Ever Notice

[stvdv]

If you read the Quran you can't help but come away from it with the opinion that it is a violent book. Kill the heretic, kill the infidel, kill the blasphemer. But generally speaking Muslims seem to me to be a peaceful group of people. Oh, sure, there are a relatively few that react poorly to having their countries, cities, towns, farms, and homes destroyed, and their innocent men, women, children and elderly savagely murdered for no apparent reason, but in general they are a peaceable people.

If you read the Bible on the other hand you probably come away from it with the opinion that, though there are wars among the believers and unbelievers its somewhat a contrast to the Quran in that it is more peaceful but the Christians and Jews are notoriously violent comparatively speaking.

Am I right?

For me there is a difference in violence. When reading the Bible we are not called to mutilate NOW, whereas in the Koran I feel this "call to kill" much stronger

Bible describes violent actions done in those years. More like history lesson. There are a few calls to mutilate/kill, but I have the feeling it's much less (but did not count it yet)
Koran orders Muslims to kill, dismember, cut off hands/feet/heads and what not. Probably PopeADope would know this. He was more into this stuff. I don't know so much

 

[ChristineM]

Sorry, I didn't see it there. That was an interesting link. I was surprised at how little all of them contained violence.

Gasps in amazement, he can apologize. I am stunned, i honestly didn't think you had it in you.

Both books are riddled with violence, the bible doubly so. The barrier to seeing it is with the reader who is naturally more critical of what they fail or refuse to understand.

 

[Earthling]

I say no. You are not right.

Would I be right if I contradicted this article, by saying, "Marine found guilty of murdering wife"?
Former Marine found guilty of wife's murder
Ex-Marine Bourne Paraday Huddleston was found guilty Wednesday of murdering his wife and on charges related to a contract-killing scheme he plotted against her and another man, a Jackson County Circuit Court jury decided.

No. I would be wrong.
How about this: "Soldier kills man at checkpoint".

A former British soldier is to be prosecuted over the death of a man he shot at an army checkpoint in Northern Ireland in 1988.

No. Again. I am wrong.
I am wrong because I am associating someone with something they are no longer associated with, or never belong to in the first place.

Defection
In politics, a defector is a person who gives up allegiance to one state in exchange for allegiance to another, in a way which is considered illegitimate by the first state. More broadly, it involves abandoning a person, cause, or doctrine to which one is bound by some tie, as of allegiance or duty.
This term is also applied, often pejoratively, to anyone who switches loyalty to another religion, sports team, political party, or other rival faction. In that sense, the defector is often considered a traitor by their original side.

More than 1,000 North Koreans defect every year.


The same applies to police officers who leave the force, or are dismissed.

Golden State Killer: Ex-cop arrested in serial murder-rape cold case
I would be wrong to say, a policeman was arrested in this case.

What do you call one who no longer wants to be part of the Islamic State (ISIS)?
More Islamic State defectors speaking out - report
A growing number of defectors from so-called Islamic State are speaking publicly about their decision to leave, according to a new report.
What the defectors said
"Anything that contradicts their beliefs is forbidden. Anyone who follows what they reject is an apostate and must be killed" - anonymous defector

To the world, he is a defector. To IS, he is an Apostate.

Is ISIS a defector from Islam? I don't know, but the fact is people leave organizations. They no longer belong, and should not be identified as such.
Defectors: ISIS is killing Muslims, not protecting them

Apostasy ("a defection or revolt") is the formal disaffiliation from, or abandonment or renunciation of a religion by a person. It can also be defined within the broader context of embracing an opinion contrary to one's previous beliefs.

Are they defectors of Christianity?
The apostle Paul answers...
(2 Thessalonians 2:3)  Let no one lead you astray in any way, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction.

How can one tell the difference between a defector / apostate, or one who belongs to the group / organization?
So would it be right to say Christians are violent? How can you identify a Christian from an apostate?

There are no violent Christians, apart from the very few individuals who may act violently because of a weakness, due to their sinful nature, but who may be fighting to become Christlike. That is very few individuals compared to the millions of Christians living by Christ's teachings.

Am I right?

No. 99% of Christians are apostate. The inquisition, the crusades, the eagerness of the modern day Christian to go to war, World War I and World War II where Christians were killing Christians. All examples of the blood thirsty apostate Christendom.

 

[Earthling]

Those who are following the impulses of the flesh without awareness of the Truth of God, especially those who hide that fact behind their religious cloaks and do that in the name of their gods. Jesus called them hypocrites, whitewashed sepulchers.... "Build that wall!", for instance. They confuse religion with God.

Why do you keep saying "Build that wall"? Are you putting a political spin on your brand of Christianity?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

If you read the Quran you can't help but come away from it with the opinion that it is a violent book. Kill the heretic, kill the infidel, kill the blasphemer. But generally speaking Muslims seem to me to be a peaceful group of people. Oh, sure, there are a relatively few that react poorly to having their countries, cities, towns, farms, and homes destroyed, and their innocent men, women, children and elderly savagely murdered for no apparent reason, but in general they are a peaceable people.

If you read the Bible on the other hand you probably come away from it with the opinion that, though there are wars among the believers and unbelievers its somewhat a contrast to the Quran in that it is more peaceful but the Christians and Jews are notoriously violent comparatively speaking.

Am I right?

No, you're not right. How many Christians and Jews strap themselves to suicide bombers and blow themselves up along with dozens of innocent civilians? What religion was responsible for 9/11? Hint hint: it's not Judaism or Christianity.

 

[Earthling]

Gasps in amazement, he can apologize. I am stunned, i honestly didn't think you had it in you.

I'm a very fair minded person. If you badger me and badger me and badger me I put you on ignore for one month. If I put you off ignore and you badger me and badger me and badger me I put you on ignore for another month. If you just talk to me straight up without the badgering I will gladly listen to you. Very simple.

Both books are riddled with violence, the bible doubly so. The barrier to seeing it is with the reader who is naturally more critical of what they fail or refuse to understand.

Well, that's your opinion, but I certainly was aware that both books contained a considerable amount of violence. Like I said, I'm actually surprised the software mentioned in your link didn't say both books contain more violence than it did. But I am also surprised that the Bible, or well, specifically the so called Old Testament, contained more than the Quran. I think @stdvd made an excellent point on the historical context. Maybe with the Quran it's more in your face, like "Kill the infidel!" whereas in the Bible it was history.

 

[Earthling]

No, you're not right. How many Christians and Jews strap themselves to suicide bombers and blow themselves up along with dozens of innocent civilians? What religion was responsible for 9/11? Hint hint: it's not Judaism or Christianity.

That's debatable. 911 was an inside job. It was pulled off by Israel and the USA government. I would say so called Christians did it. It's painfully obvious to anyone with any sense.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

That's debatable. 911 was an inside job. It was pulled off by Israel and the USA government. I would say so called Christians did it. It's painfully obvious to anyone with any sense.

*Facepalm*

 

[ChristineM]

I'm a very fair minded person. If you badger me and badger me and badger me I put you on ignore for one month. If I put you off ignore and you badger me and badger me and badger me I put you on ignore for another month. If you just talk to me straight up without the badgering I will gladly listen to you. Very simple.



Well, that's your opinion, but I certainly was aware that both books contained a considerable amount of violence. Like I said, I'm actually surprised the software mentioned in your link didn't say both books contain more violence than it did. But I am also surprised that the Bible, or well, specifically the so called Old Testament, contained more than the Quran. I think @stdvd made an excellent point on the historical context. Maybe with the Quran it's more in your face, like "Kill the infidel!" whereas in the Bible it was history.

Dont be ridiculous, you insulted the memory of thousands of murdered people. Do you expect me to stand by and applaud you wearing a tinfoil hat

So put me back on ignore, not my problem

 

[Earthling]

Dont be ridiculous, you insulted the memory of thousands of murdered people. Do you expect me to stand by and applaud you wearing a tinfoil hat

So put me back on ignore, not my problem

I don't even remember what you are talking about. Again. That's how much I care. If you disagree with me, by all means, state your case and I will listen to you, but don't badger me. By badger I mean every post I make you supply a little one or two line smart *** remark that means nothing in the arena of discussion or debate. Just because you're pissed off at something I said months ago. Or for any reason.

I like a good argument. Make good points and I will listen.

 

[Wu Wei]

If you read the Quran you can't help but come away from it with the opinion that it is a violent book. Kill the heretic, kill the infidel, kill the blasphemer. But generally speaking Muslims seem to me to be a peaceful group of people. Oh, sure, there are a relatively few that react poorly to having their countries, cities, towns, farms, and homes destroyed, and their innocent men, women, children and elderly savagely murdered for no apparent reason, but in general they are a peaceable people.

If you read the Bible on the other hand you probably come away from it with the opinion that, though there are wars among the believers and unbelievers its somewhat a contrast to the Quran in that it is more peaceful but the Christians and Jews are notoriously violent comparatively speaking.

Am I right?

You might want to look at the old testament....Deuteronomy comes to mind.

 

[Earthling]

*Facepalm*

You heard me. Painfully obvious to anyone with any sense. I've completely abandoned the possibility of there being a conspiracy theory forum added here, but suffice it to say. Christians, not Muslims did 911.

 

[Earthling]

You might want to look at the old testament....Deuteronomy comes to mind.

I've read multiple translations of the Bible, I've studied it for over 20 years. I'm familiar with the book of Deuteronomy.

 

[Wu Wei]

I've read multiple translations of the Bible, I've studied it for over 20 years. I'm familiar with the book of Deuteronomy.

IMHO The Koran is not all that much more violent than the bible. Quran kills the infidel, bible kills people who worship other gods or people who worshipped god and then got involved with someone who worshipped another god. Also justifies a lot of killing in the name of God for purposes of land acquisition

 

[nPeace]

No. 99% of Christians are apostate. The inquisition, the crusades, the eagerness of the modern day Christian to go to war, World War I and World War II where Christians were killing Christians. All examples of the blood thirsty apostate Christendom.

Good. So I am right. Christians who apostatize are not Christians, and those who follow apostates, were never Christian. So the 1% do what Jesus said. They refused to fight wars, or get involved in riots or any political conflicts. They are neutral, and peaceful..

 

[ChristineM]

I don't even remember what you are talking about. Again. That's how much I care. If you disagree with me, by all means, state your case and I will listen to you, but don't badger me. By badger I mean every post I make you supply a little one or two line smart *** remark that means nothing in the arena of discussion or debate. Just because you're pissed off at something I said months ago. Or for any reason.

I like a good argument. Make good points and I will listen.

Considering it has been pointed out to you several times and my case stated before you chose to ignore me. Which happened to be for my insistence you publicly apologize for your insult your ignorance of your own post is even more of an insult. But who could expect more?

You like a good self aggrandisement, you cant cope with an argument in which you are proven wrong. Interestingly, when i, and others challenge you with "good points" you ignore, them, throw on strawmen, or despite your protestation, put them on ignore.

Anyway im done with your ignorance, sleep well

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Good points, though I don't really see much value in the constitution or international law these days. Those things are easily overlooked. The constitution hasn't been worth the paper it was printed on since 1871,

Even 250 years later there is still boundless brilliance found in the Constitution. Jefferson drafted for us the basis of a state that was so far ahead of its time that the world adopted much of the same with the UN declaration of human rights. We have the oldest written Constitution. We have a Constitution that lets us fly the flag or burn the flag. Sure we've had to put in tons of work to get that "all men" part meaning all men and ensuring women are also included, but the Constitution has seized a place in history of more significance than the Magna Carta because it gives rights to those of non-nobility and bans the concept of nobility from the start.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No. 99% of Christians are apostate. The inquisition, the crusades, the eagerness of the modern day Christian to go to war, World War I and World War II where Christians were killing Christians. All examples of the blood thirsty apostate Christendom.

I'm pretty sure that isn't your position to judge. Why would god need to judge us if we humans did it for him?
And the word you'd be looking for is hypocrite, not apostate. Apostate is leaving it all behind (such as how I did), hypocrite is doing one thing even though you should be doing another.

 

[nPeace]

Its really simple - please do try to follow:

Sexual exploitation - of anyone but especially of children is immoral - and even more especially (IMO) if it is "justified" or "sanctioned" or "condoned" or "swept under the carpet" for religious reasons*.

Consensual sexual activity between adults is not.

There - that wasn't so difficult to fathom was it?

*EDIT - fleshing the thought out a bit to show religion's complicity in deliberately conflating moral sexual activities with exploitative and abusive sexual activity:

The fact that it (sexual exploitation like pederasty) was outlawed in some cultures as far back as the bronze age in the middle east proves that it was quite possible for humans to figure that out - even then. The boundaries between childhood and adulthood might be slightly blurred - and to some extent those definitions are matters of convention not morality (e.g. the legal age of consent might be 14 or 15 in one country and 16 or even older in another). But we know this for sure - a grown adult having sex with a 10 year old is wrong - and we have always known that even if we have used religion as an excuse to deny it. And two 15 or 16 years olds of either sex having consensual sex with each other is not immoral - even if their elders would prefer that they wait - and we have always really known that - even if we have used religious and cultural pressure to try and force them to stay "children" long enough to complete their training as economically productive members of society.

What about a consenting 9-13 year old? What makes that morally wrong?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

If you read the Quran you can't help but come away from it with the opinion that it is a violent book. Kill the heretic, kill the infidel, kill the blasphemer. But generally speaking Muslims seem to me to be a peaceful group of people. Oh, sure, there are a relatively few that react poorly to having their countries, cities, towns, farms, and homes destroyed, and their innocent men, women, children and elderly savagely murdered for no apparent reason, but in general they are a peaceable people.

If you read the Bible on the other hand you probably come away from it with the opinion that, though there are wars among the believers and unbelievers its somewhat a contrast to the Quran in that it is more peaceful but the Christians and Jews are notoriously violent comparatively speaking.

Am I right?

You could say the exact same things about the Bible.

"Oh" I hear you say "that's different! You're taking the violent and otherwise troubling bits of the Bible out of context! If you were an actual Christian who had actually studied those bits in context, you'd understand that..."

Well stop right there.

Muslim scholars say the exact same thing about the apparently violent and otherwise problematic bits of the Koran. Now, If WE expect people who aren't members of our faith to take our word for it when we explain away the violent and otherwise problematic bits of our holy book, maybe we should offer Muslims the same courtesy.