Nobody is offended lol. What was said there was not actually saying it's only Islam. Whether you agree or not, it was a statement about Islam in a topic about an apparent Islamic terrorist.
If you could show me someone saying Christianity is never hateful that would help. But yeah, they actually tend to more shun you as opposed to shooting you in the face. It sucks if people don't like that Islam overall is just more violent.
Originally posted by Lestov16
1) How is it a blanket accusation? If the Bible and Quran have homophobic passages saying God mandated intolerance towards gays, that makes both books homophobic. And they both undoubtedly do. See Leviticus for biblical examples. And you say that Christian homophobia is a blanket accusation, but again, it's proven with people like Kim Davis that the homophobic passages of the Bible do in fact proselytize hatred.I think I see the problem here. You seem to think I am calling the entire legitimacy of the Bible into question when I am only referring to passages which promote human rights violations. My main question is why these passages are considered Word of God, and why people would worship a God they believe promotes human rights violations? Why is such a God worth being worshipped?
IOW, is it acceptable for faith to be prioritized over human rights? That intolerance should be allowed out of respect for worship? Because that belief is what leads to radicalism and extremism such as the attack seen yesterday.
>Asks how what he said can be a blanket accusation.
>Makes blanket accusation ("That makes both books homophobic"😉.
facepalm
Because ppl are allowed to worship who they want and believe what they want. Because we don't have to take the things written literally anymore and can interpret and act on them based on what our conscience dictates.
Separation of Church and State. We KNOW that exists, man.
Contrary to what you may think, we're not a bunch of savages that don't understand how the law works. And "intolerance" is allowed because ppl are allowed their opinions and contrary to what you may believe, we are not allowed to police each others' thoughts and opinions.
And everyone has some form of intolerance. Everyone has things they don't like. Even you, especially you (tho you are blind to it). The difference between us and terrorists is that we do not turn that intolerance into hate and we do not violently act on this hate.
There is far more than simply one's religious beliefs guiding one's hand when one commit these atrocities. Don't you think that you attempting to lump all the blame on religion (one that is innocent of this specific act) shows ignorance and prejudice? But if you really want to blame something: Blame terrorism.
Originally posted by Surtur
Nobody is offended lol. What was said there was not actually saying it's only Islam. Whether you agree or not, it was a statement about Islam in a topic about an apparent Islamic terrorist.If you could show me someone saying Christianity is never hateful that would help. But yeah, they actually tend to more shun you as opposed to shooting you in the face. It sucks if people don't like that Islam overall is just more violent.
So your view is that intolerance is acceptable if it is not fatal?
Originally posted by Lestov16
The discussion is what to do about this hate.
But can't you acknowledge there are different kinds of hate? Some more extreme than others?
You could of framed this as "hating someone due to your religion is wrong" which sometimes you tried to do, but then you also had to specifically mention Christianity. You essentially sabotaged yourself and I bet if I go browse these last 13 pages it won't exactly show any real solutions to how to stop this..it will just be a back and forth about who meant what, etc.
Originally posted by Lestov16
So your view is that intolerance is acceptable if it is not fatal?
But you see again with the leading questions lol. Nobody said it's acceptable at any level, but there *are* levels.
It all goes back to "murder is worse than robbery". I would rather be robbed over being murdered, but it doesn't mean I want to be robbed.
Originally posted by Lestov16
Actually that was implied. Here you see posts that give confirmation to say it was Islamic but hesitation to say it was homophobic. Clearly the narrative is the attack was exclusively IslamicMight not be homophobic:
But it was definitely Islamic:
🙄
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Hell, I'm not even sure what the shooter's religion is. He could well be Catholic.But in almost every discussion where ppl are discussing an act as some form of Islamic terrorism, there's always that one guy that wants to lump Catholics in with the Islamic terrorists like everyone within any kind of Abrahamic religion is one and the same. All we need is some ppl implying that this has something to do with Islamic terrorism and we then get this one guy trying to combine Islam and Catholicism like they were one and the same.
And in this discussion, that "guy" happens to be you.
And it's usually from those who should know better about lumping entire ppls together just because they share some form of trait.
Again, I do not understand how this is any different from what I said. You say homophobia is a human construct, so doesn't that mean that homophobic passages such as Leviticus 20:13 are man-made?
But essentially you're saying intolerance and dehumanization is acceptable behavior if one believes it is a divine mandate. Isn't that the kind of thinking that leads to radicalism? Prioritizing faith over human rights?
It seems to me that what Lestov said is correct. We should leave behind the homophobia of the Quran and the Bible, because it does cause and excuse hate in radical people. That does not mean that these books don't contain value otherwise.
It's good that you don't turn to hate and commit atrocities. But some Christians around the world definitely do.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
>Asks how what he said can be a blanket accusation.
>Makes blanket accusation ("That makes both books homophobic"😉.facepalm
Because ppl are allowed to worship who they want and believe what they want. Because we don't have to take the things written literally anymore and can interpret and act on them based on our conscience dictates.
Separation of Church and State. We KNOW that exists, man.
Contrary to what you may think, we're not a bunch of savages that don't understand how the law works. And "intolerance" is allowed because ppl are allowed their opinions and contrary to what you may believe, we are not allowed to police each others' thoughts and opinions.And everyone has some form of intolerance. Everyone has things they don't like. Even you, especially you (tho you are blind to it). The difference between us and terrorists is that we do not turn that intolerance into hate and we do not violently act on this hate.
There is far more than simply one's religious beliefs guiding one's hand when one commit these atrocities. Don't you think that you attempting to lump all the blame on religion (one that is innocent of this specific act) shows ignorance and prejudice? But if you really want to blame something: Blame terrorism.
So you're saying this then:
Originally posted by Lestov16
every ideology has extremists and opportunists. That should never be used to judge the intrinsic merit of the ideology itself.
My question really boils down to this: If the Bible makers of the world decided to print new bibles, and all of these bibles were to have Leviticus 20:13 removed from print, would this be accepted? Same thing with the Quran and it's violent verses on infidels and such. And if it is not acceptable, then the question becomes are those scriptures inherently intolerant?
Essentially I'm bringing in a question of whether subjective interpretation or dogmatic fundamentalism is the "proper" way to practice a religion. What matters more? The scripture itself or the interpretation of the individual reading it?
I mean you are a Christian and you clearly aren't homophobic, so that means you, the Pope, and all other tolerant Christians are ignoring the Leviticus passage. You have mentally retconned the Bible so it could fit your beliefs. So clearly your interpretation is prioritized over the scripture. In that case, does the scripture even matter? Do you need a bible to believe in God? Because while you may have cosmological beliefs based on the Bible, the fact that you retconned the intolerant parts means you don't believe in it fully. IOW, you, and everybody else technically is following their own self made religion, their own personal connection to God based on whatever belief system they believe is best to get there. These beliefs vary for every person, only comparable based on the Holy Book they used a foundation of those beliefs. But, as stated, at the end of the day the scripture of that Holy Book is just mentally retconned to fit the thoughts of the believer. So is the Holy Book even necessary?
Not that this is a rhetorical rant, meant to pose questions about topics. This isn't a versus battle. If you disagree, please state your reasoning rather than devolving into personal attacks and flaming. This terrorist attack has opened up a Pandora's box of complex issues. No reason for things to become a trollfest
My question really boils down to this: If the Bible makers of the world decided to print new bibles, and all of these bibles were to have Leviticus 20:13 removed from print, would this be accepted? Same thing with the Quran and it's violent verses on infidels and such. And if it is not acceptable, then the question becomes are those scriptures inherently intolerant?
Essentially I'm bringing in a question of whether subjective interpretation or dogmatic fundamentalism is the "proper" way to practice a religion. What matters more? The scripture itself or the interpretation of the individual reading it?
There's a reason I don't support or oppose same sex marriage. I believe in the idea of a man and a woman, but I also believe everyone else has a right to choose.
Completely agreed. thumb upWe shouldn't blanket condemn Christianity, Islam or Atheism.
Originally posted by Badabing
So 50 fifty people died for no reason but some insane hatred and the same people politicize the tragedy to push their ideology...Yeah, this stops or you are gone for a few weeks.
Is this directed at me? Okay, we'll ignore topics of homophobia and radical Islam if you want. No problem with me. I'm just trying to figure out why this happened and the motivation of the attacker.
Originally posted by Lestov16
Is this directed at me? Okay, we'll ignore topics of homophobia and radical Islam if you want. No problem with me. I'm just trying to figure out why this happened and the motivation of the attacker.
Your problem is you always try to find out the why, which ignores that there are people out there that are just evil. I don't think it has ever helped a situation to find out the motive of mass murder.