Woolwich stabbing/machete attack

[Andyregs]

 

This thread has leaned in this direction because there seems to be a feeling amongst some, even now, that there is no threat from Islamic terrorism. Apparently there is no more of a threat than there is from Christians.

 

Don't know where you get that from. Of course extremism is a threat. Though not a civil war level threat! It's the hypocrisy and double standards that I'm challenging. That people are happy to judge millions of people based on the actions of two people, yet not use the sae logic elsewhere.

[Santa]

This thread has leaned in this direction because there seems to be a feeling amongst some, even now, that there is no threat from Islamic terrorism. Apparently there is no more of a threat than there is from Christians.

Straw man argument.

[Paul6754]

Don't know where you get that from. Of course extremism is a threat. Though not a civil war level threat! It's the hypocrisy and double standards that I'm challenging. That people are happy to judge millions of people based on the actions of two people, yet not use the sae logic elsewhere.

 

"Though not a civil war level threat", yet, give it 50 years as I said earlier.

 

"That people are happy to judge millions of people based on the actions of two people, yet not use the sae logic elsewhere", where have you been the last 10-12 years, actions of two people.......heavens above, no pun intended.

[Andyregs]

"Though not a civil war level threat", yet, give it 50 years as I said earlier.

 

"That people are happy to judge millions of people based on the actions of two people, yet not use the sae logic elsewhere", where have you been the last 10-12 years, actions of two people.......heavens above, no pun intended.

 

I wasn't talking about you with this comment. Though the 50 years argument is ridiculous as well.

 

I was also talking about the event last week, though I am familiar with other Islamic atrocities. Just as I am with other religious atrocities (whether terrorism or otherwise).

[Andyregs]

So he said he shot them in the name of religion ?

 

Imagine he was Asian, and he said Islam instead of Christianity. I'm sure you wouldn't be saying the same thing.

[Birdy]

Amazing how we can't use scripture from two thousand years ago (as its not applicable in the 21st century apparently) to justify slavery amongst other things but some can use it to justify the evils of homosexuality. This proves how people cherry pick what they want to meet their own opinions and what utter hogwash religion can be.

 

A great quote I heard yesterday "we are all individual leaves, but of the same tree" - Epic movie ; )

[JOHNNYAITCH]

To answer that I'll just have to repeat everything I've just put which you ignored.

 

I never ignore you, I don't ignore anyone on here, I just sometimes don't agree. Which is very different

 

I am at a loss to understand how direct responses to posts which includes quoting them constitutes ignoring them.

 

If it was free will why would god then give rules for something like that? It doesn't make sense unless you accept that religion is man made and they used it to justify their morality at that time.

 

I totally agree that religion is man made and the Bible is full of flaws

 

Hence the slavery, violence and attitude to women.

 

Now I klnow I have been ignored as I have already given some explanation on these. I'll not repeat myself

[JOHNNYAITCH]

I wasn't talking about you with this comment. Though the 50 years argument is ridiculous as well.

 

I was also talking about the event last week, though I am familiar with other Islamic atrocities. Just as I am with other religious atrocities (whether terrorism or otherwise).

 

Name other religious atrocities where those commitiing them sated clealry that their religion said it was Ok to do what they did and indeed commanded them to do so?

 

Not sayi ng there aren't any but if parallels are going to be drawn then they must be true parallels and not vague similarities

[JOHNNYAITCH]

This constant reference to cherry picking does my head in

 

People study the Bible for years, decades in some cases and so they learn what it's true meaning is, they learn to see it in context as times move on, they learn about what is changed by translation.

 

Most Christians do not know the Bible in detail but then most Christians don't claim to and don't claim to live their life according to the detail of the Bible.

 

I don't get how people who haven't studied it for years feel able to criticise it using specific passages or quotes which without years of study they cannot possibly truly understand

[Ted]

Tone . Just look up how slavery pops up in Republican examples. Even recently jon hubbard etc etc. As for theological history i was referring the the politics wthin the establishment. Paul ostracised many followers of the Church. Even those close to Jesus..As for people saying that Christianity is the only threat then you haven't read my post earlier. Even young British citizens who became involved in Islam 4uk arrested and imprisoned for terrorism offences. All but a stone's throw from Valw Parj. However as i stated before what i m not seeing in many posts is the understanding of Islamism the political ideology but instead broad brush stokes about Islam, muslims ,immigrants etc etc. . That has to be challenged

[Andyregs]

Name other religious atrocities where those commitiing them sated clealry that their religion said it was Ok to do what they did and indeed commanded them to do so?

 

Not sayi ng there aren't any but if parallels are going to be drawn then they must be true parallels and not vague similarities

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1184546/Donald-Rumsfelds-holy-war-How-President-Bushs-Iraq-briefings-came-quotes-Bible.html

 

Depending on your preferred choice.

 

Breivik: "My parents, being rather secular wanted to give me the choice in regards to religion. At the age of 15 I chose to be baptised and confirmed in the Norwegian State Church. I consider myself to be 100% Christian. However, I strongly object to the current suicidal path of the Catholic Church but especially the Protestant Church. I support a Church that believes in self defence and who are willing to fight for its principles and values, at least resist the efforts put forth to exterminate it gradually"

[Andyregs]

This constant reference to cherry picking does my head in

 

People study the Bible for years, decades in some cases and so they learn what it's true meaning is, they learn to see it in context as times move on, they learn about what is changed by translation.

 

Most Christians do not know the Bible in detail but then most Christians don't claim to and don't claim to live their life according to the detail of the Bible.

 

I don't get how people who haven't studied it for years feel able to criticise it using specific passages or quotes which without years of study they cannot possibly truly understand

 

Because its so obvious that its cherry picked! You don't believe in god, and therefore must believe it was written by man thousands of years ago (unless you believe it was written by aliens). So the basis of its morality, and the difficulty in making it fit with modern morality is a logical conclusion. Yet you argue against it and just sound confused. It was either written by god, or was written by a less civilised, more violent and misogynistic culture.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1184546/Donald-Rumsfelds-holy-war-How-President-Bushs-Iraq-briefings-came-quotes-Bible.html

 

Depending on your preferred choice.

 

Breivik: "My parents, being rather secular wanted to give me the choice in regards to religion. At the age of 15 I chose to be baptised and confirmed in the Norwegian State Church. I consider myself to be 100% Christian. However, I strongly object to the current suicidal path of the Catholic Church but especially the Protestant Church. I support a Church that believes in self defence and who are willing to fight for its principles and values, at least resist the efforts put forth to exterminate it gradually"

 

What nonsense

 

The Bush references are hearsay and when I see the documents I'll belive it and the Brevik reference has nothing regarding the Bible or his religion commanding him to do what he did

 

I like the fact that the Mail is used as a source..that rag that can't be trusted after all;)

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Because its so obvious that its cherry picked!

 

You are wrong. Many learn and study to arrive at their conclusions..far from cherry picking

 

You don't believe in god, and therefore must believe it was written by man thousands of years ago (unless you believe it was written by aliens).

 

I have stated on here many times that it was a work of fiction written by man. Please don't ignore what I have previoulsy posted

 

So the basis of its morality, and the difficulty in making it fit with modern morality is a logical conclusion. Yet you argue against it and just sound confused. It was either written by god, or was written by a less civilised, more violent and misogynistic culture.

 

No confusion at all

 

I don't doubt that, but people do not simply 'cherry pick', many arrive at their stance/belief after many years of study..the Bible is after all very complex irrespective of being man made. That understanding is bound to be affected by current morality and other factors that change over time plus issues of translation. That isn't cherry picking.

[Andyregs]

What nonsense

 

The Bush references are hearsay and when I see the documents I'll belive it and the Brevik reference has nothing regarding the Bible or his religion commanding him to do what he did

 

I like the fact that the Mail is used as a source..that rag that can't be trusted after all;)

 

Used the mail as well as guardian so there wasnt a bias. The point i was highlighting was that religion of all types impacts peoples thinking. Whether its the powerful super power leaders, or the extremist.

You are obviously of the blinkered mind set that only any Christians who do bad things are not proper christians. So it makes it difficult to debate properly.