A Day Without Sharia

[kentonio]

4) World wide polls of muslims show that around 80% of muslims support Sharia specifically including the part about apostates being put to death..

Err, what?

[Kidlicious]

You do know you just voted for a billionaire with business interests all over the globe right?

What does that have to do with spreading propaganda against a people so that you can take over their country?

[Proteus_MST]

Ah, here is the problem. No one was saying that you couldn't Chery pick verses out of the Bible to make it look bad.

One of the main accusations that american reborn christians throw towards moderate christians is, that they cherry pick the bible.
And they are right ... actually they, themselves, also cheerry pick ... cherry picking is something that christians do all of the time ... mixing verses (from OT and NT) that fit to the morals they want to adhere (or the morals that currently are en vogue) and disregard others that don't fit.

Christians used the bible to justify slavery (the bible contains lots of passages that look like slavery is O.K. ... and even, that a certain "tribe", the children of Ham (identified by those christians as black people), are destined, by god, to be slaves).
Just like the bible justified that burning witches and kiling people of other faiths is O.K.

The bible even contains a lot of passages that were, till the 60s, generally used to justify that the man is he head of the household and the wife has to be subservient to her husband (it was actually your beloved Paul who said this ... see Colossians 3:18 or Ephesians 5:22-24)
And Pauls passages were, during countless centuries, used in order to "keep the woman at her place", which is, as a willing servant to her husband

You won't find many christians in western countries anymore who think those passages are important ... they clearly cherry pick their biblical passages as it seems to be fitting due to changing society/morality

[Kidlicious]

Err, what?

The graph should be considered in the immigration decision making process.

[Kidlicious]

One of the main accusations that american reborn christians throw towards moderate christians is, that they cherry pick the bible.
And they are right ... actually they, themselves, also cheerry pick ... cherry picking is something that christians do all of the time ... mixing verses (from OT and NT) that fit to the morals they want to adhere (or the morals that currently are en vogue) and disregard others that don't fit.

Christians used the bible to justify slavery (the bible contains lots of passages that look like slavery is O.K. ... and even, that a certain "tribe", the children of Ham (identified by those christians as black people), are destined, by god, to be slaves).
Just like the bible justified that burning witches and kiling people of other faiths is O.K.

The bible even contains a lot of passages that were, till the 60s, generally used to justify that the man is he head of the household and the wife has to be subservient to her husband (it was actually your beloved Paul who said this ... see Colossians 3:18 or Ephesians 5:22-24)
And Pauls passages were, during countless centuries, used in order to "keep the woman at her place", which is, as a willing servant to her husband

You won't find many christians in western countries anymore who think those passages are important ... they clearly cherry pick their biblical passages as it seems to be fitting due to changing society/morality

I understand that, but to say that Christianity is like Islam is just a bad argument. Christians are not immigrating to the Middle East to destroy Muslim civilization. They aren't terrorizing people. And mostly because, WE AREN'T MUSLIM! This is about the defense of our civilization, and the fact that Christians owned slaves 150 years ago isn't relevant.

[kentonio]

They aren't terrorizing people.

You don't think dropping millions of tons of high explosives over Muslim countries over many decades counts as terrorizing?

[Kidlicious]

You don't think dropping millions of tons of high explosives over Muslim countries over many decades counts as terrorizing?

No. You obviously don't have any idea what terrorism is. According to your definition, your country terrorized the nazis.

[kentonio]

No. You obviously don't have any idea what terrorism is. According to your definition, your country terrorized the nazis.

We did terrorize the nazis. That was one of the major reasons for fire bombing cities, to spread terror in order to convince the German public to surrender.

[Kidlicious]

We did terrorize the nazis. That was one of the major reasons for fire bombing cities, to spread terror in order to convince the German public to surrender.

That was not the reason for the attack. It was to cause confusion in the enemy and obstruct troop movement.

[ZEE]

This thrade is nothing but 3 pages of absolute Kidicious-PWNageâ„¢.

[Dinner]

The question wasn't actually whether the statements were followed but rather whether (or not) such statements can be found in the bible.
The bible contains as horrible passagesas the Quran.

I for my part compare islam to medieval christianity.
In medieval times you actually had christians killing apostates (just look at the albigensian crusades, for example, where christians killed christians ad captives who didn't return to the "true version of christianity" were put on a pyre (an where also whole cities were razed because they had the wrong faith)

The fact that we (most of us) in the western world now don't kill apostates (or people born to other faiths) anymore (at least not for this fact), that we (most of us) don't shun people for homosexuality, or for sex before marriage and so on isn't thatnks to christianity, but rather due to religion losing its wordly power in society.

Muslim countries went anothr way and they still have to break free from the grip of religious fundametnalism ... but they, as well, can find a version of their faith that oesn't conflict with modern morality ... after all, christians havemanaged to accomplish this as well (even though it took them centuries).

Actually a large percentage of muslims in western countries already seems to adhere to a more moderate form of islam (compared to their brothers in islamist countries) ... no reason to assume that this percentage cannot grow

No, you are just fundamentally wrong. Not a single group had upheld those passages for 2000 years as explicitly it was part of the convenient which ended when the temple was destroyed. As I said, you are very ignorant on this matter.

It is a fact that super majorities of muslims around the world support killing apostates, that is not open to debate, where as it is a fact that not a single group supports the passages you have ignorantly misused. You are trying to draw a false equivalency and you are simply wrong and do not know what you are talking about. Full stop.

[Dinner]

We did terrorize the nazis. That was one of the major reasons for fire bombing cities, to spread terror in order to convince the German public to surrender.

Partially but mostly because technology was so imprecise that mass bombardment was really the only feasible way to reliably hit even large targets. Especially the British who bombed at night and who frequently couldn't even find the right city much less onr building with in said city. So mass bombardment was the way to go, destroy everything (and fire is a good way to do that), so you can br sure the target gets destroyed.

[kentonio]

That was not the reason for the attack. It was to cause confusion in the enemy and obstruct troop movement.

Partially but mostly because technology was so imprecise that mass bombardment was really the only feasible way to reliably hit even large targets. Especially the British who bombed at night and who frequently couldn't even find the right city much less onr building with in said city. So mass bombardment was the way to go, destroy everything (and fire is a good way to do that), so you can br sure the target gets destroyed.

It started out how Dinner describes, but by the end of the war pathfinding improved to the point where 'can we even find the city' really wasnt the issue it was in the early years. 6 years of hard fought experience and huge technological increases in the field made a vast difference to targeting and accuracy, although obviously still primitive by the standards of today.

By the late stages of the war, the firebombing of cities was being done with the very clear intention of trying to force German civilian populations into surrender. This isn't a theory, it was openly discussed by the military chiefs of the time. They were terror attacks, with the alleged moral justification of ending a brutal war quicker to save more lives. Perhaps it contributed to that, but some of the attacks were certainly war crimes, Dresden above all.

[Kidlicious]

It started out how Dinner describes, but by the end of the war pathfinding improved to the point where 'can we even find the city' really wasnt the issue it was in the early years. 6 years of hard fought experience and huge technological increases in the field made a vast difference to targeting and accuracy, although obviously still primitive by the standards of today.

By the late stages of the war, the firebombing of cities was being done with the very clear intention of trying to force German civilian populations into surrender. This isn't a theory, it was openly discussed by the military chiefs of the time. They were terror attacks, with the alleged moral justification of ending a brutal war quicker to save more lives. Perhaps it contributed to that, but some of the attacks were certainly war crimes, Dresden above all.

Something some military chief said isn't proof. Try again, using logic.

[kentonio]

Something some military chief said isn't proof. Try again, using logic.

The reasons the military chiefs of the time openly stated was their reason for carrying out the raids isn't proof? Are you sure you actually know what logic is?