Investigators Seek Motive Behind Tennessee Shooting Rampage

[Fragony]

I guess that makes sense to you, how it does I don't understand but feel free to relativate

[Strike For The South]

More shootings in Lafyette.

Quick ban more symbols.

[Brenus]

Quick ban weapons...

[Greyblades]

Quick, dig up more graves.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Quick, defund mental health services.

[Kadagar_AV]

How can you consider Islam an inherently violent religion when it is a really a mishmash of Judaism and Christianity, sprinkled with some Arab paganism?

A monotheistic religion with a holy book, a God who is demanding your unquestionable obedience, merciful God if you're proper, vengeful if you're not, piety rewarded after death, wickedness punished after death, worldly possessions unimportant, urge to convert the heathens, same commandments, same prophets, same standards of "pious life", same sins, rejection of idols yada yada yada...

I mean, there's even the second coming of Jesus in Islam, who will come back to fight the Anti Christ. In the very early stages of Islam, Muslim were doing their prayers in Christian churches.

Christianity has gone through a LOT of reforms, the French revolution that saw democracy take root, later influences that pushed a more humane agenda, yadda yadda yadda...


Islam has not. Islam is the same ****ed up desert living tribal religion it was more than a thousand years ago.


Also, contrary to christianity, islam is a political ideology as well as a religious belief. Where Jesus said "Give to the government what the government expects" (my definition but also the upheld one), Islam has no such ideas about separation between state and religion.

In Islam, the religion IS the state.



That's why it is more than fair to accuse Islam of being inherently evil. The fact that it was created by a warmongering pedophile REALLY, like, REALLY doesn't help the muslims adapt to western civilized society much either.

[a completely inoffensive name]

In 1015 Muslim countries were preserving knowledge from the Greeks and were even applying experimental data to build upon and challenge said knowledge.

[Fragony]

so?

[a completely inoffensive name]

so?

So kad is being wrong, as usual. You know frag, just because you hate modern Islamic political fundamentalism (who doesn't), doesn't mean you have to hate Islam as it was practiced across thousands of years of human history.

[Fragony]

Fair enough

[Sarmatian]

Also, contrary to christianity, islam is a political ideology as well as a religious belief. Where Jesus said "Give to the government what the government expects" (my definition but also the upheld one), Islam has no such ideas about separation between state and religion.

In Islam, the religion IS the state.

That is entirely false. "Render unto Caesar..." means basically don't refuse to pay taxes to earthly government, a concept existing in Islam.

In fact, one of the reasons why rulers found it easy to embrace Christianity is precisely because of the concept of Divine Right - while before some ruler held to power through force or threat of force, now there was a divine concept that legitimized his rule. He was no longer a strongman, but someone sanctioned by divine power to rule over the common people and made it a sin to challenge his rule.

Not to mention that later Roman/Byzantine Emperors maintained a principle that their rule over entire Christian world was legitimate because they were viceroys of God on Earth.

[Gilrandir]

At the time the association between the gesture and the nazis was not set; American students were doing the same salute when doing the morning pledge of allegiance. That the queen was filmed doing the same when a child says absolutely nothing either about her, her parents or her country that comes even close to the point you are failing to make.

It seems to me you are failing to see the point I'm making.

I suppose Ukraine is the place to turn to if you want an example of a bulwark against Nazism, or an example of a wholly incorruptible government. How many Ukrainians served in the SS? Tens of thousands, wasn't it, with some of the worst units being Ukrainian? How many British served in the SS? Less than 50, wasn't it? And most of those cried off when it came to actually doing anything.

Government corruption perception results for 2014. Britain is 14th in the world with a score of 78, firmly in the first world category and ahead of some other indisputably first world countries, including France and the US. Ukraine is 142nd in the world with a score of 26, lowest ranking of all the major former Soviet states. If put into sub-Saharan Africa, which has the lowest general scores in the regions listed, Ukraine would be classed in the lowest third.

Methinks I prefer living in western Europe.

No problem, be my guest. But you, as well as Greyblades above, fail to see what I mean.

Your knee-jerk reaction is some thing like

- Excuse me, your shoe string went loose. Take care you don't step on it and trip over.
- Oh shut up. Mind your own shoes and strings.

What I want to you to do is to realize that in many respects the UK is not a lily-white impeccable democracy with unimpeachable reputation, both in the (recent) past and the present (as you seem to believe). You take ill any hints it might be otherwise adopting the style "You are fool yourself". And snobbery and isolationism you display is a poor help to own up to the truth.

I don't dispute that the UK has lower corruption than Ukraine or that more Ukrainians were fighting in SS divisions than Brits.
Yet let me remind you that if the leader of Britain (on behalf of those who voted for him and those who didn't) had behaved differently in Munich 1938, Ukrainians wouldn't have served in SS divisions.

A new-born Christian just told me that the Bible is partly rubbish, partially history, partially word of God mixed with pure propaganda. She de facto rejects the meaning of the Gospel, but refuses to go until the end of the logic.

Many smokers realize how pernicious their habit is, yet they don't go all the way the logic leads them and quit. The same with drugs, alcohol, gambling and McDonald's.
Human ways sometimes defy common sense.

As far as religious rites are concerned, some people follow them "to be on the safe side", if it turns out there really is something out there after death. Others do it because they like celebrating something. Still others because their environment do and they don't want to be looked askance upon.

Moreover, Bible (as well as other Holy books) are written by humans, so they are fraught with prejudices, mistakes, misconceptions and exaggerations. Any sensible believer must take them cum grano salis.

That is entirely false. "Render unto Caesar..." means basically don't refuse to pay taxes to earthly government, a concept existing in Islam.

And this is one more thing people are extremely fond of indulging in - interpreting Bible words. Partly because it gives tham a chance to say "No, you don't understand it" - and look sagacious.
There are no right or wrong interpretations of any scriptures - anyone can find in them what he likes and thinks correct and others can't prove him wrong because THEY DIDN'T WRITE IT. Only the author can.

[Kadagar_AV]

In 1015 Muslim countries were preserving knowledge from the Greeks and were even applying experimental data to build upon and challenge said knowledge.

So?

So kad is being wrong, as usual. You know frag, just because you hate modern Islamic political fundamentalism (who doesn't), doesn't mean you have to hate Islam as it was practiced across thousands of years of human history.

So because the Arabs helped preserve ancient writings in their desert tribal culture, we should today, 2015 somehow not see Islam as an inherently evil political ideology and lunatic religion?

What in your reasoning has anything to do with how Islam effects the world and their followers today?

I mean, I can DIRECTLY see how, say, Sweden was before we had loads of Muslims, and now AFTER we have accepted a lot of Muslims...


Suddenly free speech is threatened, women are severly harassed, disrespected and raped, way WAY more general chaos in society. So if Islam is so inherently "good", how come it seems to take any society with muslims in it down the drain?

[Fragony]

Fair enough as well, I would first blame multiculturalists though. They are ruining Sweden by taking in the worst of the worst because they have something to prove.

[Gilrandir]

So if Islam is so inherently "good", how come it seems to take any society with muslims in it down the drain?

Some originally perfect ideas when implemented get derailed and end up in a mess. The most vivid example is the communist idea vs the way it was implemented in the USSR.

[Kadagar_AV]

Fair enough as well, I would first blame multiculturalists though. They are ruining Sweden by taking in the worst of the worst because they have something to prove.

True.

Some originally perfect ideas when implemented get derailed and end up in a mess. The most vivid example is the communist idea vs the way it was implemented in the USSR.

Some originally perfect ideas, sure... But let's face it, Islam wasn't an originally perfect idea... It is the ramblings of a desert living tribal pedophile warmonger from more than a thousand years ago.

[lars573]

That is entirely false. "Render unto Caesar..." means basically don't refuse to pay taxes to earthly government, a concept existing in Islam.

In fact, one of the reasons why rulers found it easy to embrace Christianity is precisely because of the concept of Divine Right - while before some ruler held to power through force or threat of force, now there was a divine concept that legitimized his rule. He was no longer a strongman, but someone sanctioned by divine power to rule over the common people and made it a sin to challenge his rule.

Not to mention that later Roman/Byzantine Emperors maintained a principle that their rule over entire Christian world was legitimate because they were viceroys of God on Earth.

Actually Divine right is a pre-chrisitan idea. Part of Diocletian's plan for stability after the crisis of the 3rd century. He propagated the idea that he was appointed by Jupiter to rule. Constantine, like early Christians oft did, scratched out the pagan god and scribbled in Jesus/Jehovah. Not to mention 2000 years of Chinese Imperial government was based on divine right. Religion in the specific has zero to do with how effective divine right is, but rather the large scale acceptance of a religion or religion-like philosophy that exposes divine right.

[Gilrandir]

Some originally perfect ideas, sure... But let's face it, Islam wasn't an originally perfect idea... It is the ramblings of a desert living tribal pedophile warmonger from more than a thousand years ago.

It wasn't a perfect idea, but it wasn't that bad, at least as far as tolerance of faith was concerned, in comparison to other confessions. I would refer you to Steve Runciman's "History of crusades" Volume I. He argues that the arrival of the First crusade wasn't welcomed by different Christian (mostly Orthodox) and Judaic congregations of Outremer since under Fatimids they had enjoyed all the religious rights and freedoms available in the Middle Ages.

[Kadagar_AV]

It wasn't a perfect idea, but it wasn't that bad, at least as far as tolerance of faith was concerned, in comparison to other confessions. I would refer you to Steve Runciman's "History of crusades" Volume I. He argues that the arrival of the First crusade wasn't welcomed by different Christian (mostly Orthodox) and Judaic congregations of Outremer since under Fatimids they had enjoyed all the religious rights and freedoms available in the Middle Ages.

Yeah... Still completely not related to the piece of **** religion and ideology it is today.

Society has MOVED ON, while Islam is still medieval desert tribal paedophilic hogwash...

[Husar]

Yeah... Still completely not related to the piece of **** religion and ideology it is today.

Society has MOVED ON, while Islam is still medieval desert tribal paedophilic hogwash...

Can you explain why it was so tolerant and comparatively enlightened during the middle ages if it is inherently not like that?

Can you explain why you say "still" after acknowledging that it was not always like that? You acknowledge that it was different (more enlightened) in medieval times, then you say it is "still medieval", you are contradicting yourself. How can you even say that the medieval ways of Islam were not related to what it is today when you claim that it was, is and always will be the way it is today?

Or do you just have talking points that you repeat endlessly without any kind of explanation or reasoning?

[Gilrandir]

Can you explain why you say "still" after acknowledging that it was not always like that? You acknowledge that it was different (more enlightened) in medieval times, then you say it is "still medieval", you are contradicting yourself.

Well, good for Middle Ages doesn't mean good for XXI century. I would say that while Christianity was gradually moving to more tolerance and less influence upon the society, Islam took an opposite course. Why it happened is a question for the more learnt in Muslim-lore.

[Fragony]

Really good book on that question https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiha...olitical_Islam Bit dry though

edit, the wiki is completily incorrect, he takes it back much further, 1920, what the wiki says is a different book

[Kadagar_AV]

Can you explain why it was so tolerant and comparatively enlightened during the middle ages if it is inherently not like that?

Can you explain why you say "still" after acknowledging that it was not always like that? You acknowledge that it was different (more enlightened) in medieval times, then you say it is "still medieval", you are contradicting yourself. How can you even say that the medieval ways of Islam were not related to what it is today when you claim that it was, is and always will be the way it is today?

Or do you just have talking points that you repeat endlessly without any kind of explanation or reasoning?

Yes, I can explain it to you.

What was comparatively "tolerant and enlightened" some 1400 (!!!!!!!!!!!) years ago has little to no resemblance to what is considered enlightened, or tolerant, today.

So "still" makes perfect sense. They are STILL where they were some 1400 years ago, whereas the rest of the world (most parts) have moved on.

As to the bolded part, reading comprehension please? I have never claimed it was more tolerant back then that it is now, from the outset I have argued that it is exactly the same **** as it was back then.

BACK THEN it might have been enlightened in comparison to its times... But again, that was 1400 years ago.

So no, I in no way contradict myself.

In short: Islam is the ramblings of a desert living tribal pedophile warmonger from more than a thousand years ago. I wrote it already.

[Fragony]

I know you don't like it when I defend your position but 3 2 1

Kads is just right and you all know it

just did it, scuzi

[HopAlongBunny]

Maybe it's not "Islam"!!!! Might it better be described as individuals making choices:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...icide-attacks/

[Kadagar_AV]

Maybe it's not "Islam"!!!! Might it better be described as individuals making choices:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...icide-attacks/

The problem with Islam is that a whole lot of individuals are making poor and ill-informed choices.


Let's put it this way...

We have a young man, with a lot of problems in his life. You know, kind of like everyone.

Now, he opens his eyes up for religion.

A) He gets influenced by Jainism, that stress the importance of life, and their utmost followers sweep the floor in front of them as they walk... As to not kill some being...

B) He gets influenced by Islam, who stress the importance of Jihad and a (SEXUAL!!!! 72 virgins) reward in heaven if he fight and kill for it. Whose utmost followers blow themselves up to kill others.

Which case is more likely to have innocents killed?



Please, like PLEASE, stop blaming the stupid young guys, the world is full of them, and will always be full of them.

[Kadagar_AV]

/thread won.

[Brandy Blue]

Maybe it's not "Islam"!!!! Might it better be described as individuals making choices:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...icide-attacks/

I would summarize the article as follows:

1: some people are suicidal
2: Islam says that suicide is an unforgivable sin
3: Islam says that being martyred for your faith gets you into heaven no matter what.
4: Therefore Islam steers people away from ordinary suicide and toward suicide attacks.
5: The solution: Get out the word that Islam has got it wrong. They aren't noble martyrs. They're just people who think that their choice to kill themselves will be forgiven if they take others with them.

Sounds to me like the author hasn't exonerated Islam at all. Or did I misunderstand?

[HopAlongBunny]

My take away from it is, people make choices. They will use anything to buttress those choices, including perverting Islam, Christianity or Animal Rights.
So, why do these people feel the need to find an "out"?
What is it about society or they're psychological state that leads them to seek an exit?
Is it a matter for health-care? Social mobility? Failed relationships?
The religious excuse seems to be a terminus, not genesis.

[Brandy Blue]

Well, I suppose that could be what the article means, but I admit I have a lot of trouble matching up your take with the actual words in the article.