to neighboring South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo, and has caused the deaths of about 100,000 people while forcing 2.5 million others to flee their homes. Looking back at the LRA's campaign of violence, The Guardian stated in 2015 that Kony's forces had been responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 people and the kidnapping of at least 60,000 children. Various atrocities committed include raping young girls and abducting them for use as sex slaves. The actual number of LRA milita members has waxed and waned over the years, being no more than a few hundred as of 2015.[35] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Kony Here's where you'll find daily tracking of LRA activities - how often do you see these stories on the evening news? Now what can we find on Islamic extremists? According to this Wikipedia list, about 17,000 people have died from Islamic terror attacks since the 1980s. In addition, Breitbart claims that ISIS has killed 10,000 people since declaring Caliphate in 2014. So, if these numbers are anything to go by, over the last 35 years, a single Christian extremist group has out-killed all the Islamic extremists by 70,000 or thereabouts. Islamic extremism is on the rise, so obviously at some point they'll surpass the Christians in death toll. Still, it boggles my mind that anyone could think that Christianity is any less violent than Islam or that it's adherents are any less likely to use violence should it suit their agenda. Edited December 12, 2015 by dialamah
ReeferMadness Posted December 12, 2015 Report Posted December 12, 2015 It can't be body count. I am curious. Well, now, I'm curious as to how you justify thinking that somehow Christianity loses out on body count. What bodies are you counting? Starting when? Is it every body in history that was killed by someone claiming to be a Christian vs every body in history claiming to be a Muslim? If that's the case, Christians would be way ahead based on the two world wars alone. Are you counting the inquisitions? The crusades? The godless heathens that were slaughtered by Christian colonialists in the new world? A few days ago, I saw a map of the US overlaid with red circles indicating all of the mass shootings. The ones done by Muslims were overlaid in blue. There were only a couple blue ones. What about all the rest?? When a Christian shoots someone, people understand that most Christians aren't going to shoot strangers and refrain from suspecting them. If you can't do the same with Muslims, what does that say? Are there people on this site who think that Christianity is as bad as Islam, right now? I don't think either one is "bad" but a lot of horrible things have been done in the name of both. Most people who believe in both are capable of interpreting their religion in a non-destructive way. There are a lot of Muslim theocracies and they tend to be not nice places. Is this proof that Islam is inferior? I don't know - compare them to the Christian theocracies that existed in the middle ages. Or any number of left wing or right wing military dictatorships that have existed (or still do). All it really proves is that politics and religion make bad companions. Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted December 12, 2015 Report Posted December 12, 2015 Read the friggin bible and get back to us. or not... Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted December 12, 2015 Report Posted December 12, 2015 You may have extensive knowledge of the bible, but it's clear you have very little knowledge of the Quran. It's also clear he has no knowledge of the actual history of Christians. Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted December 12, 2015 Report Posted December 12, 2015 Actually, what you're saying is that it's ok for this poster to call you a 'bigot' here. We're actually asking people not to call people bigots unless it's inline with the other poster's views. Even then, it threatens to derail the thread pretty easily. But, ok. Buzzfeed's editor-in-chief has decided that it is fair to call Donald Trump a "mendacious racist". If you want to be accurate, there just aren't polite terms for some people. Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
DogOnPorch Posted December 12, 2015 Report Posted December 12, 2015 Buzzfeed's editor-in-chief has decided that it is fair to call Donald Trump a "mendacious racist". If you want to be accurate, there just aren't polite terms for some people. You're free to support Islam. I won't even call you a bigot or a racist or for doing so. Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Bryan Posted December 12, 2015 Report Posted December 12, 2015 It's also clear he has no knowledge of the actual history of Christians. Yet again, I have significantly more actual knowledge of this than you do. Instead of reading activist blogs, try picking up a book. You do know what those look like, right?
Michael Hardner Posted December 12, 2015 Report Posted December 12, 2015 There are a few on here making comments on other posters' knowledge on the Quran or the history of religions. It seems pretty easy to take the specific facts under discussion and start a new thread to discuss those, with cites of course. A lot easier and more productive then going back and forth saying the others don't have authority. Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Bryan Posted December 12, 2015 Report Posted December 12, 2015 There are a few on here making comments on other posters' knowledge on the Quran or the history of religions. It seems pretty easy to take the specific facts under discussion and start a new thread to discuss those, with cites of course. A lot easier and more productive then going back and forth saying the others don't have authority. Or you can sum the whole thread up by stating the unequivocal fact that some posters here have no idea what's really in it either the Bible or the Koran other than what some activists have told them. The only cite they need is to read the damn things for themselves. But they won't do that. They literally do not have any idea what the words they are typing actually mean, but turn around and accuse people who really do know a LOT about the subject of not reading it. It's ridiculous, their position is a cartoon.
kimmy Posted December 12, 2015 Report Posted December 12, 2015 I still think you guys are missing the point in bickering over the specifics of the actual texts. It's not the words in the texts that are the problem, it's the mindset of adherents. Most first-world Jews are modern and tolerant people... but there are still Hasidic dumb-asses in New York City who harass women and non-Jews. Most first-world Christians are modern and tolerant people... but you still have hate-filled lunatics like Kevin Swanson or Scott Lively using the Bible to justify their views. And I believe that Muslims who grow up in the first world would follow that trend as well, provided that negative influences are removed. Those negative influences include things like Jihadist propaganda and dumb-ass Imams from Saudi Arabia preaching garbage, but it also includes things like exclusion and alienation. -k (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Michael Hardner Posted December 12, 2015 Report Posted December 12, 2015 Or you can sum the whole thread up by stating the unequivocal fact that some posters here have no idea what's really in it.... That's your assertion, I understand that. You could prove that in another thread. Maybe "facts of the Koran" or somesuch. They literally do not have any idea what the words they are typing actually mean, but turn around and accuse people who really do know a LOT about the subject of not reading it. It's ridiculous, their position is a cartoon. It sounds like they are really obvious wrong. Off to that new thread, then, where that will be made clear to all of us. Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Argus Posted December 12, 2015 Report Posted December 12, 2015 I know, your comments communicate that clearly enough. All the same your positions need to be drawn out and put on display so they can be seen for what they are. The depravity of these immoral position's are also their nemesis. Do you even know what any of those words mean or did you just snatch them up and throw them out there in an attempt to make your post look literate - if not sane? "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted December 12, 2015 Report Posted December 12, 2015 And Christians should also throw out the Bible and denounce Jesus because Christianity is just as flawed as Islam. Twenty seven thousand Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11. How many Christian terrorist attacks have there been? Seven? Nine? Massive cruelty, poverty, corruption, slaughter, mayhem, murder, religious and ethnic intolerance and fanaticism throughout the Muslim world. Meanwhile, the West, which is, except for Japan, Christian, is pretty much the exact opposite. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted December 12, 2015 Report Posted December 12, 2015 I now understand that Bryan, Argus and Rue are on one side of this arguement and I (with others) are on the other side. It gives credibility to the positioning. I feel as if I can sleep a little better tonight. I'm confused about the point of the above post unless it is yet another sad attempt to trumpet your own self-perceived moral superiority over people who disagree with you on political positions. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Guest Posted December 12, 2015 Report Posted December 12, 2015 (edited) Nope, I don't agree with that, and let's see you prove it. I don't have to prove it. I just asked if you disagreed with it. It's mind meltingly obvious to me. Not to you. And I seriously doubt that. Here's where you'll find daily tracking of LRA activities - how often do you see these stories on the evening news? Now what can we find on Islamic extremists? According to this Wikipedia list, about 17,000 people have died from Islamic terror attacks since the 1980s. In addition, Breitbart claims that ISIS has killed 10,000 people since declaring Caliphate in 2014. So, if these numbers are anything to go by, over the last 35 years, a single Christian extremist group has out-killed all the Islamic extremists by 70,000 or thereabouts. Islamic extremism is on the rise, so obviously at some point they'll surpass the Christians in death toll. Still, it boggles my mind that anyone could think that Christianity is any less violent than Islam or that it's adherents are any less likely to use violence should it suit their agenda. According to this article from the BBC there were some 35000 deaths in Iraq alone between 2004 - 2013. Add up the rest and in comes to around 75000 during those dates in those countries alone. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30883058 I have to admit I was surprised myself by those numbers, never having looked up anything like that before. I was equally surprised by your numbers regarding the LRA. (That said, they were always on my list of disgusting religious primitives. Along with Ugandan Christians who want the death penalty for Gays, and Tanzanian witch doctors who want to chop up Albinos for their potions. I never said Muslims were alone. Just the worst) I dispute your contention that they don't make the news, as I hear about them frequently. And given the numbers in that chart in the BBC article, I would suggest that Islamic terrorism doesn't always make the news either. Well, now, I'm curious as to how you justify thinking that somehow Christianity loses out on body count. What bodies are you counting? Starting when? Is it every body in history that was killed by someone claiming to be a Christian vs every body in history claiming to be a Muslim? If that's the case, Christians would be way ahead based on the two world wars alone. Are you counting the inquisitions? The crusades? The godless heathens that were slaughtered by Christian colonialists in the new world? Recent events. If one goes back forever, I think the numbers would probably even out, not counting world wars which had nothing to do with religion. I would be talking about people killed because the killer reckoned their God wanted them to kill them. So if you want to excuse todays Islamic excesses with the Crusades, go ahead, I don't. A few days ago, I saw a map of the US overlaid with red circles indicating all of the mass shootings. The ones done by Muslims were overlaid in blue. There were only a couple blue ones. What about all the rest?? Right. More people are killed in the US by non Muslims than by Muslims. Never questioned, anywhere, as far as I know. When a Christian shoots someone, people understand that most Christians aren't going to shoot strangers and refrain from suspecting them. If you can't do the same with Muslims, what does that say? I do do the same with Muslims. I am under no illusion that most Muslims are going to shoot strangers. Right now, it seems that, if someone, somewhere is going to be killed by someone who thinks their God wants them to kill them, the chances are better than even that the killer will be a Muslim. The chances are better than even that the victim will be a Muslim too, but I don't hold Muslim lives to be any different than non Muslim lives. I don't think either one is "bad" but a lot of horrible things have been done in the name of both. Most people who believe in both are capable of interpreting their religion in a non-destructive way. Agree, and have stated so numerous times. Only the interpretation matters. There are a lot of Muslim theocracies and they tend to be not nice places. Is this proof that Islam is inferior? I don't know - compare them to the Christian theocracies that existed in the middle ages. Or any number of left wing or right wing military dictatorships that have existed (or still do). All it really proves is that politics and religion make bad companions. I don't think Islam is inferior. Muslims who interpret Islam to mean that they can insist that anyone other than themselves lives by the tenets of their religion are inferior. Whether it be a crowd blown up for being Shiite, an individual shot for drawing cartoons, or hacked to death for a blog, or a women forced to ask a male relative to take her shopping, anyone who doesn't restrict their religious views to themselves alone is inferior. There are only degrees. Edit> That was far too much effort. The problem with those arguments is that they concentrate on the terrorist aspect of Islamic fundamentalism, when there is so much more to be disgusted with. Edited December 12, 2015 by bcsapper
Argus Posted December 12, 2015 Report Posted December 12, 2015 We don't hear much about *Christian* terrorism; all the focus is on Islamic terrorism. How would we, in the West, determine if Christian terrorism took as many lives as Islamic terrorism? Since there pretty much is no Christian terrorism, I don't think that's much of a problem. Christian terrorist acts don't show up on the news. Yeah, they actually do. Consider that guy who killed three people at the abortion clinic; Yeah, this is a sorry cliche that the Islamist defenders bring up time and time again. US abortion bombings and shootings. I'll even grant you it's sort of a Christian terrorism, sort of. But the problem with your narrative is that only a dozen or so people have died in such attacks over the past thirty years. Not to mention that terrorism is in the eye of the beholder, or in this case - victim. No, terrorism is well-defined. The only people who dispute it are those who try to defend it, or apologists for those who practice it. A family working their farm and targeted by a US drone isn't likely to see that as anything but terrorism, No, they're not. And drones don't target families working on farms. They target terrorists. Those who seek to make excuses for Islamic violence and terrorism constantly try to equate western defensive actions with terrorism, but this narrative too fails the smell test. Drone attacks are not designed to terrorize a populace or get it to change its mind or to get some institution or agency or government to change its policies. They are designed to target those who are planning and carrying out violence against Western interests. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Recommended Posts