Can you give the relevant passages that indicate that Muslims kill non-Muslims to redeem themselves while Christians don't. What "holy texts" indicate this? What is the general interpretation placed on these texts by Muslim teachers? Does it agree with yours? And how does it square with the generally more tolerant attitude of for example the Ottomans to Jews and Christians than, say, the Spanish kingdom to Jews and Muslims, through several centuries?
Utrecht shooting
- Thread starter McHrozni
- Start date
It's a good thing this happened so we can all stop thinking about the white right-wing terrorist who killed all those brown people in NZ the other day.
Looks like we dodged that bullet, am I right? Guys? Heh. No pun intended.
Looks like we dodged that bullet, am I right? Guys? Heh. No pun intended.
Last edited:
erwinl
Illuminator
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 3,960
If that is the way you feel, I certainly won't stop you.
That there is the key.
No point throwing tit-for-tat examples if the original assertion is nonsense.
And, if I remember correctly from the last time we went down this road, that was very much the case.
And I suspect that this is the main reason why The Troubles (Wikipedia) never actually happened. The pope would have put a stop to it immediately.
Sure. To name but one example:
Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."
It starts with the Quran and moves on. All Muslims agree these aren't minor, obscureor irrelevant texts.
Some agree it says what it says, some disagree. What of it? If but one agrees the damage can be already done, you don't need an absolute or even general agreement to cause damage. Not everyone who can speak English agrees with Trump, but he inspires violence in some people who do nonetheless.
My interpretation is that the text was written by an egoistical maniac who wanted to rule people and didn't want to be inconvenienced by proving people he was a good choice. Agreeing or disagreeing with what he says is seen through that prism.
It shows people are flexible creatures and that being under the rule by a foreigner for centuries can produce significantly different attitudes towards than being the ruling elite of a conquered people, to that people.
Relevance?
McHrozni
Last edited:
How is that any different than taking a bible verse and proclaiming it means something unpleasant? The bible is riddled with ones that can be equally interpreted as the quranic verse you quote above.
If you took the verse and justify it to shoot a train full of strangers, it is not different. If that ever begins to happen you might have a case. So long as the Quran (or ancilliary texts) is regularily cited by terrorists as the inspiration for their deeds and the Bible is not you do not have a case.
Since the SOP at this point is to invoke the Troubles I'll try to preemptively answer your next question.
Here's how IRA justified their terrorism:
Commitment to the Republican Movement is the firm belief that its struggle both military and political is morally justified, that war is morally justified and that the Army is the direct representative of the 1918 Dail Eireann Parliament, and that as such they are the legal and lawful government of the Irish Republic, which has the moral right to pass laws for, and to claim jurisdiction over the territory, air space, mineral resources, means of production, distribution and exchange and all of its people regardless of creed or loyalty.
https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/othelem/organ/ira/ira_green_book.htm
If you wish to pursue this line of inquiry please point me to the Bible verses or other broadly comparible relevant texts (Papal bulls?) they're invoking as a justification either in the quoted preamble or the further text contained within the link, or perhaps some other source you might present yourself. You can also look for all the times they invoke religious reasons and differences as well as the rich history of discriminatory laws against Catholics UK had in Ireland and post it here for all to see.
Happy searching!
McHrozni
Last edited:
The bible has been cited for all manner of things.
We have centuries of it being used as an excuse for colonisation.
We can spend (yet again) time going over tossers using it as an excuse for committing murder. But there's little point as you'll simply hand wave it away again.
The same goes for the Quran. The main difference between shooting up a train full of people or colonizing distant lands is, of course, that one requires a gun, the other a state.
States do lots of things and use lots of justifications, religion is but a tool to them. Some religions may moderate behavior, some aggravate it, others still are irrelevant in such cases. Neither Christianity nor Islam are free of sin on being used as justification for acts of horror.
Just one of those two is cited by mass murderers as an inspiration to mass murder however. I reckon this is because it inspires mass murder via the texts, of which I have provided but one example. There are dozens of others, I only provided one example. This is not true for Christianity, otherwise you'd be able to cite mass murderers invoking Bible passages as justification for acts of mass murder by now.
I'm not hand waving away anything. I'm merely pointing out the difference between the two events I'm supposed to address is one does happen and the other one does not happen.
If you want to claim that particular difference is unimportant you will need to justify the claim. I humbly invite you do so in a response to this post.
McHrozni
Last edited:
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,472
Suspect Tanis admits deadly tram attack
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47665191
BBC News said:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47665191