Without regard to whatever 'religion' or not they are following no belief system or any other aspect of life excuses acting like absolute jackasses and killing, raping, and destroying ancient artifacts same goes for any government doing the same thing in cases such as those they are a danger and need harshly dealt with!
We live in a world (read society) that protects peoples personal religion. If they say they're Muslims, then they're Muslims, and there nothing we can do about that. It really is this simple.
deleted
· 9 years ago
Not that Muslim extremists actually are Muslims though.
That's like me saying I'm black. I'm Chinese, 100% purebred. There is absolutely no African in my cultural or genetic heritage for as long as history can tell. But I'm just gonna say I'm black just because. Well? Am I black or Asian?
Or maybe this is a bit better analogy...
I'm Asian but I follow one very specific African cultural thing, maybe it's eating mashed yam once a week (or something really insignificant, technical, and quite frankly stupid). Well, since I follow that ONE LITTLE THING from the African culture, I'll just call myself African. Am I?
Let's just settle it and call them violent animals and forget the whole religion thing, every religion has its squirrel shit nuts that are the exception rather than the rule.
As far as I'm concerned they aren't even human since they act more like Neanderthal or some other subspecies. I've met a few Muslims that were some of the nicest and respectful people. Besides labeling someone by their claimed religion when they don't follow its practices is kind of hypocritical on both sides.
That's another good point. I don't consider terrorists to be human and I don't understand why we treat them as such. I suppose it's that anyone can then label anyone else as a terrorist then have the right to publicly shove poisoned fruit up their ass as they hang upside down.
@tylerchu
"That's like me saying I'm black. I'm ~ myself African. Am I? "
Race and culture are not religion.
"Hitler and the Nazis, the KKK, and WBC think they're acting in the name of Christianity, but are they really? "
Yes, their interpretation of it.
"I don't consider terrorists to be human and I don't understand why we treat them as such."
Because they are human. Species is determined by birth. Don't fool yourself.
@whospikedthepunch
"Let's just settle it and call them violent animals"
No, because they're not, other than the fact that humans are, in fact, animals.
"and forget the whole religion thing"
Religion is the subject at hand, so that would be extremely counterproductive.
"As far as I'm concerned they aren't even human"
This is factually wrong.
"since they act more like Neanderthal or some other subspecies."
I imagine this is quite offensive to the mentally handicapped.
I don't see how your last point is relevant to the mentally handicapped.
My point about my race is the same thing though. If I wanna be black, am I black? I have absolutely no background in the black culture (except for that one stupid thing I example'd) or have any black genetics but I still wanna be black. What's your point? You're ignoring mine for semantics.
-
IMPORTANT NOTE
I will be using black and African interchangeably. I know they're technically different but for the sake of my sanity I'll interchange them for this argument, and I permit (and encourage) whoever wants to contest me to do the same.
Let me make myself clear. Terrorists don't deserve humane treatment.
Is that better?
Please don't argue semantics with me. I believe I make myself clear enough that my meaning comes across if the words I use don't.
Also, haven't you ever heard "you're inhuman" being said to someone of unusual cruelty? In a movie for example?
Ok whoa! I never mentioned anything about mentally handicapped, I simply said they don't act like civilized humans which has nothing to do with any form of disability which this would be different if they acted the way they do because they didn't know any better, these people are willingly acting the way they do. The religion issue is simply that they are being called Muslim or referring to themselves that way but they are really a bunch of murderers and generally destructive people little more than anarchists.
That's what I interpreted it as which isn't correct by any stretch, in fact that actually is offensive now that I've thought about it more.
1
deleted
· 9 years ago
Every religion has apostates who have left the religion and continue to make trouble in the name of that religion. Why would you consider them to be religiously sincere?
Hmm... this is going to be difficult to organize...
Okay, I'll start with the mentally handicapped thing. There are people who are so mentally handicapped that they spend most of their time drooling, making weird sounds, and perhaps doing that thing where they hit their chest repeatedly with the side of their hand. The point being they act very primitively, yet are still considered human and treated humanely. In contrast whospikedthepunch stated that he doesn't consider The Islamic State to be human because they act primitively. In fact he also mentioned how ISIS is different from mentally handicapped people because ISIS does what they do knowingly, which actually means they are acting less primitively than the aforementioned mentally handicapped. Meaning by his standard of primitive behavior being less or not human these mentally handicapped people are less human than ISIS.
Next the black thing. I had thought "Race and culture are not religion" wold be self explanatory, but I guess not. Firstly, culture is irrelevant to belonging to a race so that's a moot point. As for race itself, that's determined by genetics, so that's different from religion.
In regards to The Islamic States' sincerity of religion, being insincere would suggest that they don't actually think they're Muslims, which I see no evidence of. As far as I can tell they sincerely believe they are faithful Muslims in their own interpretation of it.
As far as "humane" being a preferred word, sure. Humane treatment or being humane really just boils down to "being nice". ISIS are warlords and conquerors, so there no reason to be nice to them if you don't want to.
Lastly, I have hear people say that in movies, and I usually disagree with them when they say it.
I think that's everything, I apologize if I missed something.
1
deleted
· 9 years ago
If ISIS goes by their own interpretation of Islam, then it is no longer Islam. It is some offshoot cult which should be labelled as such.
I'd like to argue that ISIS THINKS it's Muslim, but it's really just an extremist group which takes A SINGLE THOUGHT (out of context) from Islam and then they call themselves Islamic. The single thought in question is something like "infidels must be destroyed" or some vaguely violent thing like that but put in context it means something more like "change the infidels into fidels".
The Quran says to be severe to unbelievers and merciful to believers, those who wage against believers are to be killed or crucified or have hands/feet cut off, Allah will show mercy to those that convert to him, fight the unfaithful until they are subdued and pay Jizya, there's lots of stuff that ISIS follows.
Butttttttttttttttt...that's for God to decide, not humans. That's another problem with extremists, they seem to want to be God and so take actions that God says he'll take. It's like they're trying to make less work for him or something, God doesn't give two shits how much work he has to do, he's God. He wants us to be loving and peaceful and happy and he'll do the rest (as simply as I can say it).
I don't thing ISIS has shown any sort of real God-complex.
And God is not here to interpret his books for us, so that's left for us to do.
You're also stating your own beliefs, which ISIS may or may not follow.
I'm doing a project on comparing and contrasting the three Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Christianity and Islam have pretty much identical base beliefs, except they put more emphasis on God as a majestic and powerful figure than the Christian's personable God (but they are the same for all intents and purposes).
-
"which ISIS may or may not follow"
Of course they don't follow it, they're picking and choosing.
-
They might not have a god-complex, but you have to admit they're doing things that the rest of the religion is prohibiting which is a big fat red flag. If all Muslims were killers, then we can say that the religion is one that needs killing (but then we wouldn't call it a religion would we?).
-
I'm 90% sure that the message in all of the holy scriptures can boil down to: love God and be nice to each other.
BTW my project doesn't go into the different sects of each religion, so I'm not going into the extremists. I'm only doing what is officially taught.
-
I should also clarify one point I made as I might seem confusing.
Muslims and Christians both hold the compassionate/benevolent and the majestic/awe-inspiring aspects of God as very important. However, I believe that the compassionate side is SLIGHTLY more important whereas it seems (from what I have read) that Muslims generally take the majestic side as SLIGHTLY more important. There's no overshadowing of these characteristics over each other, it's just that the respective characteristics are the ones that spring to our respective minds first instead of second.
"Of course they don't follow it, they're picking and choosing."
Everyone pick and chooses. You don't see Christians stoning gays, or taking slaves from foreign countries, do you?
"they're doing things that the rest of the religion is prohibiting which is a big fat red flag."
Protestantism did things that Catholicism prohibited, that doesn't mean they have a God-complex.
"but then we wouldn't call it a religion would we?"
Why not?
Extremists pick and choose to the extent that they no longer represent the religion they're saying they are. As said before, the message of Islam is pretty much identical to that of Christianity (so I'm not going to explain the message), but ISIS isn't even trying to share that message, so they're not Islamic. This may or may not have come from the Bible, but I remember reading or hearing somewhere that pretty much paraphrases to "if you don't walk your talk, God won't recognize you.
-
holy shit I hate firefox
"Extremists pick and choose to the extent that they no longer represent the religion they're saying they are."
That's an awfully grey area you're choosing to draw a line through.
"As said before, the message of Islam is pretty much identical to that of Christianity (so I'm not going to explain the message), but ISIS isn't even trying to share that message"
How significant is the message of a religion?
Also, what did Firefox do?
I was on firefox and it's snail-slow.
I agree it's a gray area; there's no way to quantify it, only qualify it.
The message of a religion is the heart of the religion is it not? How is it insignificant?
deleted
· 9 years ago
"Everyone pick and chooses. You don't see Christians stoning gays, or taking slaves from foreign countries, do you? "
That's not something that Christians are supposed to do. That section of the Bible is actually an excerpt from the "old covenant" which was established with the Jews, meaning that only the Jews had to follow it. By the time Christ was on Earth, that "covenant" or "law" was defunct, as the Jews had failed to follow it.
"The message of a religion is the heart of the religion is it not?"
The heart eh...? Does ISIS have a perceived message?
"That's not something that Christians are supposed to do. That section of the Bible is actually an excerpt from the "old covenant" which was established with the Jews, meaning that only the Jews had to follow it. By the time Christ was on Earth, that "covenant" or "law" was defunct, as the Jews had failed to follow it. "
It still in the book, free for anyone to adhere to.
That's my point. ISIS doesn't have a message and their behavior contradicts that which they profess to follow. Therefore, they are not Muslim.
-
But that's not what the point of Christianity is. If Christians can somehow make stoning adulterers coincide with the life of forgiveness, acceptance, and love, feel free to do so but I see no way of doing that.
Hmm. Well as far as I'm concerned religion only has to be a set of beliefs generally agreed upon by a (large enough) group of people. There are a lot of non-violent parts of Islam that ISIS and the rest of Muslims agree on, like The Prophet and such, so to me they are still Muslim.
The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment
deleted
· 9 years ago
"But that's not what the point of Christianity is. If Christians can somehow make stoning adulterers coincide with the life of forgiveness, acceptance, and love, feel free to do so but I see no way of doing that."
Tyler, who were you talking to when you said this?
-
"It still in the book, free for anyone to adhere to."
Yes, anyone can just take this out of context, but even if they did, it's not the book's fault. It's like blaming "Catcher in the rye" for Lennon's death, or "Human Centipede" for a mass murder committed using the same method. In instances like this, I guess it just boils down to common sense.
"it's not the book's fault."
I wasn't blaming the book, I was just point out that its there to be interpreted as anyone chooses.
"I guess it just boils down to common sense."
We many differ here, but to me religion is not common sense.
deleted
· 9 years ago
Okay, fair enough. Although, anything can be interpreted as anyone chooses.
-
I know you are probably more of a scientific person and don't think that religion is common sense, but my train of thought was more about how we interpret data and extrapolate conclusions. (Judging by the context, Christians aren't actually instructed to stone gays, etc.) That being said, the book itself (the Bible) is pretty pragmatic if that's what you mean by "common sense". A few choice passages I would quote in this regard would be: "A stupid person gives vent to all his feelings, But the wise one calmly keeps them in check". "Let the marriage bed be without defilement." "The fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control. Against such things there is no law."
1
deleted
· 9 years ago
However, although the Bible is not a scientific textbook, it doesn't disagree with science. And if that's your stance, I could say a few words in reply.
The thing about the common sense in the bible is that all that common sense exists outside of it. I knew those thing before I read the book because those things are evident in reality and don't need the revelations of a religious book to be obvious. I tend to think this common sense existed at the time the Bible was written.
As for science, the book is relatively vague and doesn't really make a lot of definitive statements that need to be refuted, so I don't think science really needs to be applied to it i the first place.
Just out of curiosity, you don't believe something like young-earth theory, do you?
deleted
· 9 years ago
I know you knew those things before reading the Bible, but so many other people need it spelt out for them. It is hard to be a good person with all of the little things you could do to revoke that status. And even if those principles did exist at the time it was written, they certainly didn't gel with the prevailing views of the time, nor do they now.
-
Well, like I said, it's not a scientific textbook, so it doesn't discuss science at length. But what it does say is relevant to science. It details the first ever example of quarantine, and contains the first written statement that the Earth is round, which was disputed. And then there's the humble water cycle, which was generally unknown in Ancient times, but the Bible says: “Every river flows into the sea, but the sea is not yet full. The water returns to where the rivers began, and starts all over again."
deleted
· 9 years ago
And no, I don't believe the young-earth theories, nor does my church. But I guess people who believe the young-earth theory are the reason why science is sometimes said to contradict the Bible anyway. But one can certainly believe in science and the Bible, and I guess that's what I meant.
The only problem I have with the relationship between common sense and religion is how easily common sense can be overridden by religion. I would rather people practice common sense because they understand it than because the Bible says so.
As for science, the water cycle thing is interesting, but the round earth thing is debatable. The Bible says "circle" and could easily mean the 2 dimensional shape.
well it's just the fact that you guys are arguing on here for no reason instead of just taking it somewhere else. The other people trying to have decent conversations always get pulled back here due to you.
They are Muslim, let's look at it simply, but they're not the mascots for their religion, they should not define the religion, if a man goes out and kills a person in the name of (for example) Judaism, that doesn't define Judaism as a religion
I think that depends on how you define Christians, and Muslims.
In my opinion if you don't at least attempt to follow at least the majority of rules set down for you in the religious book that you have as your authority, then you are not [insert religion].
Guest has said exactly what I was thinking. And the KKK called themselves a Christian group. They're not a "political" group as according to their purpose "back in the day".
And Nazis were European. What else would they be? Being European (or "continentalist") doesn't entail any behavior or moral constrictions like religion does. If you had said Nazis were Christian, there would be a problem.
This guy trying to tell blind ignorant World that ISIS ain't Muslims. And World just like "Lol is there wifi? I need to watch Super Dr. Sherlock, John just blew The 11115th Doctor and he expects Dean to take him back? Like John you need to ship Castiel so bad it hurts my heart. ISIS oh those Muslims *shakes fist* ohhhhhhhh shit season two just came out I think Sam and Rose look so cute together. What Sherlock found *wifi cuts out, netflix servers destroyed* it must have been the Muslims we must kill ISIS and all Muslims because I can not live in a World with no wifi or netflix." Lol world we all suck.
that doesn't mean you're not insulting other ones. "Im going to insult 7,000,000,000 people, but I am in the group of people I'm insulting, so it's okay" is what you're saying. You don't need to insult everyone else that provide basic human needs like socialization just to get your point across. That makes you seem like an asshole, and I shouldn't have to tell you this.
You're right you shouldn't have to (because I know) but you did. Let's open up a dialogue not an argument. I'll start with Why are you insulted by what I said?
because for one, I'm a slight grammar nazi and that's setting off a lot of red flags.
Two, because no one knows who you're talking to or what your point is
Three, because you just insulted a lot of fandoms, including one I'm subscribed to, among other things.
Fourthly because you ended in the most excruciatingly cliched and annoying way ever: you said that all of us suck. Even the people that don't do that stuff listed suck. Even the innocent people, the ones raising families, the outdated moms and dads, the homeless people, yeah, you should blame them too!
Fifthly because as soon as someone points out "oh wait, this isn't right", you say that it's justified because you're part of the people to blame.
One, grammer nazi lol
Two, who ever took offense that whom i was speaking to
3, fandoms insulted haha someone gonna 187 my ass at the King of Prussia mall with a dr who wand,
four, you saying my cliche is cliche is a cliche, me saying that is a cliche, you are a cliche i am a cliche everything is a cliche! no one is innocent, we all suck in our own special ignorant ways,
5, i already insulted myself and then you did it and i just informed you that i already insulted myself
-we can continue if you like but i have to go to bed because work and all cant be up alll night chatting. about stuff that doesnt actually matter. not the people raising families they matter, but the rest of the stuff doesnt really.
I 100% respect bookhoarder. Serious not sarcasm. I cant say bookhoarder respects me but thats ok, bookhoarder commands the power of the star he's like Mario and im toad *insert sad face* this is all in good fun.
Or maybe this is a bit better analogy...
I'm Asian but I follow one very specific African cultural thing, maybe it's eating mashed yam once a week (or something really insignificant, technical, and quite frankly stupid). Well, since I follow that ONE LITTLE THING from the African culture, I'll just call myself African. Am I?
"That's like me saying I'm black. I'm ~ myself African. Am I? "
Race and culture are not religion.
"Hitler and the Nazis, the KKK, and WBC think they're acting in the name of Christianity, but are they really? "
Yes, their interpretation of it.
"I don't consider terrorists to be human and I don't understand why we treat them as such."
Because they are human. Species is determined by birth. Don't fool yourself.
@whospikedthepunch
"Let's just settle it and call them violent animals"
No, because they're not, other than the fact that humans are, in fact, animals.
"and forget the whole religion thing"
Religion is the subject at hand, so that would be extremely counterproductive.
"As far as I'm concerned they aren't even human"
This is factually wrong.
"since they act more like Neanderthal or some other subspecies."
I imagine this is quite offensive to the mentally handicapped.
My point about my race is the same thing though. If I wanna be black, am I black? I have absolutely no background in the black culture (except for that one stupid thing I example'd) or have any black genetics but I still wanna be black. What's your point? You're ignoring mine for semantics.
-
IMPORTANT NOTE
I will be using black and African interchangeably. I know they're technically different but for the sake of my sanity I'll interchange them for this argument, and I permit (and encourage) whoever wants to contest me to do the same.
Is that better?
Please don't argue semantics with me. I believe I make myself clear enough that my meaning comes across if the words I use don't.
Also, haven't you ever heard "you're inhuman" being said to someone of unusual cruelty? In a movie for example?
Okay, I'll start with the mentally handicapped thing. There are people who are so mentally handicapped that they spend most of their time drooling, making weird sounds, and perhaps doing that thing where they hit their chest repeatedly with the side of their hand. The point being they act very primitively, yet are still considered human and treated humanely. In contrast whospikedthepunch stated that he doesn't consider The Islamic State to be human because they act primitively. In fact he also mentioned how ISIS is different from mentally handicapped people because ISIS does what they do knowingly, which actually means they are acting less primitively than the aforementioned mentally handicapped. Meaning by his standard of primitive behavior being less or not human these mentally handicapped people are less human than ISIS.
In regards to The Islamic States' sincerity of religion, being insincere would suggest that they don't actually think they're Muslims, which I see no evidence of. As far as I can tell they sincerely believe they are faithful Muslims in their own interpretation of it.
As far as "humane" being a preferred word, sure. Humane treatment or being humane really just boils down to "being nice". ISIS are warlords and conquerors, so there no reason to be nice to them if you don't want to.
Lastly, I have hear people say that in movies, and I usually disagree with them when they say it.
I think that's everything, I apologize if I missed something.
And God is not here to interpret his books for us, so that's left for us to do.
You're also stating your own beliefs, which ISIS may or may not follow.
-
"which ISIS may or may not follow"
Of course they don't follow it, they're picking and choosing.
-
They might not have a god-complex, but you have to admit they're doing things that the rest of the religion is prohibiting which is a big fat red flag. If all Muslims were killers, then we can say that the religion is one that needs killing (but then we wouldn't call it a religion would we?).
-
I'm 90% sure that the message in all of the holy scriptures can boil down to: love God and be nice to each other.
-
I should also clarify one point I made as I might seem confusing.
Muslims and Christians both hold the compassionate/benevolent and the majestic/awe-inspiring aspects of God as very important. However, I believe that the compassionate side is SLIGHTLY more important whereas it seems (from what I have read) that Muslims generally take the majestic side as SLIGHTLY more important. There's no overshadowing of these characteristics over each other, it's just that the respective characteristics are the ones that spring to our respective minds first instead of second.
Everyone pick and chooses. You don't see Christians stoning gays, or taking slaves from foreign countries, do you?
"they're doing things that the rest of the religion is prohibiting which is a big fat red flag."
Protestantism did things that Catholicism prohibited, that doesn't mean they have a God-complex.
"but then we wouldn't call it a religion would we?"
Why not?
-
holy shit I hate firefox
That's an awfully grey area you're choosing to draw a line through.
"As said before, the message of Islam is pretty much identical to that of Christianity (so I'm not going to explain the message), but ISIS isn't even trying to share that message"
How significant is the message of a religion?
Also, what did Firefox do?
I agree it's a gray area; there's no way to quantify it, only qualify it.
The message of a religion is the heart of the religion is it not? How is it insignificant?
That's not something that Christians are supposed to do. That section of the Bible is actually an excerpt from the "old covenant" which was established with the Jews, meaning that only the Jews had to follow it. By the time Christ was on Earth, that "covenant" or "law" was defunct, as the Jews had failed to follow it.
The heart eh...? Does ISIS have a perceived message?
"That's not something that Christians are supposed to do. That section of the Bible is actually an excerpt from the "old covenant" which was established with the Jews, meaning that only the Jews had to follow it. By the time Christ was on Earth, that "covenant" or "law" was defunct, as the Jews had failed to follow it. "
It still in the book, free for anyone to adhere to.
-
But that's not what the point of Christianity is. If Christians can somehow make stoning adulterers coincide with the life of forgiveness, acceptance, and love, feel free to do so but I see no way of doing that.
Tyler, who were you talking to when you said this?
-
"It still in the book, free for anyone to adhere to."
Yes, anyone can just take this out of context, but even if they did, it's not the book's fault. It's like blaming "Catcher in the rye" for Lennon's death, or "Human Centipede" for a mass murder committed using the same method. In instances like this, I guess it just boils down to common sense.
I wasn't blaming the book, I was just point out that its there to be interpreted as anyone chooses.
"I guess it just boils down to common sense."
We many differ here, but to me religion is not common sense.
-
I know you are probably more of a scientific person and don't think that religion is common sense, but my train of thought was more about how we interpret data and extrapolate conclusions. (Judging by the context, Christians aren't actually instructed to stone gays, etc.) That being said, the book itself (the Bible) is pretty pragmatic if that's what you mean by "common sense". A few choice passages I would quote in this regard would be: "A stupid person gives vent to all his feelings, But the wise one calmly keeps them in check". "Let the marriage bed be without defilement." "The fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control. Against such things there is no law."
As for science, the book is relatively vague and doesn't really make a lot of definitive statements that need to be refuted, so I don't think science really needs to be applied to it i the first place.
Just out of curiosity, you don't believe something like young-earth theory, do you?
-
Well, like I said, it's not a scientific textbook, so it doesn't discuss science at length. But what it does say is relevant to science. It details the first ever example of quarantine, and contains the first written statement that the Earth is round, which was disputed. And then there's the humble water cycle, which was generally unknown in Ancient times, but the Bible says: “Every river flows into the sea, but the sea is not yet full. The water returns to where the rivers began, and starts all over again."
As for science, the water cycle thing is interesting, but the round earth thing is debatable. The Bible says "circle" and could easily mean the 2 dimensional shape.
And how are people getting "pulled" back here?
Some of them are Taliban
And the rest are All' Queada
what's the difference between Taliban and AQ?
KKK are American.
WBC are Christians.
Nazis are European.
The evil minority are a part of the whole, but they are the minority.
In my opinion if you don't at least attempt to follow at least the majority of rules set down for you in the religious book that you have as your authority, then you are not [insert religion].
I mean, I know I suck, but fuck you too man, that was mean
Two, because no one knows who you're talking to or what your point is
Three, because you just insulted a lot of fandoms, including one I'm subscribed to, among other things.
Fourthly because you ended in the most excruciatingly cliched and annoying way ever: you said that all of us suck. Even the people that don't do that stuff listed suck. Even the innocent people, the ones raising families, the outdated moms and dads, the homeless people, yeah, you should blame them too!
Fifthly because as soon as someone points out "oh wait, this isn't right", you say that it's justified because you're part of the people to blame.
Two, who ever took offense that whom i was speaking to
3, fandoms insulted haha someone gonna 187 my ass at the King of Prussia mall with a dr who wand,
four, you saying my cliche is cliche is a cliche, me saying that is a cliche, you are a cliche i am a cliche everything is a cliche! no one is innocent, we all suck in our own special ignorant ways,
5, i already insulted myself and then you did it and i just informed you that i already insulted myself
-we can continue if you like but i have to go to bed because work and all cant be up alll night chatting. about stuff that doesnt actually matter. not the people raising families they matter, but the rest of the stuff doesnt really.
*retreats gloriously*