Terrorist Attacks

Luke 19:27
Exactly what it says then?
Man will find any way to twist anything to our selfish gains.

Iroquois sounds like Theron

Oh sweet jesus, like this thread couldn't get any worse than 'head to toe hijab' nd Cricket. What a bloody joke! This thread is a disgrace. Bloody trolls.

I've seen this quoted as the one command of violence coming from Jesus - it is not.

It is a parable (a story, a fable, a fairy tale) told by Jesus. The King in the story who commands violence is a fictional character - he represents the tough breaks of reality for people who are too foolish or who play it too safe and will take no necessary risks with what they are provided or tasked to work with. This King isn't put forth as an example to follow - he's obviously a merciless and brutal character, but he represents the hand of fate that shows no mercy - we call this reality. This is a potential outcome for those who deny god, do not use what god has given them wisely and thus end up having no protection from reality.

The parable boils down to investing and doing the best with what we are given rather than burying it to keep it safe. But the story is a metaphor- it is not a tenet or commandment authorizing any human being to kill another human being, nor is it a call for capital punishment for stock brokers who don't make you any money.

Engineering a Civilization

The point was to give an example of how someone can take something out of context to misrepresent it as something bad. Even a verse from the new testament can be twisted. The point here is not the contextual meaning based on further reading, but the distortion of a line from a book to mean something different that its intended purpose.

Man can twist even the Bible to mean something else. You suggested it couldn't be done with New Testament. I just did it.

Now. Imagine the potential damage a false *prophet could create, deliberately misquoting the bible to a group of people so poor and uneducated to read and comprehend the text as a whole. All it takes is a charismatic personality, a basic understanding of human psychology, and desire to take advantage of those around you. A wolf in sheep's clothing, if you will.



"Now Imagine she's white."
Thanks, Matthew Mcconnaughey.
Alright, alright, alright.


*EDIT*
Also: irony.

*typo thumbing this out on my phone.

Because he's a symptom of America's deeper problems regarding treatment of different races and genders - he didn't get to be President on his own, after all. For various politicians and people, his character flaws are considered genuinely agreeable at best and an acceptable compromise at worst. If your concern is over entire countries being willing to go along with and even enforce sexism and misogyny because that's what the people in charge believe should be the law of the land, then it's not like the West is completely blameless either (and it does go beyond one thing said by one guy). Using Muslim countries as your worst-case scenario and thinking that anything less is automatically acceptable in comparison is its own issue.

By the way, remember to vote Labour.

I've explained it already but one more time - they want to exploit the public's fear of Islamic terrorists in order to assert their own ideology by encouraging moderates to take actions against terrorists that are more in line with their own generally xenophobic goals. If ISIS wants to make people afraid of their attacks, then these other groups want people to feel afraid enough that they'll do anything to alleviate the fear of being attacked by ISIS - including siding with white supremacists because they're the lesser of two evils.

Because they're playing a different game to ISIS altogether. Terrorism can take more forms than just blowing stuff up.

Here (see also the "antisemitism" and "right-wing" sections since there's some overlap).

Well, I did throw in an "unintentionally" to account for the fact that not every media outlet may be doing this on purpose - it's right there in the block you're quoting. Besides, you're still working under the assumption that media outlets operate solely out of some duty to the truth and nothing else, but that's not necessarily true. Media outlets are still businesses that are run by people for not just people but profit. One problem with treating news as a business is that a story's worth can be dictated by its economic value as much as its importance e.g. extremists appearing on centrist shows because it's good for ratings. Even after accounting for unconscious biases towards or against certain groups, media's ability to influence public opinion doesn't necessarily mean that it will always be used the "right" way. Publicly acknowledging white supremacy as a continued threat is more difficult when your core audience is white (if not necessarily supremacist) - if you alienate your consumers, your business fails. You might as well ask why more Western media outlets aren't actively calling for harsher measures to be taken against any and all Muslims if Islamic terrorists keep carrying out attacks - because, aside from whatever other reasons they may have for not doing it, it's almost certainly bad for business. Even Breitbart will fire people that they think go too far in that regard.

Yeah, nothing racist ever happens in Africa.

"This video is not available."

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Must be bc it nailed you.

Why, did you make sure it worked first before you linked it?

Hmm, leftists blocking the right links, not shocking

That wasn't a "yes".

All I got was "this video is not available"....

What do you know, another special treatment request. Does this sound reasonable?

Andrews troubled by Muslim ‘rage areas’
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...7d6-1496916693

I call this the freedom to see a shrink, you know, the kind that would assess if you are a danger to yourself and others.

__________________
"I may be rancid butter, but I'm on your side of the bread."
E. K. Hornbeck

I particularly like the part about it being "tax payer funded". Yup, let's fund spaces where Muslims youth can act out killing the people who fund them.... The world has gone crazy.

Changing values...

TheGuardian

I would also like to point out how easy it is to defend something we value against someone who might try to distort and manipulate whatever it is that we value; while at the same time, take part in distorting others' values. As if they were different things.

You cannot find anything in MY book that can be twisted!
Here is an example right here.

No... there is context to that! It does not mean what that one line, out of context, suggests. I know this because I am familiar with it and I am willing to study this matter to prove my view!
Good job.

Yet here we are, witnessing other men distort intent from other books. What of that?
Well. Their book is evil. I am not willing to study that matter because that would argue against my point.

...

People are people are people. It is human nature to trust your ingroup and fear any outgroup. I would like to think we are beyond instinctive natures by now, at least enough to recognize this reaction when it plays out and use our intellect to rise above it all. Granted, the entire world is not at the same level of awareness and understanding, but we ....we.... have access to knowledge to help mitigate some of these issues. I know emotional knee-jerk reactions are more fun and all, but we are better than that. There's a responsibility there, whether we accept it or not.

I'm not saying that everyone is a good theologian, I'm saying that religion relies on the principle that in the holy book lies truth.

Hence, it is possible for people who hold this belief (that in the holy book lies truth) to take a passage out of the holy book and act according to it even if there are other passages saying otherwise (which is the whole irony, the book in which lies truth has lots of contradictions). I'm sure you're aware that during slavery in the US slave owners justified their actions y religion. The movie The Birth of a Nation (the recent one by Nate Parker). I'm not a biblical scholar and am not that much interested in it, but if you tell me that you can't find any contradictory passage even in the new testament then I'd be really surprised.

I'm pretty sure that in the quran there are beautiful sourat (verses) that promotes peace. For instance, I've heard some muslim intellectuals talking about djihad, not in the way we usually see it (violence, etc.) but as an inner struggle toward greatness, etc. My point is that religion relies on interpretation and you can't have an essentialist position on a religion based on books that say this religion is X or Y, it is X according to such an interpretation based on such passage, but it is Y according to that other passage. Theology is the study of which passage has authority on the other and it's not an easy task at all and you have a multitude of interpretations.

__________________
I do not speak english perfectly so expect some mistakes here and there in my messages

As a general point, I agree. There's no argument that context is always important and people will omit it to skew the messages of others.

But within the topic of global Islamic Terrorism, these debates have been exhausted. Yes, there are plenty of Muslims who do not follow their scriptures literally and for them religion is just a facet of life as for many other moderate believers in other religions - a familial tradition, cultural reinforcement and social obligation.

But we know what the Islamic scriptures say and the context is clear. It's not metaphor or parable or even a set of suggested ethical guidelines to help one optimize their ability to prosper or get along with others, but a standing set of abrogated instructions. And, unfortunately, we have global Jihadists following those instructions to kill the infidel and establish Islamic supremacy over the Earth.

I agree. I have an interesting little book called "The Bible Tells Me So" which illustrates how those scriptures have been used to both justify and oppose virtually every controversial issue.

Bottom line: actions speak louder than words. 1400 years of Islamic war, invasion, conquest, mass-murder, torture, intolerance, misogyny, slavery and now GLOBAL LEVEL non-stop terrorism with the ultimate stated goal of absolute supremacy via genocide speaks pretty loudly as to how a significant portion of Islam is interpreting their religion and attempting to carry out what is actually a political ideology of domination that wears religion as a facade.

Thank you for your reply.

Honest question:
Do you truly know, or are you taking hearsay at face value and parroting?

So that we're both being honest and transparent, I do not know one way or the other. I'm arguing just for the sake of arguing. That, and to make sure another perspective is represented here. I may be wrong. But I did prove that misinterpretation is not found in other sources alone. Christian history is peppered with events just as disgusting, yet it is the same Good Book that you defended earlier. I do not really argue that point of yours. It's more the wilful blasphemy of misinterpretation to influence selfish gains that I'm trying to point out. That is HUMAN nature. Not God's. There is a difference here.

Do you truly know what Islamic scripture says in full context? Enough to speak to the level you did when countering my Biblical reference earlier? Do you know Islamic scripture says this absolutely, or could it be a history of people deliberately bastardizing scripture for their own personal agendas? As men have used distortions of the Christian faith throughout history. As I did earlier in my reference to Luke 19:27.



*EDIT*
I guess it's important to note that just because we no longer burn people alive, stone, or torture in the name of God, it is still a part of our history. So we may be a bit further along in our development. Doesn't change where we come from.