Moonlight Graham Posted December 9, 2015 Report Share Posted December 9, 2015 If you have been following this topic you would have understood that the Old Testament contains parables and fables from before Christ, and that his coming and his words and his deeds which comprise the New Testament has superseded them. Besides which, you will have a very difficult time today finding any kind of mainstream Christian support for the stuff in the OT but no difficulty whatsoever finding mainstream Muslim world support for the anti-infidel feelings in the Koran. Ya not so much true https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/tens-of-thousands-of-muslims-flee-christian-militias-in-central-african-republic/2014/02/07/5a1adbb2-9032-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html The Old Testament doesn't just contain "parables and fables", it also contains things like "commandments" and such. Many Christians even in North America don't believe ie: Genesis is just "fables". The OT and Moses etc. form the basis of Judaism and good portion of Christianity, and even the New Testament has its share of fire and brimstone (Revelations) and other nutty stuff. The NT is a lot of parables and fables also, but some believe ie: Jesus walked on water. Most of the stuff in all 3 books is just a bunch of phony hogwash anyways and the people who believe any of that metaphysical delusional nonsense need to read a science textbook. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted December 9, 2015 Report Share Posted December 9, 2015 There's no getting around it. The solution for peace will have a process that attends it and it will have to deal with reconciliation and acknowledgement. History and events do matter. Oh I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 9, 2015 Report Share Posted December 9, 2015 (edited) It's surprising to you that people resisted having to absorb millions of fleeing refugees? Just take a look at the resistance to refugees going on all around you right now. Islam is peace. What's the problem? Edited December 9, 2015 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 9, 2015 Report Share Posted December 9, 2015 (edited) Mohammad didn't hate all Jews, he married a Jew for Pete's sake. After murdering her husband and taking her as a slave. Edited December 10, 2015 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 Islam is peace. What's the problem? In God we trust all other's pay cash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 In God we trust all other's pay cash. Eid is a colouful holiday. Good for the kids. Bring yer own goat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 Islam is peace. What's the problem? 23% of the global population is Muslim (1.6 billion people). What % of those are terrorists? Hopefully all Muslims will convert to Christianity or Judaism because we know Christian and Jewish people/leaders/countries never commit war and violence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 How could anything change? Each event serves as further confirmation to each side of their own ideology. And everyone is firmly entrenched in their ideology. For example, most gun control proponents are against any system that would prevent the mentally ill from having access to guns. And in a broader sense, the whole conversation on the topic is stupid... you have people who believe in a universal right to own guns, and you have people who want to blame the existence of guns for everything, and almost no one talking about reasonable solutions. The inability of the US to do anything about the issue of mass shootings isn't unique to this one issue, it's a broader symptom of the growing polarization of political discourse and inability of people to see the "other side" as a partner to negotiate solutions with rather than an enemy to be condemned. You see this at all levels of society, from facebook comment threads right on up to federal government organs. Huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 The inability of the US to do anything about the issue of mass shootings isn't unique to this one issue, it's a broader symptom of the growing polarization of political discourse and inability of people to see the "other side" as a partner to negotiate solutions with rather than an enemy to be condemned. You see this at all levels of society, from facebook comment threads right on up to federal government organs. But on MLW, we have such reasonable and eloquent people that you surely could suggest a new idea that would fly with all reasonable parties ! It sounds like I'm being sarcastic but I'm not. Actual discussion and dialogue was part of the political process long ago, and people are going to have to learn to rediscover that. Right now, when you see this 'polarization', it is IMO people arguing online as an imitation of the fake pundits they have seen on cable TV, as political pro-wrestling, or the AM radio trolls. That's what they think politics is. The gun laws are 100% tied to the prevalence of television as a political medium. Politics in the US and Canada too is strongly tied to television. We will soon see major policy changes as TV declines in gun laws and elsewhere. Why aren't more people discussing this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 Wilber you made a comment that questions pregnant women as security risks. I also note another comment from Moonlight G. about how Christianity and Judaism are violent. What gives with both of you? To start with thank God you live in a world where you have no clue terrorists use pregnant women as a cover to carry bombs, weapons, etc. I was at a checkpoint where a pregnant woman was strapped with explosives. Anyone, man, woman, child, pregnant, disabled, anyone can and could be a terrorist or security threat. I am not sure how to penetrate your sheltered world to get that message through to you but its going to happen. Sitting thousands of miles from terror and questioning others on how they treat it will soon come to an end with people like you as the terrorism happens in your own back yard and it will come. It is coming. Should you be afraid? No but you sure as hell need to get a reality check and stop making snide comments about potential terror risks on a plane. Now let's get to Moonlight's statement. He too has missed the point. Here is the point. If at this time terror attacks were being carried out by people in orthodox Jewish garb or say dressed as nuns, and it happened in your world repeatedly, you'd be looking twice at anyone dressed like a nun or someone dressed in orthodox Jewish garb. Clearly Mr. Graham can not grasp that point and tries to spin it to people hating Muslims or putting down their religion. This is about an inability for people to know the difference between a peace loving and terrorist loving Muslim. Mr. Graham's comments and yours show a shocking naivite and inability to accept the fact that neither of you know how to prevent terrorism and are in denial pretending we should assume the whole world is innocent until proven guilty. That kind of belief is nice. Really it is. Its nice when you live in a sheltered world where you don't know what body parts look like after an explosion. Y'all need to get a grasp on reality. The enemy, the terrorist we are talking of exploits the garb of Muslims, anyone. What you think profiling offends you. Tell me when Mad Cow disease hit a few cattle in Canada, how quick was it to shut down any and all cattle from being exported? Hmmmm? Oh but wait its not the same thing, its just meat. No it is the same thing-its called safety. What Donald Trump raised and what these attacks raise and you don't want to discuss is that we do not have at this time a way to pick out terrorists from peaceful people. When anyone was coming in from the Ivory Coast, we assumed they could have Ebola until proven otherwise. What is that unfair? We screen people for disease but hey not terrorist thoughts. Got it. Really? You think so? The reality is terrorist thoughts are as contagious and deadly as aids, cancer, Ebola. Oh but wait we can't profile. Tell me you don't think immigration officers at our borders profile every day? Their gut instinct tells them to zero in on certain people coming across the border. Where's the line between preventative security and police work and your liberal do good think everyone is swell feelings? Do you know? You've never had to give it a thought. Well guess what the people in charge of security are now faced with the task of trying to find a needle in a haystack, a terrorist hiding in the garb of anyone. At this time though it is naïve for you or anyone else to suggest its unfashionable, or unliberal, or bigoted, for the average shmuck on the street not to be nervous getting on a plane with someone in traditional Muslim garb who appears nervous or angry. Those days are over and you know what, when Christians and Jews start blowing up planes wearing particular garb, they too will be viewed upon the same way. So spare me the liberal guilt feelings. Its easy to call Trump a bigot but he is deliberately hot buttoning issues no one will discuss and he was dead on in saying in WW2, we had now ay of knowing the difference between good and bad Japanese and we are headed to the same juncture today in all of the West not just the US. Do I want innocent peace loving Muslims harassed? Hell no. That is trite. That is easy to say. If I saw people dressed and using orthodox Judaism to blow up Canada I would be profiled. It is what it is. Good Lord, the same people now upset about Muslims never expressed a peep not a peep about the slurs on this forum about Jews and Zionists and Israelis, now its Muslims and suddenly some of you get your noise out of joint. When Christian extremists were bombing abortion clinics did we have Christians acting all shocked that there religion was being smeered? When certain Christians come on this forum and talk about Christian values they feel have been eroded from our society, they are treated in general terms that insult all Christians. Its human nature. We have to guard against negative stereotyping but to deny Muslims right now are on the hot seat because we can't tell the difference between good and bad Muslims is stupid. We can't and we should be discussing ways to be able to instead of just using blanket platitudes that ignore the security issues. They aint goin away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smeelious Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 The gun laws are 100% tied to the prevalence of television as a political medium. Politics in the US and Canada too is strongly tied to television. We will soon see major policy changes as TV declines in gun laws and elsewhere. Why aren't more people discussing this? Huh? Aside from needed a new thread for this specifically... Social media arguably dictates politics more than TV does these days. TV can go away entirely and you'd still have silly pundits making (more obtuse) statements over social media. As a result the quality of the discussion will decrease and more people will be polarized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 Huh? Aside from needed a new thread for this specifically... Maybe. I replied to a poster who noted that the lack of resolution was related to 'polarization' and I am bringing an opinion about the specificity of said polarization with regards to paid media coverage of political issues. I will create a new thread if we drift too much more, or you can. Social media arguably dictates politics more than TV does these days. Very arguably. I haven't heard anybody, I think, say that SM is MORE important than television. But ok. TV can go away entirely and you'd still have silly pundits making (more obtuse) statements over social media. As a result the quality of the discussion will decrease and more people will be polarized. People speaking one-on-one tend to resolve problems. Television Cable News, like TV wrestling, is dead without a conflict to cover. Nobody would have watched CNN 'Crossfire' if it was called 'The Jolly Political Compromise Show'. But, the real change is that TV requires more infrastructure, and therefore has fewer levers of control and is more easily bought. Politicans don't keep all of their contributions for themselves, they use it to buy re-election. If you can't buy a candidate, so that he/she can buy TV time, so that he/she can win the election... then the system falls apart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 Wilber you made a comment that questions pregnant women as security risks. I also note another comment from Moonlight G. about how Christianity and Judaism are violent. What gives with both of you? Christianity and Judaism are violent. It's right in there in the holy books, many many times. Christians and their leaders have made war and violence with people in the name of God both now and throughout its entire history. Examples include: the Catholic Church declaring war on Muslims in the land around Jerusalem during the Crusades, European empires colonizing countless civilizations in the name of God to save the heathens, and George W. Bush in his Jan. 2003 State of the Union address selling the case for the Iraq War invasion saying: "America is a strong nation and honorable in the use of our strength. We exercise power without conquest, and we sacrifice for the liberty of strangers. Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to humanity." Oh the lies we heard and violence we saw in the name of "God"! Judaism isn't violent? Read the Old Testament lately? Followed Zionist actions in Israel/Palestine the last several decades? Gandhi would be proud! These books are all just fairy tales, its followers are children chasing Santa Claus so they can go to the North Pole one day. Now, do Christians and Jews go around strapping bombs to themselves and flying planes into skyscrapers? No, but they commit their violence using other means. They're 2 sides of the same coin, fighting their wars the only way they know how to win them. If you were a Muslim, you would fear and be suspicious of certain Jews and Christians just as you (or I) are now with certain Muslims. My whole point from all this is that in order to defeat terrorism we need to empathize with these people to understand why they're doing it so we know how to end it. Empathy DOES NOT mean sympathy, empathy is defined as putting yourself in another person's shoes in order to understand things from their perspective. I'm not convinced there's a military solution to this problem, unless we're prepared to cause tens of millions of deaths, which I'll do everything to avoid if possible. The military solution to fascism caused over 60 million deaths; the military solution to communism tookhalf a century and caused who knows how many deaths in proxy wars. If the ROOT CAUSE of ie: fascism were addressed, which was harsh foreign domination of the German people that caused these oppressed people to seek/support any kind of solution to their miserable situations out of desperation, we would have saved 60+ million people including 6 million Jews. In 1939 I guess I would have been laughed at by you and others. I'm laughed at because I support attempts for the US to achieve a non-violent solution to Iran's nuclear ambitions. I'm a man of peace who is prepared for war if necessary, but only as a last resort, and only in true self-defense. My aim is to rid my heart of hate, yet also rid my head of naivety (so common with people you'd call "bleeding heart liberals"), so that the most rational yet humane solution can be sought to end/prevent violent conflict but that also maintains Canada's security. I was at a checkpoint where a pregnant woman was strapped with explosives. Sitting thousands of miles from terror and questioning others on how they treat it will soon come to an end with people like you as the terrorism happens in your own back yard and it will come. It is coming. Indeed, you are so wise! I am so naive in my inexperience of terrorism and you so learned in its death and destruction. i guess my being in a major world city at the moment it was victimized by a major Islamic terror attack cannot compare with your many years of travels across the dangerous deserts of south-west Asia.. Mr. Graham's comments and yours show a shocking naivite and inability to accept the fact that neither of you know how to prevent terrorism and are in denial... Oh great wise master of fighting terrorism, tell us all that you have done to prevent and solve terror in this world! We need thine wisdom in this trying of times, bless us with it please I beg of you master! This is about an inability for people to know the difference between a peace loving and terrorist loving Muslim. ....and are in denial pretending we should assume the whole world is innocent until proven guilty. Yours is the same thinking that put Japanese Canadians in internment camps during WWII. Do you support cops pulling over a high % of law-abiding black people too simply because blacks statistically commit crimes at a higher rate than the majority? We need to carefully screen certain high-risk populations that enter this country yes, but once they arrive and take the oath they're all Canadians and should be treated as such, and are innocent until proven guilty since it's the very basis of our legal system. We all need to keep this problem in perspective too. Far more Canadians have died falling off of ladders or eating a funky piece of chicken than have died in Islamic terror attacks. Should we ban all ladders and chicken meat from the country? Cigarettes and automobiles are still legal too despite being beloved objects of mass homicide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) Christianity and Judaism are violent They are quite obviously not violent. Christians and their leaders have made war and violence with people in the name of God both now and throughout its entire history. Which Christian leaders are currently making war in the name of God? Examples include: the Catholic Church declaring war on Muslims in the land around Jerusalem during the Crusades, I would suggest you consult a history book. I think you'll find the Crusades were in response to a plea for help from Christians who were being attacked by Muslims. Jerusalem and all the land around it, were once populated by Christians. Most of them were slaughtered or forced to convert by invading Muslims European empires colonizing countless civilizations in the name of God to save the heathens, European empires colonized places for the same reasons every other empire colonized places, because they could, because it brought wealth and increased power. My whole point from all this is that in order to defeat terrorism we need to empathize with these people to understand why they're doing it so we know how to end it. No, we just have to kill them. Empathy DOES NOT mean sympathy, empathy is defined as putting yourself in another person's shoes in order to understand things from their perspective. I don't feel putting myself in the shoes of a crazy religious fundamentalist is necessary. All that needs to be done is to kill them. I'm not convinced there's a military solution to this problem, unless we're prepared to cause tens of millions of deaths, Do you know what level of force police use in order to compel lawful obedience? The minimum necessary. If the minimum necessary includes killing you, then so be it. If it's necessary to kill tens of millions, or hundreds of millions of religious wackos to defend ourselves then I'm perfectly fine with that. The military solution to fascism caused over 60 million deaths; the military solution to communism tookhalf a century and caused who knows how many deaths in proxy wars. If the ROOT CAUSE of ie: fascism were addressed, which was harsh foreign domination of the German people that caused these oppressed people to seek/support any kind of solution to their miserable situations out of desperation, we would have saved 60+ million people including 6 million Jews. You really need to look at a history book some day. The 'root cause' of the Nazis getting elected was partially due to the great depression, which was indeed exacerbated by the way Germany was subjected to reparations. But it was also because of the violence of a growing Communist movement which caused Germans to turn to a 'strong man'. The 'root cause' of fascism has nothing to do with poverty. Fascism arose, you know, in Italy and Spain, too. It is a political ideology, and unrelated to war reparations. The idea that if reparations had been cut Hitler or Mussolini would suddenly have become peaceful democrats is ridiculous. The west tried appeasing Hitler as you suggest we do to violent Islam, and it failed miserably. Every concession simply led to further demands. In 1939 I guess I would have been laughed at by you and others. And deservedly so. Appeasement was far too late by then. Edited December 10, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 Wilber you made a comment that questions pregnant women as security risks. I also note another comment from Moonlight G. about how Christianity and Judaism are violent. What gives with both of you? To start with thank God you live in a world where you have no clue terrorists use pregnant women as a cover to carry bombs, weapons, etc. I've no doubt pregnant women are and have been on no fly lists and probably with justification, but not because they were pregnant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 I don't feel putting myself in the shoes of a crazy religious fundamentalist is necessary. All that needs to be done is to kill them. That's not who or what you should be putting your shoes into. You couldn't find a path to peace even if it was 10 lane freeway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) That's not who or what you should be putting your shoes into. I think you are failing to empathize with the jihadists and their objectives. Please put yourself in their "shoes" to try and understand a different point of view. Edited December 10, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) You're just avoiding what I'm talking about is all. Put Uncle Sam in Iraq's shoes. You just can't do it can you? Iraqi shoes..Iranian, Afghanistan's...there's dozens more that should do the trick. Edited December 10, 2015 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 You're just avoiding what I'm talking about is all. Put Uncle Sam in Iraq's shoes. You have avoided it for years....may as well ask to put oneself in the shoes of slaughtered marine resources and destroyed environment from commercial fishing...one can't do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 You're Donald Trump's sound-bite guy aren't you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 You're Donald Trump's sound-bite guy aren't you? No...Trump is doing fine all by himself....even has Canadians worried about him. Mass shootings only help Trump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 Airplanes and explosions would probably do him wonders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 Airplanes and explosions would probably do him wonders. Would make him President of the United States. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 Maybe he'll be President of the world someday. Maybe a shared CoDominium. Trump...Putin...Xi Jinping, the Three Stooges...in the name of world peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 10, 2015 Report Share Posted December 10, 2015 Maybe he'll be President of the world someday. Not likely...your monarchy tried that and it didn't work out. Would take a lot more mass shootings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.