Ed Please tell me why you kill

[catsmate]

Your knowledge of Leopold of Belgium is equal to your knowledge of the Irish Troubles. Carry on making unsubstantiated claims, I won't challenge you with facts any further.

Really?
What part of the post do you claim is inaccurate? The death toll of Leopold's genocidal slave state or his claimed xian motivation?

 

[jaydeehess]

## it

 

[MikeG]

I wouldn't be in the least surprised to find that the OP isn't really interested in our opinions.

That wasn't a tough prediction.

 

[baron]

It's quite revealing that you would choose Hussein and Ali as your names for this example, when Smith and Jones would be equally as relevant. Your agenda isn't very well hidden.

So you think that the names Smith and Jones represent followers of the Islamic religion better than Hussein and Ali? Another fail, try again.

 

[baron]

Really?
What part of the post do you claim is inaccurate? The death toll of Leopold's genocidal slave state or his claimed xian motivation?

Did you not read my posts where I answered this very question? To remind you of the topic

Over the years religious ideologies have been the underlying motive for killing thousands of people across the world.

It has already been established that Leopold was not motivated by Christianity, he only claimed to be motivated by Christianity. His actual motivation was greed. In view of that, what relevance does he have to this thread?

 

[MikeG]

So you think that the names Smith and Jones represent followers of the Islamic religion better than Hussein and Ali? Another fail, try again.

You miss the point incredibly often. Let's try this again slowly.

The discussion wasn't about Islam. You even said it yourself:

.........That still leaves the matter of why certain fundamental religious groups (e.g. some Jews) don't enact the depraved aspects of their religious texts whilst large swathes of Islam do. Whatever the answer is, it does not render invalid the link between religious tenets and action. If Mr Hussein and Mr Ali both read a text that says, "You must kill homosexuals," and Mr Hussein does just this but Mr Ali does not, it is ridiculous to use that discrepancy to maintain that the text did not provoke Mr Hussein into action.

You see. Religious tenets. The discussion was about the connection between stuff in any religious book, and adherents responses to it. It's just highly revealing of your blinkered view that you think the discussion was about Islam. Your writings are agenda driven.

 

[I Am The Scum]

So you think that the names Smith and Jones represent followers of the Islamic religion better than Hussein and Ali? Another fail, try again.

Let's be fair, here. The point you were initially making (as it appeared to me) was a general fallacy on the way religious motivation is assessed. If what you are saying is right, then we can safely apply it to all religions.

Unless you actually think that it only does apply to Islam. In other words, if two Christians read the Bible, and one of them wants to put homosexuals to death, and the other doesn't, isn't it possible that the first was motivated by scripture? Take this chance to clarify.

 

[Craig B]

Did you not read my posts where I answered this very question? To remind you of the topic



It has already been established that Leopold was not motivated by Christianity, he only claimed to be motivated by Christianity. His actual motivation was greed. In view of that, what relevance does he have to this thread?

How do you know what his true motivation was? Current religious extremists - you know what their true motivation is? You can read minds? Many extremists, then and now, for all I know, were or are motivated by greed, or by a desire for power, and their claims to religious motivation are false.

 

[applecorped]

"Religion is meant to bring love and peace"


Facts not in evidence

 

[I Am The Scum]

How do you know what his true motivation was? Current religious extremists - you know what their true motivation is? You can read minds? Many extremists, then and now, for all I know, were or are motivated by greed, or by a desire for power, and their claims to religious motivation are false.

How can you be so sure that they're lying? ISIS (to use the obvious example) has explicitly stated that Islamic doctrine and scripture is the basis for their actions, and their actions perfectly coincide with some interpretations of said doctrine.

 

[Craig B]

How can you be so sure that they're lying? ISIS (to use the obvious example) has explicitly stated that Islamic doctrine and scripture is the basis for their actions, and their actions perfectly coincide with some interpretations of said doctrine.

You know these guys tell the truth and are never animated by calculations of personal advantage?

But of course you've given the game away. It's about the doctrines of Islam. When other religious people do bad things it's cos they're bad. Religion has nothing to do with it. But when Muslims, even manifestly psycho Muslims, say something or do something, it's their doctrine; and the psychos are the only honest and correct interpreters thereof.

 

[I Am The Scum]

You know these guys tell the truth and are never animated by calculations of personal advantage?

But of course you've given the game away. It's about the doctrines of Islam. When other religious people do bad things it's cos they're bad. Religion has nothing to do with it. But when Muslims, even manifestly psycho Muslims, say something or do something, it's their doctrine; and the psychos are the only honest and correct interpreters thereof.

A lot of this looks like a giant strawman. Is the above meant to accurately portray my views on the matter? Please speak with me plainly.

EDIT: I am legitimately not understanding the point of your post. I want clarification.

 

[Craig B]

A lot of this looks like a giant strawman. Is the above meant to accurately portray my views on the matter? Please speak with me plainly.

You know best whether it accurately portrays your views. I was trying to explain your words. But your mind is no more readable at a distance than Leopold II's.

 

[Giz]

You know best whether it accurately portrays your views. I was trying to explain your words. But your mind is no more readable at a distance than Leopold II's.

Let's recap:

Irish fighting over the political status of Northern Ireland, calling themselves Republicans or Unionists/Loyalists... Irish Terrorism.

Leopold trying to have a figleaf of respectability, while robbing the place... Greed.

ISIS claiming scriptural justification and acting in ways that accord with their scriptures... dunno, no common denominator to see here. probably a bunch of psychos or impressionable teenagers from all walks of life.

 

[I Am The Scum]

You know best whether it accurately portrays your views.

It doesn't.

I was trying to explain your words.

You failed.

Nothing I have said here has implied that the issue of religiously-motivated violence is specifically relegated to Islam. In fact, in this very thread, I have argued the opposite.

Honestly, if you want to engage in a rational discussion with me on these issues, focus on what I am actually saying. If you need any clarification, just ask.

 

[Craig B]

Let's recap:

Irish fighting over the political status of Northern Ireland, calling themselves Republicans or Unionists/Loyalists... Irish Terrorism.

The only valid interpretation of Catholic or Protestant doctrines? No.

Leopold trying to have a figleaf of respectability, while robbing the place... Greed.

The only valid interpretation of Christian doctrines? No.

ISIS claiming scriptural justification and acting in ways that accord with their scriptures... dunno, no common denominator to see here. probably a bunch of psychos or impressionable teenagers from all walks of life.

The only valid interpretation of Muslim doctrines ... ? As in the other cases I say No. These misdeeds, as I've said in post after post on the N Ireland Troubles, are not required by the doctrines of the religions involved. And I recalled that in Ireland they were resolved by political arrangements without any suppression or amendment of doctrine whatsoever.

 

[baron]

Let's be fair, here. The point you were initially making (as it appeared to me) was a general fallacy on the way religious motivation is assessed. If what you are saying is right, then we can safely apply it to all religions.

Unless you actually think that it only does apply to Islam. In other words, if two Christians read the Bible, and one of them wants to put homosexuals to death, and the other doesn't, isn't it possible that the first was motivated by scripture? Take this chance to clarify.

No problem clarifying for someone who wishes to engage (as opposed to try - with appalling lack of sophistication, I might add - to score points).

I don't think it applies only to Islam at all. For example, the killing of homosexuals by Christians in certain parts of Africa is quite common, and that is religiously motivated. However, in any reasonable assessment of contemporary religion, Islam is by far and away the instigator of the most widespread, degenerate and violent acts of all the religions, and if we're talking terrorism then Islam accounts for practically every instance. That fact is uncomfortable for many on this forum which is why they resort to tricky diversions such as delving back in history to dig the dirt on any and all non-Islamic religions, deliberately misrepresenting the actions of historical figures (Christian figures, of course, never Muslim), casting groups such as the Heaven's Gate UFO cult, Jim Jones, the Branch Davidians and Westboro Baptists as Christian terrorists and maintaining against all accepted knowledge that historical conflicts were the result of religious disagreements (where those conflicts involved Christianity, of course, never Islam).

 

[baron]

The only valid interpretation of Catholic or Protestant doctrines? No.The only valid interpretation of Christian doctrines? No. The only valid interpretation of Muslim doctrines ... ? As in the other cases I say No. These misdeeds, as I've said in post after post on the N Ireland Troubles, are not required by the doctrines of the religions involved. And I recalled that in Ireland they were resolved by political arrangements without any suppression or amendment of doctrine whatsoever.

So that kind of destroys your own argument. How could there have been any religious motivation if resolution was obtained without reference to the religions involved? It makes no sense. Not that it would make a difference as it's accepted knowledge that the Troubles were not grounded in religion, but still.

 

[MikeG]

Thanks, but I know what I'm discussing.

Well, that's the point, right there in a nutshell. Your admission that you are only interested in the misdeeds of Islam, where the rest of us, until you came along, were happily discussing these things in general terms and examining the issues equally and applicably to all religions. You little obsession isn't everyone's little obsession.

Note that the OP isn't about Islam, won't you, before you make too much of a song and dance about what you require us to talk about.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove moderated content.

.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove response to moderated content.

 

[MikeG]

..... it's accepted knowledge that the Troubles were not grounded in religion.....

Oh well, you've convinced me. With a watertight argument like that, who could possibly argue.

Argumentum ad populum