Terror Attack: 130 Dead in Paris

[Gilrandir]

If you actually read the Christian Bible then you'll see that Christians are not required to follow Leviticus, so Frag is broadly correct when he says "Bible" and "did this" because the history of the Jews in the Christian Bible is not meant to be a blueprint for society.

I read a thick (or should I say "bulky"?) black book which has Біблія written on its cover. Leviticus, as much as other elements of the Old Testament, ARE a part of the Bible thus are supposed to be followed by Christians. Otherwise it should be officially extracted. Or is the law for a brother not to marry his sister apply only to Jews? And the Ten commandments which are also in the Old Testament shouldn't be obeyed by the British or Russian Christians? Holy texts can't be selective, as well as the faithful can't choose which parts of them to revere. Jesus himself didn't:

Matthew 5

The Fulfillment of the Law
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


On the other hand, some of the things Jesus preached (thus should be revered by Christsians) are not followed either:

Mark 11

15 On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16 and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts.

and churches feel free to sell whatever they like against the explicit command of Jesus.

Bottomline: no one follows EVERYTHING written in the Bible and its quite sensible given the change of time and mores that has happened since then. But those who wish will always find in it justification for whatever they do.

[Idaho]

I read a thick (or should I say "bulky"?) black book which has Біблія written on its cover. Leviticus, as much as other elements of the Old Testament, ARE a part of the Bible thus are supposed to be followed by Christians. Otherwise it should be officially extracted. Or is the law for a brother not to marry his sister apply only to Jews? And the Ten commandments which are also in the Old Testament shouldn't be obeyed by the British or Russian Christians? Holy texts can't be selective, as well as the faithful can't choose which parts of them to revere. Jesus himself didn't:

Matthew 5

The Fulfillment of the Law
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


On the other hand, some of the things Jesus preached (thus should be revered by Christsians) are not followed either:

Mark 11

15 On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16 and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts.

and churches feel free to sell whatever they like against the explicit command of Jesus.

Bottomline: no one follows EVERYTHING written in the Bible and its quite sensible given the change of time and mores that has happened since then. But those who wish will always find in it justification for whatever they do.

Yeah but that's quite inconvenient, so can we just go back to picking and choosing from the good book?

[Pannonian]

I read a thick (or should I say "bulky"?) black book which has Біблія written on its cover. Leviticus, as much as other elements of the Old Testament, ARE a part of the Bible thus are supposed to be followed by Christians. Otherwise it should be officially extracted. Or is the law for a brother not to marry his sister apply only to Jews? And the Ten commandments which are also in the Old Testament shouldn't be obeyed by the British or Russian Christians? Holy texts can't be selective, as well as the faithful can't choose which parts of them to revere. Jesus himself didn't:

Matthew 5

The Fulfillment of the Law
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.


On the other hand, some of the things Jesus preached (thus should be revered by Christsians) are not followed either:

Mark 11

15 On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16 and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts.

and churches feel free to sell whatever they like against the explicit command of Jesus.

Bottomline: no one follows EVERYTHING written in the Bible and its quite sensible given the change of time and mores that has happened since then. But those who wish will always find in it justification for whatever they do.

Liberal humanism is the almost universally accepted standard of modern civilisation. Most beliefs have been "modernised" in order to accommodate this. Very few professed believers in most beliefs oppose this trend. However, there are far more extreme opponents of liberal humanism among Muslims than among any other belief, and probably more than all other believers put together. When extremist Christians and other believers who oppose all tenets of liberal humanism, including the right to be left alone, number in their thousands if that, while extremist Sunnis number in their millions, it's a false equivalence to say they're all the same. One is far more of a problem than the other(s). Supposedly clever rhetoric does not change the political reality.

[Fragony]

How dare you state the oh so obvious

[Idaho]

Liberal humanism is the almost universally accepted standard of modern civilisation. Most beliefs have been "modernised" in order to accommodate this. Very few professed believers in most beliefs oppose this trend. However, there are far more extreme opponents of liberal humanism among Muslims than among any other belief, and probably more than all other believers put together. When extremist Christians and other believers who oppose all tenets of liberal humanism, including the right to be left alone, number in their thousands if that, while extremist Sunnis number in their millions, it's a false equivalence to say they're all the same. One is far more of a problem than the other(s). Supposedly clever rhetoric does not change the political reality.

You are proposing we defend liberal humanism by being illiberal and anti human?

No. Better to just weather the storm and ignore the attempts by the stupid to repeat the errors of history.

[Fragony]

You are proposing we defend liberal humanism by being illiberal and anti human?

No. Better to just weather the storm and ignore the attempts by the stupid to repeat the errors of history.

What errors are you refering to, I hope you don't mean what happened in Europe in WW2 but it would be of. But yes we should weather the storm and don't overeact.

[Pannonian]

You are proposing we defend liberal humanism by being illiberal and anti human?

No. Better to just weather the storm and ignore the attempts by the stupid to repeat the errors of history.

What's illiberal and inhuman about barring the reentry of people who visit these places? It's not an intrinsic right of people to travel wherever they wish, otherwise passports would not exist, nor would visas and similar documents. Practically all Islamist troublemakers fit the profile of people who travel to these hotspots (Pakistan seems to be the most common for British Islamists) and return radicalised. I've said it for quite a while, in the recent attacks, the Paris attackers also fit this profile (Syria), and so do the San Bernardino attackers (Saudi Arabia). No doubt others will, too.

[Fragony]

What's illiberal and inhuman about barring the reentry of people who visit these places? It's not an intrinsic right of people to travel wherever they wish, otherwise passports would not exist, nor would visas and similar documents. Practically all Islamist troublemakers fit the profile of people who travel to these hotspots (Pakistan seems to be the most common for British Islamists) and return radicalised. I've said it for quite a while, in the recent attacks, the Paris attackers also fit this profile (Syria), and so do the San Bernardino attackers (Saudi Arabia). No doubt others will, too.

Barring entry back should be a given, but isn't a bit late by now. It isn't all that bad here in the Netherlands, but especially England, France and Sweden kinda have a problem with homegrown and 'refugees'. Let's not denie that, it IS a problem. Remove the leftist church, bring back sanity. The multicultural left is so dangerous. They will abandon theirworldview, they should be gently but firmly be escorted to their padded walls.

wtf did anyone expect

[Pannonian]

Barring entry back should be a given, but isn't a bit late by now. It isn't all that bad here in the Netherlands, but especially England, France and Sweden kinda have a problem with homegrown and 'refugees'. Let's not denie that, it IS a problem. Remove the leftist church, bring back sanity. The multicu'tsrl left is so dangerous.

Muslims who've lived in this country all their lives and don't feel the urge to visit their "home" countries which they'd never been to before don't tend to be a problem. They tend to be British through and through, with Muslim describing a culture rather than their being.

[Fragony]

Muslims who've lived in this country all their lives and don't feel the urge to visit their "home" countries which they'd never been to before don't tend to be a problem. They tend to be British through and through, with Muslim describing a culture rather than their being.

Resseting that to mostly, without saying anything myself, can you dismiss that a lot of areas in Europe are now no-go areas. Multicurtulism has always been a narcist dream of self-congratuling gutmenschen. Reality is now, it doesn't work.

[Idaho]

What's illiberal and inhuman about barring the reentry of people who visit these places? It's not an intrinsic right of people to travel wherever they wish, otherwise passports would not exist, nor would visas and similar documents. Practically all Islamist troublemakers fit the profile of people who travel to these hotspots (Pakistan seems to be the most common for British Islamists) and return radicalised. I've said it for quite a while, in the recent attacks, the Paris attackers also fit this profile (Syria), and so do the San Bernardino attackers (Saudi Arabia). No doubt others will, too.

I would be interested first in the ratio of people who make these trips to those who go on to commit atrocities. And then I'd like to see the ratio of people who make these trips AND commit atrocities to people who DON'T make these trips and commit atrocities.

My guess would be less than 1 in a million for the former, and 1:5 for the latter.

I'm guessing that you find it easy to remove the rights of a large group of people because it won't directly affect you.

[Pannonian]

I would be interested first in the ratio of people who make these trips to those who go on to commit atrocities. And then I'd like to see the ratio of people who make these trips AND commit atrocities to people who DON'T make these trips and commit atrocities.

My guess would be less than 1 in a million for the former, and 1:5 for the latter.

I'm guessing that you find it easy to remove the rights of a large group of people because it won't directly affect you.

So don't go to these places. Nothing else would change, bar the "right" to go to these places. If these countries refused to issue visas to UK citizens, would it be an infringement on liberty? During the cold war, it was a fact of life. Communist countries would not allow NATO bloc citizens to enter, and anyone travelling between the blocs regardless of this would be profiled as a risk. What were your thoughts during that era?

[Idaho]

So don't go to these places. Nothing else would change, bar the "right" to go to these places. If these countries refused to issue visas to UK citizens, would it be an infringement on liberty? During the cold war, it was a fact of life. Communist countries would not allow NATO bloc citizens to enter, and anyone travelling between the blocs regardless of this would be profiled as a risk. What were your thoughts during that era?

So adjust the rights of large chunks of humanity because it makes you feel like something is being done? Hysterical nonsense.

[Kralizec]

So don't go to these places. Nothing else would change, bar the "right" to go to these places. If these countries refused to issue visas to UK citizens, would it be an infringement on liberty? During the cold war, it was a fact of life. Communist countries would not allow NATO bloc citizens to enter, and anyone travelling between the blocs regardless of this would be profiled as a risk. What were your thoughts during that era?

Maybe it's my limited knowledge but I don't know of many examples of countries forbidding their own citizens to go to X or Y. Only ones that come to mind are unfree states like Syria (bans travel to Israel and Iraq, or at least used to) and certain other Arab countries (again, Israel)

Which admittedly doesn't invalidate the idea by itself. I wouldn't reject your idea out of hand, but I doubt that your premise is correct. Many western muslims make the Hajj. I googled it and a Dutch news article from several years ago said that around 5000 Dutch muslims make the journey on a yearly basis (before the world economy went to shit). Even with a strict interpretation of Islam the Hajj is mandatory only once, so I think we can assume that most of those make the journey for the first and only time.

I can believe that making the Hajj impossible would prevent a few people from radicalising, but it would piss off a far greater number.

[Gilrandir]

Liberal humanism is the almost universally accepted standard of modern civilisation. Most beliefs have been "modernised" in order to accommodate this. Very few professed believers in most beliefs oppose this trend. However, there are far more extreme opponents of liberal humanism among Muslims than among any other belief, and probably more than all other believers put together. When extremist Christians and other believers who oppose all tenets of liberal humanism, including the right to be left alone, number in their thousands if that, while extremist Sunnis number in their millions, it's a false equivalence to say they're all the same. One is far more of a problem than the other(s). Supposedly clever rhetoric does not change the political reality.

This kind of argument is much better. I suggest we talk about PEOPLE who do things, not about BOOKS which can make people do quite opposite things.

[Fragony]

This kind of argument is much better. I suggest we talk about PEOPLE who do things, not about BOOKS which can make people do quite opposite things.

But we should talk about books making people do things. And if we are wrong admit we are wrong