UN Workers 'Beheaded' In Afghan Koran Protest

[Mr Sparkle]

ATG said:

For every verse you pull out which talks about violence, any 3-year old could find ones that unambiguously proscribes it ... "thou shalt not kill" is fairly unambiguous, wouldn't you say?

Indeed, but why are all the violent ones in there?

ATG said:

So where exactly does literalism get you when you're faced with two sentences that seem equally clear and yet are entirely contradictory?

Shows what nonsense it all is, and if I wanted to be argumentative I might suggest that books which are nonsense are more suitable for keeping us warm that educating our morals.

carmonk said:

I'd be interested in seeing a poll of how much Muslims in the UK agree with these actions.

Judging by the time I spent at Bradford University, among the 'educated' that should know better, I suspect its an awful lot more than people would like to admit. Particularly the younger generations.

[Godzuki]

[ATG]

carmonk said:

You haven't done it yet.

I think you did it for me when you said that "a religious person has to make a choice" ... the text doesn't pull them along by the nose; the reader can't avoid using their own judgement.

The religious often claim to be holding on to eternal, invariant truths as expressed in their sacred texts. But step back and look at the reality. At any one point in time you'll see dozens of competing interpretations. And if you look across history the mainstream interpretations vary even more wildly. With every generation every society reinvents its religions. Stable, prosperous societies lead to moderation and tolerance ... violent chaos breeds violent and chaotic religion. People turn to their religious texts and see their own immediate world reflected back at them. Someone who wants to find justification for retribution will find it. Someone who wants to find tolerance will find it.

[968]

JagLover said:

When people describe Islam as being historically a 'tolerant' religion. That is in comparison to countries such as Spain that drove out all non-christians and subject to inquisition any who converted who might have done so in pretence (along with numurous others). It doesn't mean that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. It spread by the sword as the Arabs swept through the middle east and North Africa. The unbeliever might be permitted to live, but they will do so under muslim rule, and for those who 'blaspheme' they will see how 'tolerant' Islam is.

Nonsense. This post displays your complete ignorance of Islamic history and of huge periods of history in vast swathes of the world. Please do post a few more cliched bits of rubbish though, you surely have the audience for it here. Or how about actually reading some history about other parts of the world?

[968]

The real Apache said:

Anyone else had enough of this st? why are our boys coming home in coffins? to protect these savages?!! these inbred neanderthal muslim retards went ape because of one blokes actions in a country a thousand times further than any of them have been on a camel, s

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Video-...

Savages.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill...

[Godzuki]

ATG said:

I think you did it for me when you said that "a religious person has to make a choice" ... the text doesn't pull them along by the nose; the reader can't avoid using their own judgement.

It is that very judgement that is in question. The very vague and ambiguous nature of these bloody texts is the reason you have nice folks, and utterly violent religitards. The fact there are nice folks, doesn't mean they are any more correct than the religitards.

ATG said:

The religious often claim to be holding on to eternal, invariant truths as expressed in their sacred texts. But step back and look at the reality. At any one point in time you'll see dozens of competing interpretations. And if you look across history the mainstream interpretations vary even more wildly. With every generation every society reinvents its religions. Stable, prosperous societies lead to moderation and tolerance ... violent chaos breeds violent and chaotic religion. People turn to their religious texts and see their own immediate world reflected back at them. Someone who wants to find justification for retribution will find it. Someone who wants to find tolerance will find it.

And surely this is a very negative thing about these unchanging, primitive texts?

[Godzuki]

968 said:

Savages.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill...

Just for you!

[968]

Godzuki said:

Just for you!

Yep no differences I can see there.

[Godzuki]

968 said:

Yep no differences I can see there.

Well, in other news, the US Army has been quite anti-atheist recently, if reports I've been reading are correct.

[The real Apache]

968 said:

The real Apache said:

Anyone else had enough of this st? why are our boys coming home in coffins? to protect these savages?!! these inbred neanderthal muslim retards went ape because of one blokes actions in a country a thousand times further than any of them have been on a camel, s

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Video-...

Savages.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill...

quite.....although the point eludes me

[968]

Godzuki said:

Well, in other news, the US Army has been quite anti-atheist recently, if reports I've been reading are correct.

I wasn't being sarcastic. I think the hypocrisy of this thread is quite amazing. People read what they want to, ie Afghans = nasty savages, and America = heroic and brave, rather than murderers who mutilate corpses of the random civilians they kill and keep trophies of them.

[ATG]

Mr Sparkle said:

Indeed, but why are all the violent ones in there?

Coz they were written by people, and the urge for a bit of righteous anger and retribution is a common human trait, just like as it is for people to wishing we'd all be nicer to each other. We're all a mass of contradictory urges and thoughts, so why wouldn't we expect our religious texts to be the same? (Unless of course you believe in gods?)

[Godzuki]

968 said:

I wasn't being sarcastic. I think the hypocrisy of this thread is quite amazing. People read what they want to, ie Afghans = nasty savages, and America = heroic and brave, rather than murderers who mutilate corpses of the random civilians they kill and keep trophies of them.

I got your point, hence the pic I posted. When a muslim leader calls on God in a conflict, they are seem as extremist, and fundamentalist, and yet if it is a western politician, they are not.

[968]

The real Apache said:

quite.....although the point eludes me

Have you read it? Indeed can you read?

[rich1231]

968 said:

Savages.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill...

I'd urge those looking at this link to read the remarks made by the Company Commander that has posted.

[ATG]

Godzuki said:

ATG said:

I think you did it for me when you said that "a religious person has to make a choice" ... the text doesn't pull them along by the nose; the reader can't avoid using their own judgement.

It is that very judgement that is in question. The very vague and ambiguous nature of these bloody texts is the reason you have nice folks, and utterly violent religitards. The fact there are nice folks, doesn't mean they are any more correct than the religitards.

Exactly.

Godzuki said:

ATG said:

The religious often claim to be holding on to eternal, invariant truths as expressed in their sacred texts. But step back and look at the reality. At any one point in time you'll see dozens of competing interpretations. And if you look across history the mainstream interpretations vary even more wildly. With every generation every society reinvents its religions. Stable, prosperous societies lead to moderation and tolerance ... violent chaos breeds violent and chaotic religion. People turn to their religious texts and see their own immediate world reflected back at them. Someone who wants to find justification for retribution will find it. Someone who wants to find tolerance will find it.

And surely this is a very negative thing about these unchanging, primitive texts?

Not really. It tells you a lot more about people than it tells you about the texts.

[Godzuki]

It does tell you about the people, but the fact they have this ambiguous text, and a bunch of power hungry cleric types backing them up, and reinforcing these things, then it IS going to go pear shaped. Thes epeople may be fktards without religion, but it is that very sacred reinforcment that means they enact these things, enmasse.

[carmonk]

968 said:

Godzuki said:

Well, in other news, the US Army has been quite anti-atheist recently, if reports I've been reading are correct.

I wasn't being sarcastic. I think the hypocrisy of this thread is quite amazing. People read what they want to, ie Afghans = nasty savages, and America = heroic and brave, rather than murderers who mutilate corpses of the random civilians they kill and keep trophies of them.

Are you actually making a point? You might as well have linked to the trial of Ted Bundy for all the relevance your post had. Every culture has murderers, so what?

[968]

rich1231 said:

I'd urge those looking at this link to read the remarks made by the Company Commander that has posted.

Which one?

[The real Apache]

968 said:

The real Apache said:

quite.....although the point eludes me

Have you read it? Indeed can you read?

Are you a cretin?