User Controls
Posts by BOSS
-
2017-06-08 at 5:57 AM UTC in National Anti-Muslim Day (US)
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 5:49 AM UTC in National Anti-Muslim Day (US)
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. -
2017-06-08 at 5:47 AM UTC in National Anti-Muslim Day (US)
Originally posted by mmQ I understand.
The supposed nullification of old testament doctrine by the New testament is a …Hair bit convenient. I do wonder why so many still then adhere to the advice of the Psalms and the stories of the O.T. while simultaneously disregarding it's importance or relevance in relation to the N.T.'s nullification of it.
I admittedly know very little about the Qur'an but I know a fair deal about the Bible and I have to assume both books are likely heavily combed over, picked through, and interpreted to whoever's own liking, hence the endless amount of Christian denominations.
There is not really any nullification as far my own studies go. As you said, it is used as a convenient out.
Ultimately, there are Muslims who have "interpreted" their religion to be more in line with progressive values, who no longer present a threat to Western society, the same as Christians. It's to our benefit to make them allies and move them out if Islam by transitioning them through secularism. -
2017-06-08 at 5:43 AM UTC in National Anti-Muslim Day (US)
Originally posted by AltarEgo Who is we here? Stop trying to make your point sound made by blanket stating what is wanted by any party but your own.
And the fight wouldnt be against 1.5 billion mudslimes. They dont let their women do shit and they sure as hell wont train them to fight in fear that they will turn against their owners. So its more like 75 million muslims. But many of those will be children and only good for suicide bombing. So basically we are talking about an army of 45 million towelheads against the America, Canada, the european states, Russia, China and numerous other world powers.
I wouldnt be surprised if the west went full phillipene presiden on them and legalized killing muslims on sight. Muslims stand no chance without cia backing.
Western society. Or at least rational members of western society, who want to minimise loss of life and understand that there is no point in antagonizing the entire Muslim population when the problem is a small subset that can and should be isolated from them. -
2017-06-08 at 5:41 AM UTC in National Anti-Muslim Day (US)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" -
2017-06-08 at 5:37 AM UTC in National Anti-Muslim Day (US)
Originally posted by mmQ Wrong testament, for the record.
Originally posted by AltarEgo I didnt know any books of the penteteuch were in the new testament.
It is in the Bible, the holy book and literal Divine word of God according to Christian doctrine. Which half of the book it's in is really quite irrelevant to the fact that it's in there. -
2017-06-08 at 5:35 AM UTC in National Anti-Muslim Day (US)Ok
Originally posted by AltarEgo You obviously dont understand what the reformation was. There are tons of christian denominations with orthodox being one of the closest to the original. But even so the seventh day adventists arent exactly forcefully converting anyone. The catholics arent quite calling for crusade. But suni, Shia, wahabbi all call for jihad.
Get your head out of your ass. Comparing christians to muhamadists like comparing followers of Bon to buddhists. Since you probably dont know Bon doesnt exist anymore because the buddhists wiped them out.
We are not all cut from the same cloth. We are in a war between civilized man and savages and sadly you are choosing the side of the savage.
I'm not sure if you processed my point but the Crusades were a real series of holy wars. The point that is that Islam is going through the same growing pains as Christianity. They haven't had their reformation yet, and ultimately there's no reason why Muslims cannot be made secular in the same way as Christians have become.
All religious thought should ultimately be dismissed but the pragmatic route to that is through secularising the moderates of each religion, not by forcing them into being seen as the enemy -
2017-06-08 at 5:32 AM UTC in National Anti-Muslim Day (US)
-
2017-06-08 at 5:31 AM UTC in National Anti-Muslim Day (US)
Originally posted by mmQ Gonna do anti-Muslim may as well do anti-organized religion. Whether or not some holy books have more or less references to violence is moot in the overall picture. Not dissimilar to supporting Ted Bundy and running an anti-Vlad the Impaler campaign because he was far worse.
With the promotion of rational thought, Religion will soon itself. All that strong anti-religious expression does is strengthen the cognitive dissonance inherent to the thought of religious folk. -
2017-06-08 at 5:29 AM UTC in National Anti-Muslim Day (US)
Originally posted by AltarEgo The christians dont have a chapter of the new testament that focuses on how to wage war.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+20 -
2017-06-08 at 5:28 AM UTC in National Anti-Muslim Day (US)
Originally posted by AltarEgo BOSS is a dumbass. Muhamadism is the cult of a warlord pedophile narcissist. So what does that breed? Warlord pedophile narcissists. Have you ever looked at a muslim country? Have you ever noticed the fact that they just sell automatic weapons at the bazzars or that the women are kept in a burlap sack?
Moderate islam is just taqquia until they gain a majority. Look at England. The moderate muslim mayor of London basically said "yeah, muslims are gonna be killin, best not agitate them". Do i even need to bring up rotherham or the myrad other incidents where muslims methodically carried out rapes against literally thousands of young girls?
Islam is a garbage doctrine. The christians dont have a chapter of the new testament that focuses on how to wage war. The muslims do though. Huh really makes ya think.
The best way to deal with an issue is to approach it pragmatically. The pragmatic approach to deal with the issue of Muslim extremism is to separate the moderates from the extremists. If the conflict becomes about this versus all Muslims, then you are facing an army of 1.5+ billion people who are already all over the world, and some of whom have nukes. So that's not what we want. What we want is secular Muslims who condemn extremist Muslims and work with the authorities to root out extremism. -
2017-06-08 at 5:23 AM UTC in Hello,
-
2017-06-08 at 5:14 AM UTC in Hello,
-
2017-06-08 at 5:14 AM UTC in National Anti-Muslim Day (US)
Originally posted by Dargo No, it cannot. Muslims have been raping and murdering people since Islam began. This is not new behavior.
The same could be said for Christianity. Interestingly Islam is about 600 years younger than Christianity. Do you remember when the Reformation happened? ~500-600 years ago as I recall. I'd give them a little time. And you are ignoring the nuance in every individual situation for a very broad view.
Ignore all discussion of religion for a second; is it likely that Daesh would exist if Saddam Hussein had never been deposed for bogus reasons? -
2017-06-08 at 5:08 AM UTC in National Anti-Muslim Day (US)
Originally posted by Dargo I disagree. Again, have you read the Quran? The Old Testament verses in the Bible that mention violence are heavily restrained by historical context. This is not true in the Quran, where the verses are not only unrestrained, but direct commands.
Ok. You're right. There's nothing specifically about FGM in the Quran, so let's back up. Executing homosexuals and infidels, and waging jihad is most definitely in the Quran. Additionally, Muslims are told to follow in the footsteps of Muhammed, who is anything but a good role model. Have you read any of the Sunnahs? He's a downright madman.
I've studied it independently, yes, as part of a number of comparative religion courses. But I am beginning to doubt that you have, or are judging it by the same standards as the Bible. Each verse from the Coran has a very specific historical context as well.
For example, the infamous "slay them wherever you find them" sauret relates specifically to a conflict wherein a rival tribe of the Muslims that had signed a peace treaty with them, tried to wage a proxy war on them through one of their allied tribes, and supplied that rival tribe. And moreover, this verse is usually cherrypicked without even direct context:
https://quran.com/2/189-199
"Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors."
"And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers."
"And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."
"Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors."
This is just one example, but as you see, there is plenty of context that is always left out of these discussions, which might paint the religion in a very different light Ultimately what Islam is, is what you want it to be. This is the case for the interpretation of any text like this.
As for your second point, of course some of those things are in the Coran. But again, if a moderate Muslim wants, they can explain it away with historical context or direct context in the text, or something similar, just as a Christian can. I think you are being unbalanced and uncharitable in your view, and constructing your reasoning around your presupposed conclusion. I hope that does not sound offensive or confrontational.
As for the hedit, I believe even Muslims don't agree on what is even real. I believe Shiytes and Saunis both have completely different hedit books.
Islam is no more or less malleable than any other religion. -
2017-06-08 at 4:45 AM UTC in National Anti-Muslim Day (US)
Originally posted by Kolokol-1 Agreed
I don't know how to include the boxed text, but the issue of Islamic extremism is more complicated than the unifying factor of Islam, so it is a stretch to say that Islam as a religion is the causal reason behind their disproportionate contribution to the count of terrorists in the world, rather than being a simple correlative factor.
For example the current state of the Middle East can be directly tied to western intervention in the region, ranging back from the use of the British mandate of Palestine to create the state of Israel, to the deposition of Mossadegh in Iraq by US and British forces, to the invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam Hussein, which left the power vacuum that allowed Daesh to come into existence.
It is more complicated than singling out one doctrine. -
2017-06-08 at 4:38 AM UTC in National Anti-Muslim Day (US)
Originally posted by Dargo Alright, fair enough. I don't necessarily agree with moving everyone to secularism. I have no problem with whatever people choose to do spiritually, so long as they don't intentionally harm those around them.
No one is against 'moderate Muslims'. The problem is that Islam itself is a violent, destructive religion, that when taken seriously results in nothing good. If moderate Muslims want to stay moderate, they should honestly just create a new religion because Islam does not support their beliefs.
The rallies taking place on the 10th are specifically targeting Sharia Law. So, I suppose I misspoke when I said it was a march against Muslims. The organizers are protesting honor killings, FGM, jihad, and all the other nasty stuff found in the Quran that has been made into a legal code. It is an attack on the ideology, not the adherents.
To your first point, secularism does not mean atheism. It means to separate your religious beliefs from your other world views. In essence, the same way that a "Christian" might spiritually or religiously be Christian but does not let that supersede their sense of humanity and so on. It is in everyone's best interests of Muslims stop viewing everything through the lens of Islam versus the rest of the world.
To your second and third points, Islam, as a doctrine in its purest form, is no more or less violent or destructive than Christianity or Judaism in terms of their doctrines. But when we say "Christianity" for example, nobody ever takes that to mean the literal words in the new and old testament. It's the same way with Islam. It's not just whatever is written in their books at this point, it is a pan-cultural identity. As such, there is no one "Islam" outside of what is literally in the Coran, which is of course interpreted in many different way.
For example, there is nothing in the Muslim doctrine about FGM. But some Muslim countries practice it, not because it is a feature of Islam but whatever interpretation of the base materials that they call Islam. The moderate Muslim is just as much a "Muslim" in terms of these considerations as the most extreme Muslim. Same with honour killings; as far as I'm aware, there is no mainstream Muslim text that orders such a thing. Yet you associate it with Islam. Why is that? And how does that do justice to a Muslim who does not bekieve in either of those things, but still feels like they are under criticism when someone claims these are Muslim things? -
2017-06-08 at 4:24 AM UTC in Hello,
Originally posted by Malice What country are you in? How did you acquire the manufacturing equipment, did you buy it for this purpose or was it already an established business that was converted/you paid to work for you?
Is the income you cited solely your share or that of the entire enterprise, which may be split among multiple people?
I will not discuss specifics about location. My production facilities are in Europe. I personally operate out of southeast Asia.
The equipment was acquired for the purpose of manufacturing drugs. Most of it was purchased off the production lines from back channels in China. It is quite normal for Chinese manufacturers to marks good merchandise as defective or failing quality assurance in order to sell it for a discount themselves.
The income is a bit complicated because my business is mostly distribution, but ultimately you could say that the figures I stated are what come to me. -
2017-06-08 at 4:15 AM UTC in Drunken Debauchery and Summer MiseryDon't fight it. Intoxicants are the ultimate achievement of humanity. You can be so much more than your physical limitations. You don't need life, all you need is the chemicals triggered by life in your brain, and more.
-
2017-06-08 at 4:12 AM UTC in Hello,