User Controls
National Anti-Muslim Day (US)
-
2017-06-08 at 5:49 AM UTC
Originally posted by Nil Isn't that a bit of a stretch, they're literally called Christians, as in it's Christ and His word that matters. Only some retard creationist piece of shit from like kentucky brings up the old testament to justify some shit that isn't "be good to your neighbor, turn the other cheek, etc etc. Although I don't really know much about this shit and wouldn't claim too.
EDIT: SHIT!!!!
Christ's words:
Relevant passage of the New Testament:
https://biblia.com/bible/niv/Matt%205.17-19
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them"
The dismissal of the Old Testament is a giant case of convenient interpretation. As far as I can tell, there is no justification from within real Christian text for ignoring the Old Testament.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-06-08 at 5:56 AM UTC
Originally posted by BOSS Christ's words:
Relevant passage of the New Testament:
https://biblia.com/bible/niv/Matt%205.17-19
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them"
The dismissal of the Old Testament is a giant case of convenient interpretation. As far as I can tell, there is no justification from within real Christian text for ignoring the Old Testament.
To be fair there are no lack of verses that do support the abolishment of Old Testament law.
Romans 7:6 ESV
But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.
--
Again as I've said it's all complete pick and choose, in a book that claims God is not the author of confusion. -
2017-06-08 at 5:57 AM UTC
Originally posted by AltarEgo Protip: THEY FUCKING ARENT BIIIITCH
The crusades were a response to islamic provocation. Sure they were holy wars but they were obviously justified on the grounds that god willed it and the crusaders fucking won.
Also the pragmatic approach is not to dismiss anything. You obviously dont understand what the term pragmatic means as it is not sensible to say "we must dismiss religious thought entirely but do so by dismissing some religious thought before dismissing the rest".
Whether or not they were a response to Islamic provocation is irrelevant to the fact that they were initiated (as a full war) by the Christians, and the Christians by far committed the worst atrocities during them. Also The crusaders did not "win". The Crusades concluded with the Muslims holding on to the Holy Land. So I'm not sure what you're getting at there.
As to your second point, you're misunderstanding something written in plain English; secularism is not atheism and it's not the abokishion of religious thought, it is the separation of religious thought from other thought. -
2017-06-08 at 6:02 AM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ To be fair there are no lack of verses that do support the abolishment of Old Testament law.
Romans 7:6 ESV
But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.
–
Again as I've said it's all complete pick and choose, in a book that claims God is not the author of confusion.
I believe those were the words of Paul, whereas the quoted section from Matthew are supposed to be a direct quote from Christ. But I understand and agree with your point, it just seems that from the most literal interpretation of the Bible, "Old Testament still applies" definitely seems to win out. -
2017-06-08 at 6:02 AM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ Romans 7:6 ESV
ffs I was happy and content with his explanation and now you just fucked that up, goddamn religion and it's mass of contradictory bullshit.
k, I'm gonna stop shitting up this thread with my low effort/value replies.
Post last edited by Nil at 2017-06-08T06:05:00.378762+00:00 -
2017-06-08 at 6:06 AM UTC
Originally posted by AltarEgo Hahaha look at this faggot. He thinks that he can generalize the west. He thinks he determines who is rational. What a fucking moron.
Here is another protip. Humans are not rational. Society isnt rational. Carl Scheele found hella elements but died of mercury poisoning because he likes tasting his discoveries. Pythagoras died over some fucking beans. Alan turing was a fag. None of that is rational but all of these people contributed loads more than you ever will.
No, humans are not perfectly rational machines. But we can do our best. Most of society's liberal values have emerged through thought that has been conducted by the use of methods of rationality. For example, the use of Kant's categorical imperative can establish many of our current western ideals of freedom and individual liberties and protections. If we view western society as being our ideal standard (which is, simply speaking, tautologically true) then we can establish what Western ideals mean in a broad sense. That's not a problem at all. -
2017-06-08 at 6:07 AM UTCHaha what a fucking mong. Still trying to rationalize. It is obvious to any observer that my point in superior and yours inferior. You cannot separate the spiritual thoughts from other thoughts as spiritual people see thought as inherently spiritual.
Basically you can sieve the extremists out all you want but no matter what at some stage a moderate will conclude that extremist doctrine is the only means to achieve the end goal of islam. So essentially as much as you try to separate wheat from chaff the chaff is too long the wheat too dense and your shears too dull. -
2017-06-08 at 6:08 AM UTC
Originally posted by AltarEgo Haha what a fucking mong. Still trying to rationalize. It is obvious to any observer that my point in superior and yours inferior. You cannot separate the spiritual thoughts from other thoughts as spiritual people see thought as inherently spiritual.
If you feel the need to proclaim that you're right rather than letting your points stand for themselves, you are probably wrong. Secondly, the presence of spiritual thought does not mean that the person must view all thoughts through a spiritual lens. There is simply no reason to believe that.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-06-08 at 6:10 AM UTC
Originally posted by BOSS Most of society's liberal values have emerged through thought that has been conducted by the use of methods of rationality
Damn. You just went full retard. Liberal values are certianlt not rational.
And yes there is a difference between classical liberalism and modern liberal values. The former being rationally based and the latter being a socially suicidal mentality. -
2017-06-08 at 6:10 AM UTC
Originally posted by AltarEgo Basically you can sieve the extremists out all you want but no matter what at some stage a moderate will conclude that extremist doctrine is the only means to achieve the end goal of islam. So essentially as much as you try to separate wheat from chaff the chaff is too long the wheat too dense and your shears too dull.
If the moderates have a moderate view of Islam then their view of Islam's goals will be moderate and therefore will not lead to radicalisation. This is tautologically true. -
2017-06-08 at 6:13 AM UTC
Originally posted by BOSS There is simply no reason to believe that.
The writings of the philokalia, the catechism, various daoist and buddhist texts on meditation and metaphysics, texts from bon, the entire jedi faith, islamic tradition, discordian principles, the bhagvad gita, and myriad other spiritual writings disagree. -
2017-06-08 at 6:14 AM UTC
-
2017-06-08 at 6:15 AM UTC
Originally posted by AltarEgo Damn. You just went full retard. Liberal values are certianlt not rational.
And yes there is a difference between classical liberalism and modern liberal values. The former being rationally based and the latter being a socially suicidal mentality.
I am in fact referring to classical liberalism. This eliminates your criticism in your post.
You are clearly arguing in bad faith and deliberately ignoring the principle of charity.
http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html
That is why your arguments are so easy to dismiss, despite my attempts to be as charitable as possible with them. -
2017-06-08 at 6:16 AM UTC
Originally posted by AltarEgo What is the moderate vs extremist interpretation of "create a global islamic caliphate"?
You are begging the question; there is no reason to believe that a moderate Muslim's interpretation of Islam includes the establishment of a global caliphate as an end goal.
Post last edited by BOSS at 2017-06-08T06:26:11.261360+00:00 -
2017-06-08 at 6:22 AM UTCAlterEgo you should calm with the name calling to start every post of yours. It seriously makes your stance look weaker. :)
-
2017-06-08 at 6:25 AM UTC
Originally posted by AltarEgo The writings of the philokalia, the catechism, various daoist and buddhist texts on meditation and metaphysics, texts from bon, the entire jedi faith, islamic tradition, discordian principles, the bhagvad gita, and myriad other spiritual writings disagree.
Of course doctrines that assert themselves as being complete ways of life for their followers will seek to assert themselves over their followers' complete ways of life. This is tautologically true.
But that is not the issue nor the claim. Your reasoning is circular. The fact is that religious thought can exist alongside rational thought. That is definitionally what the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance allows for. If spiritual thought could not coexist with non-spiritual thought or with secular thought, we wouldn't, for example, have anyone transitioning from religion to atheism. We have direct, observable and experimental proof of this in action; of any of the faiths involved with the texts you mentioned, you will find secular members in modern western society. For example, all the Christians who partake in premarital sex and so on.
You are trying to argue against reality. -
2017-06-08 at 6:26 AM UTC
Originally posted by BOSS You are clearly arguing in bad faith and deliberately ignoring the principle of charity.
Bad faith is better than no faith biiitch. I see you as an idiot since you keep trying to make arguments using "tautology" and philosophic name dropping.
Btw you have been responding to a drunk shitposter who doesnt give a fuck about how structured your argument is. You are a fucking moron for actually responding to me.
Suck my metaphysical dick you dense piece of shit. You are wrong in your assessment of islam and absolutely incoherent in your dissmisal of spiritual thought. -
2017-06-08 at 6:27 AM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ AlterEgo you should calm with the name calling to start every post of yours. It seriously makes your stance look weaker. :)
Yeah dude. My stance is weak as hell. I got a bad ankle so its obviously not that strong.
Edit: im drunk and disorderly right now so i wont calm down you chootie fuck.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-06-08 at 6:29 AM UTC
Originally posted by AltarEgo Bad faith is better than no faith biiitch. I see you as an idiot since you keep trying to make arguments using "tautology" and philosophic name dropping.
Btw you have been responding to a drunk shitposter who doesnt give a fuck about how structured your argument is. You are a fucking moron for actually responding to me.
Suck my metaphysical dick you dense piece of shit. You are wrong in your assessment of islam and absolutely incoherent in your dissmisal of spiritual thought.
I'm glad you can admit that you're wrong. That's the first step to not being wrong, and possibly to being right.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-06-08 at 6:32 AM UTCAltarEgo, thank you for giving me a platform with which to address each of the arguments you raised, even if they were in bad faith.
