Islam and rape

[coldjoint]

The doctrines are the difference, the doctrines you took offense to me posting that supported the same thing as the OP. Are you serious, right now. And your saying that the members of a religion are the only way to destroy that religion? That's religious oppression dude. Straight up. Coercing Muslims into destroying their own religion because we are afraid of them, is a hate crime. Your advocating a hate crime.

and if I were to show that the doctrines are the same, youd flip flop into another "but we've changed it's different". And if I show you the same behavior from Christians, you'd go "Why are you defending Islam, not all christians do that, they do."

Around and around we go.

Hate crime? What do you think Islamic terror is? You are out of touch with reality. Christianity has 0 to do with what Islam says.

You go right ahead and show us how the doctrines are the same. Remember Christianity is the NT.

 

[ThoughtEx.]

Hate crime? What do you think Islamic terror is? You are out of touch with reality. Christianity has 0 to do with what Islam says.

You go right ahead and show us how the doctrines are the same. Remember Christianity is the NT.

I will refer you back to the OP, and the my OP in this thread. Which you originally took offense to. Then to the links I provided in a later post. And no, Christianity is not the NT. Because the Old Testament is not the Torah. Just another misconception that you have.

Here is a link to a series of Harvard classes you can audit for free online.

https://www.edx.org/xseries/world-religions-through-scriptures

You need the ones on Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. But I also recommend the others as they are very interesting. Enjoy the free education, Harvard level, in which I have just provided you. And have a nice day.

 

[thinkagain]

Where are todays Jewish sex slaves? I know where the Islamic sex slaves are. Do you think there is a difference in having sex slaves now instead of then?

Well of course ! Most Jews evolved beyond the OT law 2500 years ago. While some Orthodox Jewish extremists remain .. the rest of the Jewish population keeps them in check. This does not mean that these extremist ideologies do not exist in the OT, it is just that Jews do not follow this ideology in general.

Unlike the Jews, Christianity has only managed to keep it's extremist ideology in check since WW2 when the Vatican supported forced conversion and genocide against Orthodox and Jewish Serbs in Yugoslavia/Croatia. This is not exactly a long time ago historically speaking.

Over the last 300 or so years though, Christianity in general has been evolving beyond OT Law and extremism. It should be pointed out however that in the US there are large groups of Christians that are going backwards - De-evolution.

I agree that Islam in general still has a long way to go.

 

[coldjoint]

Well of course ! Most Jews evolved beyond the OT law 2500 years ago. While some Orthodox Jewish extremists remain .. the rest of the Jewish population keeps them in check. This does not mean that these extremist ideologies do not exist in the OT, it is just that Jews do not follow this ideology in general.

Unlike the Jews, Christianity has only managed to keep it's extremist ideology in check since WW2 when the Vatican supported forced conversion and genocide against Orthodox and Jewish Serbs in Yugoslavia/Croatia. This is not exactly a long time ago historically speaking.

Over the last 300 or so years though, Christianity in general has been evolving beyond OT Law and extremism. It should be pointed out however that in the US there are large groups of Christians that are going backwards - De-evolution.

I agree that Islam in general still has a long way to go.

You are exaggerating the problems you see with Christianity, in a largely secular Western world to minimize what Islamists inspired by Islam are doing.

 

[thinkagain]

You are exaggerating the problems you see with Christianity, in a largely secular Western world to minimize what Islamists inspired by Islam are doing.

I did not exaggerate the problems with Christianity. I said they have been evolving out of extremist ways for 300 years ? while Islam is still in the dark ages (has a long way to go).

I did point out that here in the US there are Christian groups that are going backwards (away from secularism). Would you like a few examples ?

 

[coldjoint]

I did not exaggerate the problems with Christianity. I said they have been evolving out of extremist ways for 300 years ? while Islam is still in the dark ages (has a long way to go).

I did point out that here in the US there are Christian groups that are going backwards (away from secularism). Would you like a few examples ?

May I ask you what any of Christian stuff has to do with the sanctioning of rape and other sanctioned activities like violence and terrorism in the doctrine of Islam? Today the there are no comparisons to Islam unless you look to the Nazis.

 

[thinkagain]

May I ask you what any of Christian stuff has to do with the sanctioning of rape and other sanctioned activities like violence and terrorism in the doctrine of Islam? Today the there are no comparisons to Islam unless you look to the Nazis.

I agree that there is "little" comparison with respect to how Christians normally act today with ISIS and Islam in general. If you went back in the thread you would find that what was being discussed was how holy books could be used to sanction sex slavery and other depravities .. genocide like the Nazi's for example - (which the Vatican was involved in since you brought it up)

The tide of religious extremism ebbs and flows. Christianity started to evolve during the "enlightenment " period starting around the 17th century.

When I said that some Christian groups were devolving in the US .. I did not mean they have devolved to ISIS. I was merely talking about the direction on the spectrum.

"Secularism" is now a dirty word in some Christian circles. Some Christian groups condone violence against gays and even killing gays on the basis of Levitical law. Some Muslim groups are Secular.

The two are not as far apart as you suggest and it is certainly not as black and white as you suggest.

 

[coldjoint]

I agree that there is "little" comparison with respect to how Christians normally act today with ISIS and Islam in general. If you went back in the thread you would find that what was being discussed was how holy books could be used to sanction sex slavery and other depravities .. genocide like the Nazi's for example - (which the Vatican was involved in since you brought it up)

The tide of religious extremism ebbs and flows. Christianity started to evolve during the "enlightenment " period starting around the 17th century.

When I said that some Christian groups were devolving in the US .. I did not mean they have devolved to ISIS. I was merely talking about the direction on the spectrum.

"Secularism" is now a dirty word in some Christian circles. Some Christian groups condone violence against gays and even killing gays on the basis of Levitical law. Some Muslim groups are Secular.

The two are not as far apart as you suggest and it is certainly not as black and white as you suggest.

It is black and white. Islam teaches hate and violence. It inspires killers and draws on mans most brutal instincts. It opposes human dignity unless it is on their terms. What do you see as a positive in Islam?

 

[Deuce]

You are exaggerating the problems you see with Christianity, in a largely secular Western world to minimize what Islamists inspired by Islam are doing.

The overall point is that which book you read isn't the key factor. Muslims growing up in America don't adhere to the values you are condemning, but they're reading the same book. The words in the book aren't important. Monsters will be monsters, giving them a different holy book doesn't change that.

 

[thinkagain]

It is black and white. Islam teaches hate and violence. It inspires killers and draws on mans most brutal instincts. It opposes human dignity unless it is on their terms. What do you see as a positive in Islam?

I do not see positives in Islam. Where are you getting this from ? I totally agree that it opposes human dignity but, I will be way more specific in explaining how and all of a sudden it is going to be real black and white but not so much in relation to certain groups within Christianity.

Saudi Arabia is on the forefront of teaching hate and violence. It is part of the school curriculum to hate Christians, Jews and anyone who is not like them (even other Muslims).

Taliban, Al Qaeda/Al Nusra, ISIS, Salafi, Islamic Front, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab all share the same Saudi inspired version of Salafi militant Islamist ideology. An Islamist is someone who want's strict sharia/theocracy to be the law of the land/political system.

These people hate individual rights and freedoms/liberty (Secularism) - The principles on which this nation and every other western nation was founded.

The land of Saud is a totalitarian nightmare where sharia police are everywhere monitoring behavior. Women are slaves and have almost no rights, can't drive car's, can be raped, and need permission from a man to be educated. Adulterers are killed as are gays. The punishment for changing one's religion is death. There are no Churches other than Islam and no freedom of religion. Strict Sharia is the law of the land .. no drinking and so on.

Not all Muslims buy into this ideology. Syria for example is a "Secular" Muslim nation. There was no Sharia. Women wear skirts and proper bathing suits.. can drive cars and be educated without permission from a male, and can not be raped with impunity. There are Christian Churches and freedom of religion. There is drinking alcohol and dancing in bars ... and so on.

These are Moderate Muslims moving out of the dark ages. "Secularism" was the "Call to Jihad" in Syria. The rebel opposition are all Islamists who want strict sharia/theocracy to be the law of the land/political system.

The largest component of the rebels is Al Nusra/Al Qaeda and a similar group of Islamist Jihadists called the Islamic Front. There are a bunch of smaller groups but all are united in their hate for individual rights and freedoms/liberty (Secularism).

Saudi Arabia, Turkey (in conjunction with the US and others) armed and supported these extremist Jihadists. With backing from numerous nation states these Jihadists took over most of Syria within a year or so after the armed insurgency started in late 2011. In 2013 various factions within this Jihadist movement broke away to form an Islamic State (IS) ISIS. The rabid dog then went off it's leash and moved into Iraq.

The "moderate Muslims" in Syria are the one's fighting for Assad. The extremist Islamists (including Al Qaeda/Al Nusra and now ISIS) are the ones that we sided with.

When the rabid dog got off it's leash and went into Iraq it became necessary to create the "moderate rebel" lie.

The Saudi's are our buddies ! .. and Turkey is a member of NATO.

That is what black and white looks like. (continued)

 

[coldjoint]

The overall point is that which book you read isn't the key factor. Muslims growing up in America don't adhere to the values you are condemning, but they're reading the same book. The words in the book aren't important. Monsters will be monsters, giving them a different holy book doesn't change that.

That is a pretty stupid thing to say. You have no idea what Muslim youth believe. And I am not saying what Islam changes, I am telling you what it can and does inspire.

 

[thinkagain]

It is black and white. Islam teaches hate and violence. It inspires killers and draws on mans most brutal instincts. It opposes human dignity unless it is on their terms. What do you see as a positive in Islam?

Now that we are clear on what an "Islamist" is lets look at the State of the Union.

This nation was founded on respect for individual rights and freedoms/liberty. The principles by which the Constitution and Law are supposed to be interpreted are

1) Individual rights and freedoms/liberty are "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't.

The Gov't is not to make "any" law outside it's legitimate purview but especially it is not to mess with individual liberty.

We are supposed to have "limited Gov't". Question ? - Limited to what ?

"We the people" gave Gov't power for protection from harm as per the "Social Contract". The Gov't then has the power to make law (punish) people who harm others directly (murder, rape, theft and so on)

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

That's it. If Gov't wants to make law outside its legitimate purview it can appeal to change the social contract. Such a change though requires "overwhelming majority" approval - not 50 + 1 as this was referred to as tyranny of the majority. One of the fundamental principles of Republicanism.

There is no point in putting individual liberty "Above" the power of Gov't if 50+1 allows Gov't to mess with individual rights and freedoms as all Gov't have a simple majority mandate.

2/3rds is supposed to be the minimum bar. The idea here is the same as with any other law - what percent think Murder/rape/theft should be illegal ? = Overwhelming Majority. The bar is no different for any other law.

2) The second principle is that the authority of Gov't comes from "we the people" - as opposed to "divine right/God" as was the case in the past.

As you might be noticing - we no longer follow the principles on which this nation was founded. Gov't power is way out of control. Much of the reason for this is due to Christianity.

The problem with Islam - the affront to human dignity is that they feel they are justified in forcing their religious beliefs on others through physical violence (Law).

Making a law is allowing the state to use physical violence to enforce that law. It is having someone else do your dirty work.

The religious right in general has taken to supporting the use of physical violence (law) to force their religious beliefs on others. Catholics - not so much.

To me it is black and white. There is a difference between 1) having a religious belief and 2) forcing that belief on others through physical violence.

The religious right does not seem to get this distinction .... do they.

 

[coldjoint]

Now that we are clear on what an "Islamist" is lets look at the State of the Union.

This nation was founded on respect for individual rights and freedoms/liberty. The principles by which the Constitution and Law are supposed to be interpreted are

1) Individual rights and freedoms/liberty are "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't.

The Gov't is not to make "any" law outside it's legitimate purview but especially it is not to mess with individual liberty.

We are supposed to have "limited Gov't". Question ? - Limited to what ?

"We the people" gave Gov't power for protection from harm as per the "Social Contract". The Gov't then has the power to make law (punish) people who harm others directly (murder, rape, theft and so on)



That's it. If Gov't wants to make law outside its legitimate purview it can appeal to change the social contract. Such a change though requires "overwhelming majority" approval - not 50 + 1 as this was referred to as tyranny of the majority. One of the fundamental principles of Republicanism.

There is no point in putting individual liberty "Above" the power of Gov't if 50+1 allows Gov't to mess with individual rights and freedoms as all Gov't have a simple majority mandate.

2/3rds is supposed to be the minimum bar. The idea here is the same as with any other law - what percent think Murder/rape/theft should be illegal ? = Overwhelming Majority. The bar is no different for any other law.

2) The second principle is that the authority of Gov't comes from "we the people" - as opposed to "divine right/God" as was the case in the past.

As you might be noticing - we no longer follow the principles on which this nation was founded. Gov't power is way out of control. Much of the reason for this is due to Christianity.

The problem with Islam - the affront to human dignity is that they feel they are justified in forcing their religious beliefs on others through physical violence (Law).

Making a law is allowing the state to use physical violence to enforce that law. It is having someone else do your dirty work.

The religious right in general has taken to supporting the use of physical violence (law) to force their religious beliefs on others. Catholics - not so much.

To me it is black and white. There is a difference between 1) having a religious belief and 2) forcing that belief on others through physical violence.




The religious right does not seem to get this distinction .... do they.

Besides being a ridiculous statement the words "in general" make it worse. Where is your proof?

 

[thinkagain]

Besides being a ridiculous statement the words "in general" make it worse. Where is your proof?

Proof of what ? What is a ridiculous statement ?

Your hilarious... stammer around saying "ridiculous ridiculous ... proof proof" but you do not even say what you think is ridiculous or say what you want proved.

 

[coldjoint]

Proof of what ? What is a ridiculous statement ?

Your hilarious... stammer around saying "ridiculous ridiculous ... proof proof" but you do not even say what you think is ridiculous or say what you want proved.

Reread the post. It is clear what is ridiculous, it is bolded in your post I quoted. Pay attention.

 

[Gina]

Moderator's Warning:

Done with the thread. Putting it in the ground.