New Orleans Attack

[hndog609]

Odd one to disagree with. He's not wrong.

You whiffed the context. I would posit there's a pretty profound difference with "We find it offensive to portray our religious figure." vs "To portray our religious figure is worthy of your death."

I actually think you'd agree.

 

[VOLS INC.]

Odd one to disagree with. He's not wrong.

You think Henry is a garbage RB too?

 

[MemphisVol77]

You are so far removed from most anything I've asserted it's like you've taken parts of some posts in this thread and throw out some mostly canned answer that you played a bit of mad libs with to make it seem more applicable.

I was wondering if I was the only one noticing the surrealism of it.

He actually displays impressive learning capacity in an academic sense through (I'm guessing) rote memorization, but I don't think he could contextualize directions down a one way street.

 

[EasternVol]

You whiffed the context. I would posit there's a pretty profound difference with "We find it offensive to portray our religious figure." vs "To portray our religious figure is worthy of your death."

I actually think you'd agree.

Yes there is a profound difference between 'we don't like that' and 'we'll kill you for it'. But the difference in reaction goes back to one religion discouraging depictions or their main earthly actor and the other one not.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

You've repeated that view several times. It was an ignorant take the first time and it's still an ignorant take.
Remember this?

It's interesting that your take is more in line with ISIL's than with the vast majority of adherents who study the scripture and derivative writings in depth and in context. I've lived and worked for many years with a lot of sincerely devout Muslims, well educated in their religion, who believe nothing at all like what you get from your reading. Comparing takes, I'll go with those who have studied it for months or years and really know their subject matter. A taxi driver told me once that Islam summarized is 'be good to people and sleep only with your spouse', and that's pretty much what I see in their behavior. I see the same too in a lot of well studied Christians' behavior, at least those who aren't into prosperity gospel and the like.
How do you view the differences between the Old and New Testaments in the attitudes ascribed to God?
As for western culture, assuming you mean rule of law, representative government, rational thought, etc., there's nothing innate in Christianity which makes it more compatible than other religion that comes to mind. There's text in the Bible too that doesn't mesh so well with those ideals.

Yeah I stand by both the post I previously made and the post I made today. They are factual, which makes it easy. One can try and distract, use misdirection, argue semantics, use logical fallacies or flatly deny...but the truth remains. Islam has a real problem at its core. In its book, in a significant number of its followers as well. When muslims kill innocent people, I will bring that up in the places I deem appropriate and in accordance with the VN terms of service. Feel free not to read my posts or place me on ignore. As long as you personally do not believe that your god wants you to kill innocent people, rape young girls and women etc then I have no problem with you whatsoever.

 

[hndog609]

I was wondering if I was the only one noticing the surrealism of it.

He actually displays impressive learning capacity in an academic sense through (I'm guessing) rote memorization, but I don't think he could contextualize directions down a one way street.

Agreed. He infamously with football has put together extensive postings and then find himself backing up his takes with things like people's eyes, facial structure and arm vascularity. (No I'm not kidding) Honestly he's already in his own head on the topic and I've seen that movie already. He's not worth my time moving forward.

 

[hndog609]

Yes there is a profound difference between 'we don't like that' and 'we'll kill you for it'. But the difference in reaction goes back to one religion discouraging depictions or their main earthly actor and the other one not.

Yeah, that's not a distinction I can waive off.

Remember, I have flat out stated that just Muslim = violence cannot possibly be sold as a simple standalone statement...the math just doesn't work. This doesn't change the fact that there's apparently a much easier path to promoting/excusing violence in no small amount of Islamic teachings/leadership. (certainly compared to other current major religions)

 

[StarRaider]

wow nbc is actually showing the tribute to the NOLA victims at the lions/vikes game ... when the disney/espn cut it off at the sugar bowl ... nbc is so maga

 

[EasternVol]

Yeah I stand by both the post I previously made and the post I made today. They are factual, which makes it easy. You can try and distract, use misdirection, argue semantics, use logical fallacies or flatly deny...but the truth remains. Islam has a real problem at its core. In its book, in a significant number of its followers as well. When muslims kill innocent people, I will bring that up in the places I deem appropriate and in accordance with the VN terms of service. Feel free not to read my posts or place me on ignore. As long as you personally do not believe that your god wants you to kill innocent people, rape young girls and women etc then I have no problem with you whatsoever.

You're working from a serious disadvantage in that you don't understand the context of what you are judging. And obviously you don't care to learn that context. That's some very serious hubris, that and thinking you know the subject better than countless people who have high level educations in it, and disregarding their views.
There's no distraction, misdirection, arguing semantics or any of that in my reply to you, just fact based on experience. And that fact is that the many Muslims I know and have known that are very sincere and devout in their belief, many of which have studied their religion since childhood, do not believe anything close to what you insist they do.
Take it for what it's worth, but expanding your horizons, meeting different kinds of people, and opening your mind a little might do you good.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

It’s so offensive that the people “offended” by it use it exclusively.

I actually agree with this point. I don't support anyone using that word. I personally don't. And I think it's poor taste to use it as a black person around non-black people. But we can't act like intent doesn't matter when using language. When black people are using that word the intent is totally different than when the word is usually used against black folk. This is a false equivalency you have brought up. And you know it.

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

You whiffed the context. I would posit there's a pretty profound difference with "We find it offensive to portray our religious figure." vs "To portray our religious figure is worthy of your death."

I actually think you'd agree.

I never said it was okay for anyone to kill over a drawing or representation. And most Muslims wouldn't kill anybody over a drawing either. Once again just because a small minority of extremists do abhorrent things doesn't mean the religion is at fault. I've read the Quran in it's entirety and there's not a single verse saying you should kill someone for drawing Muhammad.

 

[Zues1]

Why has our foreign policy not created Catholic terrorism? Or Hindu terrorism? Or Buddhism terrorism?

Touche

 

[82_VOL_83]

As much as I would like to exact physical violence on someone for some of the things they do, I don't. Know why?

Because it's ****ing wrong!

But race and bad names make it permissable.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Maybe in the New Testament. But in the Old Testament Jesus sure did command a lot of genocides. In fact Jesus in the Old Testament makes the Quran look like a nursery rhyme book if we're talking violent rhetoric.

Dumbass

 

[Dobbs 4 Heisman]

Dumbass

What's dumb about that statement? The Old Testament is so violent even Muhammad told his followers to chill when they wanted to apply Jewish law on a group of Jews that betrayed their treaty with the Muslims of Medina.

The story goes like this. During the 7th century when Muhammad and his followers were just starting out pagan Arabs from Mecca were trying to annihilate them. A tribe of Jews who swore an oath of alliance with the Muslims committed treason and instead worked with the pagan Arabs to destroy the early Muslims. After defeating the pagan Arabs and their Jewish allies the question of how to punish the traitor Jews came to Muhammad. The Prophet said let that leader of the Arab tribe the Jews betrayed will decide their punishment. The Arab tribal chief said lets apply Jewish law from the Torah. The punishment the Torah prescribes for traitors is death to all men, women and children of the traitor tribe. Muhammad said this punishment was too much. So instead he said only the men should be killed while the women and children are to be sold as slaves.

So in this context Muhammad was less cutthroat than Jesus when it comes to punishing traitors during war.

 

[kiddiedoc]

Maybe in the New Testament. But in the Old Testament Jesus sure did command a lot of genocides. In fact Jesus in the Old Testament makes the Quran look like a nursery rhyme book if we're talking violent rhetoric.

Say what???

 

[VOLS INC.]

Say what???

Cmon KD. You know. In the OT when Jesus told His disciples to commit genocide and murder all the Egyptians. Daniel and Saul of Tarsus went uncover with David to spy on Pharaoh and his best friend Nicodemus.

I thought you read the Bible daily??

 

[Jxn Vol]

If you really want to waste an afternoon and potentially dislocate a rib or three laughing, ask him about Egyptian (or heck, Mediterranean) history.

I have plans to be water boarded that I cannot change

 

[volfanhill]

Maybe in the New Testament. But in the Old Testament Jesus sure did command a lot of genocides. In fact Jesus in the Old Testament makes the Quran look like a nursery rhyme book if we're talking violent rhetoric.

Lol. Congrats. This is your single dumbest post ever. Hahaha.

 

[Jxn Vol]

What version of the Bible has Jesus ordering genocides in the Old Testament?

I can’t believe I had to actually type that question out on here?

 

[volfanhill]

What version of the Bible has Jesus ordering genocides in the Old Testament?

I can’t believe I had to actually type that question out on here?

Makes it pretty easy to call his claim that he read the Quran a lie

 

[kiddiedoc]

Cmon KD. You know. In the OT when Jesus told His disciples to commit genocide and murder all the Egyptians. Daniel and Saul of Tarsus went uncover with David to spy on Pharaoh and his best friend Nicodemus.

I thought you read the Bible daily??

Thanks for clarifying. I was afraid I had fallen and hit my head, forgetting everything I have learned over the years.

 

[MemphisVol77]

Honestly he's already in his own head on the topic and I've seen that movie already. He's not worth my time moving forward.

I'm familiar with him. And, I remember those threads you referenced.....

Some people have a style of posting, like using too much hyperbole and false equivalencies, that grates on my nerves. I just try not to quote them.

Why not concern yourself with the type of person who would take literal instructions from a book written 1400 years ago by people who thought the earth was flat?

This was shortly after the Golden Age of Islam began. The period during which they preserved all the Greek philosophy, Roman engineering, and other scholarly teachings that had been lost to Europe. The Greeks had figured out the spherical nature and size of the earth centuries before the quran was written. The people that wrote the quran didn't think the earth was flat.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who seems to notice instances like that one about 10times a day. They're usually not worth deconstructing, though. I think he's just set in his belief structure. Don't get me started on the quack in the meme thread though........

I personally tend to think violent extremism is set-off by a severe form of psychological contagion getting spread throughout susceptible groups. The more grievance and resentments (real or imagined) the groups affected seem to have, then the more likely circumstances can allign to accelerate the contagion.
Hell, Dobbs identified several reasons Muslims are more susceptible to it than other religions, if I'm right.

Examples:
The original aryan brotherhood prison gang didn't initially endorse or espouse nazi idealogy. Shortly after forming, a few members drank the nazi kool-aid, and the contagion spread.

The 1% phrase in motor cycle clubs was originally attributed to the president of the AMA as a defence of motorcycle culture in 1947. "99% are law abiding citizens. It's the 1% outlaws that cause all the problems."
The actual outlaw motorcycle clubs loved the 1% kool-aid. They even agreed to share the 1% patch universally amongst clubs. Guys killing each other over names of states and cities on their jackets, all agreeing to share a patch. By 1960, their antics and memberships had skyrocketed.

The scary part of my theory is that once the ideological kool-aid is drank, it doesn't leave. An individual might leave the group and idealogy, but the idealogy stays with the group.

 

[EasternVol]

Makes it pretty easy to call his claim that he read the Quran a lie

It's surprising that some of you all don't get what he's saying. And not surprising for others.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Cmon KD. You know. In the OT when Jesus told His disciples to commit genocide and murder all the Egyptians. Daniel and Saul of Tarsus went uncover with David to spy on Pharaoh and his best friend Nicodemus.

I thought you read the Bible daily??

Was that before or after Pearl Harbor? Oh wait, that was the Germans. D4H is still the racist FOS jerk he was when Dobbs was here.