islam, the religion of love...

Well, if she wasn't wearing a scarf, she wouldn't be beautiful.

She'd be a filthy, unmarriageable whore who must be stoned.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Those aren't the best examples. Sikhs have also run into trouble from secular society due to their headgear fetish (for example Sikhs working in construction who refuse to wear hardhats because they'd have to take their turbans off).

There's nowhere I can't reach.

By definition anyone whose life is defined so strongly by their beliefs as to tell them how to dress is necessarily an outsider in society. Of course we shouldn't discriminate against them, but we don't need to. They discriminate against themselves by their decision to knowingly appear alien. Their choices make it difficult or impossible for them to "fit into society" because (like it or not) a society is and must be defined by something more than "let's be tolerant of everybody". Sure, people have the right to wear what they want... but at the same time don't you think I'd get some funny looks if I went to work every day in a toga and a top hat? Do you think my boss would like that very much? Oh, I could sue for the right to go to work in my toga and top hat, and I might even win, but — I could also just get over myself and wear appropriate clothing in the style common to wherever I live. Otherwise I'll always be "that toga guy", moaning about how people treat him like he's weird or something! Of course I'm weird! I'm wearing a fucking toga! I'm wearing a full-body burlap sack in the middle of a California summer in a society where naked people appear frequently on billboards!

Originally Posted by Bradylama

At the same time, hardline literature is precisely what helps stoke the fires of fanaticism.

Absolutely. One of the main things fueling the current American revival in conservative Christianity is the notion that they're somehow being oppressed, and every stamp-out-the-loonies book and editorial just gives them more fuel for that delusional fire. While the notion that kooks shouldn't have to be tolerated is a valid one, it's flatly impossible by definition to reduce extremism via a zero-tolerance policy. Persecution (or the appearance of persecution) strengthens cult behavior.

Most amazing jew boots

Oh, most of those Presidents weren't really Christians, Deni. Not Real True Christians. One of them was even a Papist, don'tcha know.

No President will be a Real Christian in the eyes of the modern fundamentalist movement until he deploys troops specifically to secure the Temple Mount for Israel (at which point the Messiah may return to Earth and the Saved will be raptured, yes lord god jesus amen).

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Nearly everything about Armand Hammer is fucking ridiculous, honestly

Originally Posted by El Ray Fernando

There is one thing that holds true, any state never discriminates or opresses against a Muslim because they are Muslim. They do it because they refuse to assimilate into the states official system. The same goes for most of you people.

Well, yes. Because they choose to make themselves stand out, they are easy to discriminate (To distinguish by noting differences). So long as their behavior is easily distinguished from the behavior of the culture they are integrating into, they will provoke resistance. This is ordinary human behavior. If you attempt to become a member of Tribe B while still acting like a member of Tribe A — why, of course Tribe B will resent you. They will say amongst themselves What does this A-Tribesman want from us? He only intends to steal the bounty of our hunt and take it back to Tribe A!

Or, for another example, let's think of a library. A library exists for the purpose of reading books (or checking out books and reading them elsewhere). Therefore, if you have no interest in books, you should not be at a library — and if you have no interest in Western culture, you shouldn't live in a Western nation. This is why the world is divided into nations in the first place; irreconcilable cultural differences.

How ya doing, buddy?

Mister, you give me a headache.

You can easily be Muslim and British at the same time. I am sure thousands of people do it without any trouble at all. The people who encounter conflict are those who refuse to compromise for the sake of avoiding that conflict. Why is this so hard to understand?

Let's return to the library analogy. I am a librarian. My job is to sort and distribute books while maintaining a quiet reading environment. You barge into my library, shouting and tracking mud all over the carpet, and I say "Sir, please keep quiet in the library: we prefer a peaceful environment here."

Your response is "QUIT OPPRESSING ME, FASCIST. I HAVE A RIGHT TO BE AN OBNOXIOUS JERK WHEREVER I PLEASE!"

But you don't have that right, because the library's desire to keep the peace and quiet overrules your desire to be loud and filthy. Existing Precedent Tends To Dominate. Therefore, should you wish to be welcome at the library, you should make at least a nominal effort to be quiet and literate.


Of course now you're going to say I'm calling all Muslims a bunch of mud-tracking illiterates; I'm doing no such thing but it became pretty clear you left rationality behind when you compared the historical racism of the American South with some lady who refused to take off her fucking scarf.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Janus X

really? What other senses can we make out of ''a man lying with a man as with a woman is an abomination; they shoudl be killed''? and the several passages calling for the utter massacre of people not believing in the right god? and the ones calling for the women to be quiet and submit to their husbands? and, in the kuran, the ones calling for a hloy war against infidels?

Yes. Those passages do exist. They comprise a small minority of the total text. That is what is meant by "selectively".

FELIPE NO

The point of the crusades, by and large, was to return what were seen as important cities to Christian control. The idea of dropping a massive fireball on Jerusalem that would poison it for decades would have been abominable to them.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Janus X

I wouldn't bet my life on your claim. The bible, too, calls for the massacre of infidels. Had the pope of the time have it, he would have gladly use it and say, ''I have cleared the Earth from infidels''

You're dumb. Let's say I steal your car. What do you want? Obviously, you want the car back. You're going to resent me, yes. You may want to kill me, and let's suppose further that you have a deadly bomb that will kill me without fail. Job One is getting back the fucking car, however. You can't blow me up when I'm in the car, because that would BLOW UP THE CAR. And that's the goal: TO GET THE CAR BACK.

You're dumb. People aren't cartoons. They have GOALS which usually override their immediate prejudices. The Crusades had a significant undercurrent of bigotry, yes, but they were primarily about real estate.

You're dumb. Now go read a book and don't open your mouth again until you have.

You're dumb.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Janus X

in other words, you have no arguments left so you insult me

No. In other words, your head is a great granite pineapple which is impervious to reasonable logic. When I insult you, it's not meant as an alternative to my showing you up as the ignorant shitheap that you are (since I did that as well). It's meant as an added bonus gift. You get to learn two things from that post: you're dumb, and The Crusades had major political motivations beyond the facade of religiosity. So it's like an education giveaway, baby, all for you!

Quote:

a part of it for sure, but when a pope is said to have said "bla bla" then religion is the primary motive.

See, this is sort of thing is why I call you dumb. You are taking public remarks from a figurehead and assuming them to somehow be the actual rationale. No war is EVER fought for the declared public reason, silly-billy! It's fought for the strategic reason. But! The strategic reason is never-ever public, because Joe Average would never sign up for a war if you put it in the starkly neutral terms of reality. Nobody ever signs up to fight and die so some fat Italian can have a place to build his summer cottage.

I mean this in the kindest way: stop to examine things. Don't be so gullible.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Arguably the belief that bitches ain't shit seems a lot more reasonable when the Lord Of Creation has your back, though

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Hachifusa

Tch, that's the Jews, not the Christians. You should know that Jesus died so we wouldn't have to care about Deuteronomy and all that jazz (see: Old Testament).

Yeah uh about that, Matthew 5 has some small discrepancies to point out


17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

You're dumb.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Please, all I have to do to shoot holes in that argument is put it in context.

Quote:

16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

I don't see how that contradicts the quotation from Matthew. All that Paul appears to be saying here is that faith is more important than the law (of course it is, all the burnt offerings are pretty pointless if you don't even believe); he's not saying the law should be abandoned.

And — even if he were, you'd be putting a quote attributed to Paul up against a quote attributed to Christ and saying it's more important, which NO.

As for "animal sacrifice", I don't really see how "sport hunting" is anything else but that. "I killed that deer!" "Are you gonna eat it?" "Naw."

I was speaking idiomatically.

If fulfilling something ends it, and abolishing something ends it, in what sense is it possible to fulfill the law but not abolish it? You've made Jesus into either a liar or self-contradictory.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Ok, say I steal a TV, and I go to jail for it. I've now fulfilled the law that stealing TVs will make me go to jail. Yes. But: the next guy who steals a TV will also go to jail, and so on., indefinitely.

Your position is that since I went to jail (fulfilling the anti-theft law), it's now a burglary-free-for-all with no consequences for everyone else. Except it's not, since he did not abolish the law.

FELIPE NO

Well, at this point we aren't arguing over religion so much as arguing over hair-splitting linguistic distinctions

Which, okay, still pretty sad, but

How ya doing, buddy?

Oh, so it's not animal sacrifice (even though an animal is sacrificed)! It's much more pointless. Here I was, giving people too much credit. Thanks Meth!

And, once again, the meanings of two different words are being confused.

If Jesus says "this used to be the law; here is a new law" what he's doing THERE is abolishing the old law (But wait! He said he wouldn't do that.) The law has been banished from existence.

To Jesus to fulfill the law of an-eye-for-an-eye would require him to personally engage in an act of precisely mitigatory revenge, which — well, that seems a bit uncharacteristic of him, if I may say so.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Well, exactly. But if you interpret "fulfill" as meaning 'bring to an end" then it becomes a near-synonym for "abolish". I don't think it's reasonable to assume that Christ is saying "I come not to end the law, but to end it."

edit: Actually, some translations replace law with "teachings of the prophets" which makes much more sense

As for the hunting, I specifically said "sport" hunting. If you intend to eat what you kill (or trade it to someone else who will eat it), it's not sport.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Well, if you're killing the animal for a practical reason it's not a sport is it

We both know there are plenty of people who hunt just for the sake of hunting and don't do anything more with the meat other than leave it on the ground after they cut off the ever-so-precious trophy skull (or else they drag the entire carcass to a taxidermist). Are these people the majority? No. Didn't say they were.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

DAMMIT JANUS X COME BACK HERE SO WE CAN YELL AT YOU MORE

ARGUING WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE SMARTER THAN YOU IS A LOT OF WORK

How ya doing, buddy?

So I'm guessing you're pretty gay, huh

How ya doing, buddy?

"far left people"?

So you're a gay Republican, then.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

A gay libertarian abortionist

Most amazing jew boots

A hateful gay libertarian abortionist

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

A hair-splitting hateful gay libertarian abortionist

How ya doing, buddy?