157
158

Current Events Quiz (i.imgur.com)

chabanaisFortis est veritas が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]MiyegomboBayartsogt 4 ポイント5 ポイント

Islam is a religion of peace. I know that. You know that. The America Left and their lackeys in the mainstream media know that. It seems the only people on the planet who don't know Islam is peaceful are the Moslems. The many, many Mohammadans running amok everywhere with religious mayhem, violent misogyny and mass murder are giving the apologists for the faith no end of grief. Islam has become associated with the worst sort of violence. For far too many truly nonviolent people, the chant "Allah Akbar" is the last thing they hear before they are assassinated. The problem with Islam is not fundamentalist Muslimans. The problem with Islam is the fundamentals of the faith. Events on the ground make this fact inescapable for all but the most balefully politically correct.

[–]Quetzie 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Okay, so what are those fundamentals of the faith then, that make Islam inherently more violent than other religions (for the sake of the argument, let's stick to Abrahimic religions). Genuinely interested in a polite discussion.

[–]MiyegomboBayartsogt 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Dig deep into the dark depths of any religion and find self-mutilation, misogyny and human sacrifice. The Jews, the Romans, the Polynesians, the tower people of both Babble and Babylon. Buddhism too. The subject of tonight's Chinese CTV documentary. Showcased the heavy hand of the ChiCom that exposed the rot beneath Tibetan Palace Buddhism. Tibet, before Chinese Communists invaded and put shut to the nasty theocracy. That traditional Tibet. The Dali Lama ruled over a torturing, terrorizing, intolerant religious kingdom that was hell on earth for the disregarded masses. You see, like Islam, even gentle Buddhism has been slathered over atavistic practice cruel beyond the timid modern mass media morality.

A true religion of peace, Buddhism, was show to be celebrated in old, pre-Mao Tibet by bloodletting. Goat blood, shaman blood, hapless sinner's blood, man blood, self-mutilation blood and even boy blood. Of course, the Buddhism of my people, the Pure Land school of the southern Chinese tradition, find such behavior beyond the pale.

There are people on this planet filling mass graves. Many, even most, proudly proclaim they are committing their mass murder for Mohammad. One such humanitarian crisis and international crime scene even calls itself "Islamic State." Here, on the blood-soaked sand, good, Koran-reading Muslims are busy as beavers doing Allah's water work. Any viewer with the commitment and jaded constitution for horror, the Internet is currently awash in video shot by happy, boastful Islamic State jihadists. These, along with coreligionists everywhere, practice Islam as they know and understand it.

Maybe these people are all not correctly quoting the Koran. Islam often brags back in the day it was spread by slavery, slaughter, sex subjugation and the sword. Nowadays, where Islam spreads, Christian genocide, pagan fire worshipping cult genocide, girls stoned to death in the public square. Generally, Moslems freely running any state with "Islamic" in the government's name will be guilty of offenses against modern mores.

[–]Aiur_for_life_my 7 ポイント8 ポイント

Islam actually is a violent religion, you only have to read the Qur'an to know that. Similar to the Tanakh. The problem is when religious act out the violent or crappy parts of their religion.

[–]LastTrueConservativeI'm Scottish, too! 10 ポイント11 ポイント

Other than Buddhism, nearly all religions that I'm familiar with condone a ton of violent horrible activity. They just get by on sprinkling in obvious morals and "family values." Also, most of the world's Muslims aren't participating in this sort of madness. Just the theocratic states in the Middle East. Most of Islam is actually practiced in Indonesia. The same argument could be made for the Christian African states that slaughter homosexuals. Of course, they have no oil, so they also have no power.

[–]Mercuryssheets 6 ポイント7 ポイント

Buddhists can be violent.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence

[–]boathouse2112 3 ポイント4 ポイント

Anyone can be violent. Buddhism doesn't condone it, though.

[–]Mercuryssheets 0 ポイント1 ポイント

It actually has several texts saying it is okay. They rationalize it by saying the victims of the violence are less than human. By killing them they are actually helping them to be reborn and bring them to the righteous path.

[–]LastTrueConservativeI'm Scottish, too! 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Well, then now it's all of them.

[–]1ww1ww1 -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

Find me one source in the Christian Bible which condones violence. There simply isn't one. And don't bother with some pre-covenant passage. It's made clear time and time again that if you are to be a follower of Christ, you need to accept violence upon yourself (Matthew 5:39). "Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword" (Matthew 26:52).

The only form of violence arguably sanctioned is for self-defense.

Nearly all religions you are familiar with condone violence, except the largest one in America? Alright then.

[–]tonyromojrDon't know much about history... 4 ポイント5 ポイント

What about the time when that one city fell with the trumpets?, god killed all of them thesides one, all of the ransacking that the israelites did seemed very violent to me...

[–]1ww1ww1 0 ポイント1 ポイント

That is from a covenant that the Christians no longer hold. If the Israelites had it all right, what would be the purpose of Christ?

[–]funky_mesopotamian 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Honest question: Why did god change from pretty clearly advocating violence in the old testament to discouraging it in the new testament?

[–]1ww1ww1 -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Here's a fine introduction. There's a lot of instances of violence to cover that would be unreasonable for me to meet in one post.

[–]qlester 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Hebrews 10:12-13

But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/esv/hebrews/passage.aspx?q=hebrews+10:12-13

[–]1ww1ww1 1 ポイント2 ポイント

If that's the best you can do, then clearly I have made my point. Christ sits waiting until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet, with no mention of violence, intimidation, threat, or subversion. And no mention of a physical footstool for his physical feet. Christ sits waiting until his enemies are humbled (enslaved even) under him, that much is true, but that which is humbled and enslaved under God (speaking as a Christian) is of higher standing than anything else on Earth. Likewise he who was free when called is a bondservant of Christ. As Corinthians 7:22 spells out, "He who was called in the Lord as a bondservant is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a bondservant of Christ." Being a slave to Christ is a frequent maxim of the Bible, and by no means indicates something negative; on the contrary, it indicates the highest state of Man.

[–]well_here_I_amReagan Conservative 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Compared to how the Koran instructs people to decapitate non-believers? Oh please. Muhammad essentially left genocide instructions for his followers.

[–]chabanaisFortis est veritas[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント

The Doctrine of Abrogation applies. It allows Muslims to quote earlier, peaceful verses even though they are not in force because they have been supplanted by later, more violent commands.

[–]LastTrueConservativeI'm Scottish, too! 0 ポイント1 ポイント

You're kidding, right? Or have you, like most "Christians," simply never actually read the Christian Bible? God orders the Isrealites to smash babies' skulls on rocks so often they had to come up with a word for it. ("dashing")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_violence

[–]1ww1ww1 -1 ポイント0 ポイント

There you go-- a pre-covenant passage :) Color me surprised.

[–]LastTrueConservativeI'm Scottish, too! -1 ポイント0 ポイント

? You're part of some small sect that doesn't recognize the Tanakh? Because the vast majority of Christians believe in the divinity of the whole Bible. (Though, again, few of them have actually cared enough to read it.)

[–]1ww1ww1 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

Recognizing and adhering to the Tanakh are two different things. No one follows Leviticus, for example, because it was made only for a small sect of Jewish priests at a particular time.

But go ahead-- find me one passage that tells Christians to do violence, and I can go ahead and discuss it with you.

[–]LastTrueConservativeI'm Scottish, too! 1 ポイント2 ポイント

like... where dirty words illicit a bit more than time-out?

Mark 7:10 "For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death."

-Jesus, suggesting that the cruelty of the Old Testament is still applicable in the books of Matthew and Mark

[–]chabanaisFortis est veritas[S] 3 ポイント4 ポイント

The Left will link "Right Wing Christians" with violence but no other religious group.

[–]matty25Conservative 9 ポイント10 ポイント

Jews too. They love doing that.

[–]chabanaisFortis est veritas[S] 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Only in Israel though.

[–]be_cool_honeybunny 6 ポイント7 ポイント

Because if they did it here, how would they stump for their campaign funding?

[–]definitelyaJIDFshill -1 ポイント0 ポイント

They try to accuse Jews elsewhere of violence as well. Like in France, when a group of Jewish men protected a synagogue from an anti-Israel mob. They simply can't usually find enough to back up even bad, sensationalist journalism. It's pretty rare for things to get bad enough in the US to warrant violently defending oneself.

[–]chabanaisFortis est veritas[S] -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

It's pretty rare for things to get bad enough in the US to warrant violently defending oneself.

For now, yes.