1. Hi there, Guest

    Only registered users can really experience what DLP has to offer. Many forums are only accessible if you have an account. Why don't you register?
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Want some serious feedback about your writing? Enter the Q3 2019 Story Competition!

    Topic(s): EITHER
    - What the Professors get up to in the summers.
    - Ritual Magic!

    Word count: 17.5k max (no minimum)
    Deadline: September 9th
    Check out the Competition Page
    Dismiss Notice
  3. The Q3 2019 Story Competition has 20 DAYS LEFT! (September 9th)

    Check out the Competition Page and get writing folks!
    Dismiss Notice

Manchester Arena attack

Discussion in 'Politics' started by bolko7, May 23, 2017.

  1. GiantMonkeyMan

    GiantMonkeyMan High Inquisitor

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    542
    Location:
    UK
    It's kind of stupid to suggest that religious violence is unique or particularly apparent in Islam. You have Christian militias in Africa beheading Muslim rural workers in the name of the peace of Jesus. You have Hindus in India attacking Christians, Sikhs and Muslims. You even have Buddhists in Sri Lanka and Myanmar attacking Muslims.

    Violence runs parallel with poverty and inequality and the history of colonialism and, in a more contemporary context, the decolonisation and imperialism of modern states has only exacerbated the economic conditions people face in the Middle East in particular. Humans aren't born wanting to blow themselves up. They develop in conditions that set them on these negative directions.
     
  2. enembee

    enembee The Nicromancer DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2008
    Messages:
    301
    Location:
    Murias
    High Score:
    2,451
    Not to mention that if you look at insurgencies that have largely failed to achieve their aims (for instance the IRA and ETA) and insurgencies that have largely succeeded (for instance the Vietcong), we can see how these sorts of wars end. Very, very rarely is there an actual campaign that ends it. Usually the civilian support on one side tires of the fighting making the process of continuing untenable even for the most militant fighter.

    I don't want to turn this into a theological debate, but there's passages in the New Testament that could be easily warped to make the argument that the covenants of the Old Testament are not null and void.

    For instance:

     
  3. Arthellion

    Arthellion Lord of the Banned ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    230
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    2398

    Saying that that verse supports the old testament as still valid is completely against what the verse says. Jesus fulfills the laws of the old testament (sacrificial law) and therefore there is no longer any need for old testament law.

    Saying that this verse supports living out old testament law would be improper exegesis of the text to the extreme without considering the greater context. In fact, that scripture actually does away with the old testament law because Jesus has fulfilled it so there is no longer any need for humans to live according to it.

    Not the place for the discussion though. Is there a religion thread that we could hop to continue that discussion?
     
  4. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,463
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Connecticut
    High Score:
    2810
    The fact that you both have wildly different interpretations simply proves our point.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2017
  5. Arthellion

    Arthellion Lord of the Banned ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    230
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    2398
    Except (correct me if I'm wrong) enembee is not trained in theology or how to properly interpret scripture. experts on the Bible almost all uniformly agree (across denominations) on what that text means based on context, the Greek language, and interpretation by later verses.

    The Bible isn't fluid meaning whatever you want it to mean based on your interpretation. It has objectively true doctrines about it that to deny means denying the Bible as the authority on Christianity at which point it can be argued you are not truly Christian.

    Are there disagreements? Yes, but most of those disagreements are over minor things such as child baptism or predestination. In those cases there are scriptures that can support either side.

    Fundamental doctrines such as Jesus living, old v new covenant, God's existence and forgiveness are almost all uniformly agreed upon by biblical scholars and experts.

    It's the equivalent of how almost all scientists support climate change yet you have deniers doing so for their own benefit
     
  6. Chengar Qordath

    Chengar Qordath The Final Pony ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,206
    High Score:
    1,802
    The one problem with talking about how theologians interpret the text is that ever since the printing press more and more people have been reading it for themselves and coming to their own conclusions.
     
  7. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,463
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Connecticut
    High Score:
    2810
    So you believe he's got an unorthodox interpretation. Perhaps one outside of the mainstream? Dare I say, even an extremist one?

    Congrats, now you understand the nature of the relationship between extremist Wahhabism/Salafism and the Qur'an.
     
  8. Banta

    Banta The Chosen One DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,226
    Neither was bin Laden, and that didn't stop him from interpreting the Quran and other Islamic texts to suit his purpose.

    The exact same is true for Islam.

    Also, those "minor" disagreements seem like a pretty big deal considering Christianity has fractured into numerous denominations over the years.
     
  9. Arthellion

    Arthellion Lord of the Banned ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    230
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    2398
    Agreed. And point conceded.

    As I said, need to do more research on Islam as my view has been primarily informed by a simple reading of the Islamic texts and then of course western biases in information distribution.

    ---------- Post automerged at 09:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:08 PM ----------

    Denominations are odd. Have we split and fractured into denomintions? Yes, bu those are ecclesiastical differences. They refer primarily to how we run our services and individual church government.

    However, I believe that as long as the fundamentals are there (belief in God, the cross, forgivenss of sins, etc) a person is a christian and my brother/sister regardless of denomination. I have no less love for my baptist brothers and sisters as I do for my methodist ones.

    Its the equivalent of your sibling enjoying a different football team than yourself.You might get into a heated debate over which team is better, but at the end of the day they are still family.
     
  10. KHAAAAAAAN!!

    KHAAAAAAAN!! Troll in the Dungeon ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2011
    Messages:
    1,974
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Under your bed.
    High Score:
    2,002
    Well, you're particularly enlightened then. Sadly, a sizable portion of Christians don't see it that way. Dozens of wars have been waged over those little ecclesiastical differences. Catholics and protestants are STILL murdering each other because of them. Shit... my grandmother was straight up excommunicated from the catholic church and shunned from her family for marrying a Lutheran.

    There is really nothing inherent tothe various doctrines of christianity that set it apart from any other religious doctrine. People interpret it differently, and those interpretations become the foundations of people's lives. Along comes crazy nutjob bro who holds that any challenge to said interpretation, be it from a separate denomination or another religion entirely, their crazy ass sees it as an afront to his life / his god / his faith. Lo and behold, conflict breaks out and people usually die.
     
  11. Arthellion

    Arthellion Lord of the Banned ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    230
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    2398

    I'll end my discussion on this with this post since we are following a rabbit trail majorly...

    "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." John 13:34-35

    Considering these are the words of Jesus and He kinda is ya know...the authoritative word on Christianity...I'd question the validity of a person's faith and relationship with God if they acted in such a manner. It's certainly not biblical. Of course Jesus also said there would be many who believed they were saved when they actually aren't as well so I'm not surprised.

    Sorry for the rabbit trail, but anyways...that's not okay according to the Bible.
     
  12. methor

    methor Fourth Year

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2011
    Messages:
    138
    I've always liked Mathew 10
     
  13. KHAAAAAAAN!!

    KHAAAAAAAN!! Troll in the Dungeon ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2011
    Messages:
    1,974
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Under your bed.
    High Score:
    2,002
    You've just revalidated all our points though. You have chosen to rigidly adhere to the precept of universal love laid down in the Bible. Good for you. How about all those christians that stoned homosexuals in the 80s? How bout all those godfearin whities that lynched blacks during the slave eras and civil rights movement? Did they rigidly adhere to that rule? Are they not christians? They certainly thought they were. If you were to reply they stopped being christians the minute they murdered somebody.... well... that's the same argument non-extremist muslims make against radicals.

    For example, there is a similar universal love precept in the Qur'an.

    "Allah commands you to uphold justice and to do good to others...." 16:90

    Suicide bombers arent exactly adhering to this principle very rigidly are they?

    I reiterate. Nothing about Christianity sets it apart from other doctrines. People pick and choose which parts of any given religious text they want to follow, be it the Qur'an or the Bible or the Torah, as either justification to do good or justification to do evil.

    Discussion over.
     
  14. Arthellion

    Arthellion Lord of the Banned ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    230
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    2398

    ....

    And here we have the perfect example of a theological text being taken out of context (trying to get back to the main discussion). Unless of course Methor truly does love that verse and wants his parents to force him to choose between his religion and hisfamily its a moot point, but I believe that's sarcasm.

    Just a few verses before the verse methor quoted we see this in Matthew 10:19-23:

    “ 19 When they deliver you over, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say, for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour. 20 For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. 21 Brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death, 22 and you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. 23 When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. "


    So we see that the verse methor quoted is actually in reference to the fact that Jesus is warning his disciples that following Him will cause their own family members to turn against them. We see this happen in the early church as many christians were handed over to the Roman government and executed. We see it today in more extreme versions in the middle east of people who convert to Christianity being executed by their families.


    As I said earlier to Revan, point conceded and agreed to the extent that people can misinterpret texts to justify their good or evil.

    I would argue that there is one key factor that sets apart Christianity from other doctrines however. In other religions it is about your actions. In Christianity, it is about the actions of Jesus.

    You don't become a Christian. You don't save yourself. In fact, most denominations of Christianity would agree that it is impossible for your to. According to the Bible and Christian doctrine, Jesus does that to you. Wherease other religions are about your actions. Christianity is about the actions of Jesus.

    A Christian is one who has been saved by Jesus. The evidence of that is love for one another and spiritual fruit. It is nothing you work to do. It is simply who you have become as a result of what Jesus did to you.

    You mentioned that I would say those who lynched blacks or stoned gays ceased to be Christians...I would argue they were never Christians in the first place. Being a Christian is not what you do, it is what is done to you.
     
  15. Invictus

    Invictus Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,777
    Location:
    Cidade Maravilhosa
    Just one thing, that guy, the taxi driver, is Sikh. https://www.facebook.com/SikhChannel840/posts/10154445618942791 The name of the organization below him is a big indicative of that (Singh, despite being somewhat common in India, its very associated with Sikhsm).

    Edit: Here he is. https://twitter.com/singhlions

    Ah, as expected, a shitstorm was had.

    Early Christendom was marked by Martyrdom. Christ was humanity's greatest martyr. Your ignorance regarding religions in general confuses me, since you're very willing to discuss topics you show yourself completely inept to hold any kind of conversation that isn't social media versions of it. I mean, anarchists were synonymous with bombers for a long time, but no one is going to colleges and beating down anarchist teachers.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2017
  16. Innomine

    Innomine Death Eater ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    982
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New Zealand
    High Score:
    4,500
    Edit: Left this post sitting on my comp for 90 mins by mistake, but the points are still relevant.

    The point being made here isn't necessarily theological in nature. It's a question of interpretation. The point being that it's not religion that's inherently violent, it's people that are. Ie, there are various ways to interpret both religions in a way that justifies violence, but the factors which actually lead to violence tend to be external to the religion involved.

    In this case, we have an area which is historically Islamic (the middle east) and the people are pushed up against a wall in shitty conditions with nowhere left to turn. They see us as one of the reasons for these problems, and they then find solace in extremism and martyrdom. This is hardly anything new or unique in the history of mankind, the only thing that's different is that modern technology has made it a lot easier for extremists to kill a bunch of people in a crowded area (ie, explosives are very effective and causing fear and instability).

    To generalise even more, what is true does not actually matter, the only thing that influences what people do is what they believe to be true. In their current situation, they are (due to external factors) more likely to believe the extremist interpretations.

    As Enembee noted here earlier, it is very important that we learn the lessons of history. The problem of Islamic terrorism will not by solved by violence, or if it does end up being solved by violence, the cost will be so extreme that we (the west) will almost certainly give up geopolitical dominance to other interests (ie China or Russia). This is the reason that the media and establishment narrative is so careful about not painting all Muslims with the same brush, because if we do, we end up in another series of costly wars in which everyone loses. Well, except the extremists who will pat themselves on the back for a job well done.
     
  17. joshuafaramir

    joshuafaramir Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    731
    Location:
    Elsewhere
    Here's a little history lesson for you and Invictus.

    When Christianity was just starting, for 2 centuries the Romans persecuted Christians with extreme prejudice. They were burned, fed alive in the arena with their families, etc. Suffice to say that what the Muslims feel like "persecution" has nothing in face of what the early Christians did during that time till 313 A.D.

    Now, the question is, did those Christians commit acts of terrorism, fighting and killing innocent civilians? Did they kill other people before they themselves got killed? Nope.

    In fact, how did Christianity thrive and multiply during these times of supreme hardship and persecution? Through perseverance and adherence to what their faith (Jesus) taught them. The Christians were among the poorest of the poor Lindsey. They were not your "privileged" people with a lot of rights. The Romans killed them, the Jews hated them and yet, they never resorted to what Muslims are doing.

    You say terrorism multiplies due to suppression and subjugation and persecution of an ideology or religious belief but in fact, history has shown us that Christianity did not resort to violence and terrorism during the most violent persecuted era was upon them. They still multiplied by sharing the Gospel, by obeying what Jesus commanded them to do in face of persecution. Showing grace and kindness to to those who killed them, hunted them, ridiculed them. That's what made Christianity so appealing.

    Only when Christianity was legalized by Constantine and given a whole lot of power that corrupted what real Christianity was all about.

    See my friends, that is the difference between Islam and Christianity. Don't look at what Christianity is now, look at when it started and how the Christians acted during those times.

    ---------- Post automerged at 12:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:37 AM ----------

    Did you read the last part of my sentence? Here let me reiterate it for you. There just isn't the same theological justification. There is no theological justification in Christianity to go and commit acts of terrorism as martyrdom. Christ didn't say "Go and kill infidels in my name, and you will inherit the kingdom of God." Now compare that it Islam, you'll find a whole lot of encouragement there and divine rewards.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2017
  18. Invictus

    Invictus Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,777
    Location:
    Cidade Maravilhosa
    You're just trying to diguise the fact that you don't know what martyrdom is with a copy pasted text from what you can find in any shitty Christian website from five seconds of googling.

    You're missing the fact that Christianism was an extremely fractious religion, that they considered themselves Jews for decades to centuries, that there were so so so many heresies and crazy stuff in that meantime, that bishops discouraged martyrdom snd yet fanatics kept pushing for it, that the persecution that happened wasn't that kind of Hollywood story you're describing, etc etc.

    Of course you're also being profoundly intellectually dishonest, since any kind of mass armed resistance by Christians would mean in genocide. The Jews in Jerusalem discovered that in the worse way and they were way more powerful and organized than Christians at the time. Even when Constantine made it part of the establishment, Christians weren't more than 10%. There's a reason Jews didn't see violence struggle against Nazis as a feasible idea.

    Mind you, I am just saying this for the sake of the other people in this thread, I don't expect you to really read or absorb any kind of information presented by anyone here that challenges your narrow-minded and bigoted way of seeing things. You relish in your ignorance, and on insulting and diminishing other people and feelings Superior on merits that are far from yours.

    Who are you to claim that Christians today, any of them, and specially the Catholics one (the heir of Christ according to the scriptures) aren't worthy of being called Christians? Finally, yeah, there's evidence of Christians attacking pagans even in the early church years.

    This only serves to illustrate the point that wicked men will always diguise themselves under masks of righteousness and justifications for their acts, but their true motivations will never change, no matter excuse.

    Regarding jihad, Jesus himself something that can be easily misconstrued as a call to war to eradicate infidels.

    "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword"

    Context and a study on what Christ meant and interpretation enters here to explain what he truly meant by this. Joe's Nemesis is a true scholar of the subject and can explain this much better. (Even if he is a heretic)
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2017
  19. joshuafaramir

    joshuafaramir Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    731
    Location:
    Elsewhere
    Are you serious?

    "At a Spanish council held at the turn of the 3rd and 4th centuries, the bishops denied the crown of martyrdom to those who died while attacking pagan temples. According to Ramsey MacMullen, the provocation was just "too blatant". Drake cites this as evidence that Christians resorted to violence, including physical, at times..

    There, completely different to what my example of theological justification. As for your Bible verse example, suffice to say that Arthellion has already explained to you what "out of context" means.

    Who are you to claim that Christians today, any of them, and specially the Catholics one (the heir of Christ according to the scriptures) aren't worthy of being called Christians? Finally, yeah, there's evidence of Christians attacking pagans even in the early church years.

    As for this part, there are Scriptural references and commands that clearly defines how a real Christ follower should act. If there is somebody who claims to be a Christian yet does not show any inclination of following Jesus Christ's commands (as he is the Christian God), how then will the person justify his claim as Christian? In fact, other Christians are called to discipline and guide those who claim they are with Christ yet show no remorse for disobedience to Christ's commands.


    "that the persecution that happened wasn't that kind of Hollywood story you're describing, etc etc. "

    You deny historical facts about the violent persecution Christians faced during that time period?" Well, I guess there's nothing more to say then.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2017
  20. Invictus

    Invictus Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,777
    Location:
    Cidade Maravilhosa
    Uh. No. Suicide bombing and terrorism were actually long used western practices imported first by Jews against the British during the Mandate over the Levant and then it expanded through the Middle East because, surprise surprise, it works in terrorising people and being cost effective to reach your objectives. Colonialism didn't create suicide bombings. Modern society did, specially it's paranoia and the media. I assure you, without the media, terrorism would be far less effective.

    So no. There was no social phenomena that made killing yourself acceptable. People started doing it, saw it was effective and then spent decades creating narratives to justify that in whatever culture they used, just adapting it as the enemy change. The baseline though, was always the same 'die for a glorious cause' and that was true both for an anarchist in 1840 and an Arab kid with a bomb jacket in 2008.

    And joshuafaramir, congrats on the no True Scotsman argument while arguing that it's logical opposite should be applied to Muslims. And on completely missing the point of my argument. And on trying to deflect a real answer by saying 'I don't have to answer X, because Y answered it with reasons'.

    I have to ask. Did you... Actually ever read the Bible? I mean read it, really read it and reflected on it. Because I don't think so. Your claims about it are always shallow and generic and general in the worse ways, you are unable to produce any kind of fitting quotes and explain their meanings, hell, you can't even talk to me about Christian doctrine and systematic beliefs without resorting to whataboutism and referring to others.
     
Loading...