Islamic & Christian Fundamentalism--What's the difference?

[phrodeau]

How to fix it?

I personally wouldn't mind deporting every fucking Christian preacher who said shit like this.

So what... Maybe 10 of them.

Throw in the couple thousand Imans who say the same shit and poof... The country is a better place.

A couple thousand, eh? Let's have a list of names, then.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

To Pookie, Phrodeau and anyone else who did not understand my earlier post: I'm re-posting it with emphasis on what I consider the most important operative words.

I know of no Christian minister, regardless of the hatred he may vent with respect to various specific sins or sinners, who advocates that members of his congregation have an obligation to kill such people on God's behalf.

And for all the vitriol that is dispensed from Christian pulpits there are precious few Christians who commit theologically inspired homicides.

That's the major difference I see.

And at the risk that you still won't get the point, let me try it this way. Not one of these hate filled fundamentalist preachers who you have cited have killed anybody. Apparently, NONE of the members of their congregations have killed anybody either. Being happy that someone ELSE killed gays doesn't quite cut it. If Christians have an OBLIGATION to KILL GAYS, then it would seem to me that such an obligation would fall heaviest on the very clergy advocating that theological precept.

So how do any of these wackdoodles justify sitting on their asses while gays walk around freely in their cities? Where is the condemnation of their individual church members for abandoning their call to righteousness? Surely they all know where the gay nightclubs are in their own cities. If this represents a SERIOUS Christian clergy call to righteous violence DIRECTLY ANALOGOUS to ISLAMIC JIHAD (which I believe is the point lib critics keep trying to make in indicting Christianity in response to any act of Islamic terrorism), why hasn't there been wide scale slaughter of innocent gays and lesbians prior to Orlando?

It is despicable hate speech to be sure, but it is all self-righteous bluster. It's all for show on Sunday. There's nothing serious about it. If you can't see THAT difference between "extremist" Christians today and the actual application of violence by Islamic fundamentalists, then God help you (so to speak).

And spare me the historic references to the Crusades or the Ku Klux Klan. We're talking about present day. Where is the Christian counterpart to militant Islam TODAY? Roger Jimenez? Robert Gallaty? Seriously? That's all you've got to compare to Al Qaeda and ISIS? GMAFB!!

 

[IrezumiKiss]

To Pookie, Phrodeau and anyone else who did not understand my earlier post: I'm re-posting it with emphasis on what I consider the most important operative words.



And at the risk that you still won't get the point, let me try it this way. Not one of these hate filled fundamentalist preachers who you have cited have killed anybody. Apparently, NONE of the members of their congregations have killed anybody either. Being happy that someone ELSE killed gays doesn't quite cut it. If Christians have an OBLIGATION to KILL GAYS, then it would seem to me that such an obligation would fall heaviest on the very clergy advocating that theological precept.

So how do any of these wackdoodles justify sitting on their asses while gays walk around freely in their cities? Where is the condemnation of their individual church members for abandoning their call to righteousness? Surely they all know where the gay nightclubs are in their own cities. If this represents a SERIOUS Christian clergy call to righteous violence DIRECTLY ANALOGOUS to ISLAMIC JIHAD (which I believe is the point lib critics keep trying to make in indicting Christianity in response to any act of Islamic terrorism), why hasn't there been wide scale slaughter of innocent gays and lesbians prior to Orlando?

It is despicable hate speech to be sure, but it is all self-righteous bluster. It's all for show on Sunday. There's nothing serious about it. If you can't see THAT difference between "extremist" Christians today and the actual application of violence by Islamic fundamentalists, then God help you (so to speak).

And spare me the historic references to the Crusades or the Ku Klux Klan. We're talking about present day. Where is the Christian counterpart to militant Islam TODAY? Roger Jimenez? Robert Gallaty? Seriously? That's all you've got to compare to Al Qaeda and ISIS? GMAFB!!

I disagree with the bolded, Col.

Hateful rhetoric has ability. It has meaning. It has resonance. It has influence. It affects lives.

Words are arrows and they have power. To think otherwise is to sit in a room of privilege and convenience and keep looking from the inside out.

We can only judge or offer analysis after the fact, but we who are not them are not living that life.

If you aren't living a life being a part of a marginalized community, you will never know how badly that rhetoric affects your life. It affects EVERYthing you do in order to function in a society that does not give a fuck about you, would rather see you erased and only respects you grudgingly when filthy lucre is the motivation.

So yeah, while jihadi with guns is one facet and the Westboro twits carrying around God Hates Fags signs are another facet, it is all the same shit when that targeted community is the one getting murked and soaking up the hits. And when you're there, holding your dead friend or family member in your hands because of that rhetoric, you ain't about hearing the differences of one side versus the other in terms of that rhetoric.

 

[Pookie]

To Pookie, Phrodeau and anyone else who did not understand my earlier post: I'm re-posting it with emphasis on what I consider the most important operative words.



And at the risk that you still won't get the point, let me try it this way. Not one of these hate filled fundamentalist preachers who you have cited have killed anybody. Apparently, NONE of the members of their congregations have killed anybody either. Being happy that someone ELSE killed gays doesn't quite cut it. If Christians have an OBLIGATION to KILL GAYS, then it would seem to me that such an obligation would fall heaviest on the very clergy advocating that theological precept.

So how do any of these wackdoodles justify sitting on their asses while gays walk around freely in their cities? Where is the condemnation of their individual church members for abandoning their call to righteousness? Surely they all know where the gay nightclubs are in their own cities. If this represents a SERIOUS Christian clergy call to righteous violence DIRECTLY ANALOGOUS to ISLAMIC JIHAD (which I believe is the point lib critics keep trying to make in indicting Christianity in response to any act of Islamic terrorism), why hasn't there been wide scale slaughter of innocent gays and lesbians prior to Orlando?

It is despicable hate speech to be sure, but it is all self-righteous bluster. It's all for show on Sunday. There's nothing serious about it. If you can't see THAT difference between "extremist" Christians today and the actual application of violence by Islamic fundamentalists, then God help you (so to speak).

And spare me the historic references to the Crusades or the Ku Klux Klan. We're talking about present day. Where is the Christian counterpart to militant Islam TODAY? Roger Jimenez? Robert Gallaty? Seriously? That's all you've got to compare to Al Qaeda and ISIS? GMAFB!!

You're making a rather inappropriate comparison. The settings are very different. If we didn't have laws enforced for murdering gays, I dare say and confidently believe more of these Christian wackdoodles would be killing gays just as Islamic jihadists do elsewhere. Even with the laws, some murders do occur.

 

[LadyFunkenstein]

And here's another ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/09/robert-gallaty-anti-gay-pastor_n_5792996.html

Christians don't like gays anymore than muslims, but commit widescreen mass murders in the present day and age. NO religion, born within a time people needed to fight for resources, likes gays. NONE. And if you think about it without emotion, you can understand the point.

The only question that matters is are they persecuting in large numbers. The only people currently throwing gays off roofs are Muslim.

 

[phrodeau]

So when preachers and imams are using the exact same language in the exact same tone, using the exact same scriptures, the imams are doing it to incite murderous hatred in their flocks, and the preachers are only hoping to open up some wallets.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Add on top of it off with the fact you are hated and mistrusted anyways and what your preacher/imam says suddenly your radicalized. For the entitled, pampered and enfranchised it is water off a ducks back. For the poor, disenfranchised and marginalized and it becomes the word of Bog.

Go live in a country where you are viewed with suspicion and discriminated against, even marginally, and then blow off others when they become hateful and vindictive.

If you haven't walked a mile in a man's shoes, you don't know how they fit.

 

[daimoniotica]

So kill a fe preachers and pretty much every Iman in the US?

I'm down....

Kill quite a few preachers. It ain't just a few. Not in the South.

Am I reading this right? Preachers and Imams who hate gays so much they advocate killing them, and then you two hating those hate-filled preachers so much you're advocating their killings as justified?

Do you also believe those hateful preachers are inciting others with their killing talk, but you affect no one with yours? Do you really think hate is a game where one side wins, instead of hate being the eternally prototypical lose-lose?

How is any hate talk about killing anyone even allowed on this website, especially considering what's going on in this country today?

 

[Hard_Rom]

How is any hate talk about killing anyone even allowed on this website, especially considering what's going on in this country today?

What's going on in YOUR country. You give an arsonist a book of matches and then complain he burnt down your house with them. The poll I put up here on Lit shows that Americans do not want to give up their guns. Who is to blame for the fact America leads the world in mass killings? Americans! Not just a few all 350 million of you.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

So yeah, while jihadi with guns is one facet and the Westboro twits carrying around God Hates Fags signs are another facet, it is all the same shit when that targeted community is the one getting murked and soaking up the hits. And when you're there, holding your dead friend or family member in your hands because of that rhetoric, you ain't about hearing the differences of one side versus the other in terms of that rhetoric.

Sorry, Zum, but no one is holding a dead friend because of rhetoric. They are holding a dead friend because a killer took action for whatever reasons he deemed worthy of such a crime despite the fact that those reasons may have been inspired by rhetoric. Holding rhetoric responsible for someone else's gross irresponsibility is itself irresponsible. And while I would not expect anyone holding a dead friend to appreciate the distinction between the very real and obvious INTENT between militant Jihadists and Westboro twits, I would never make such an argument TO someone suffering such trauma.

I'm making it to otherwise "reasonable" people of our Lit community who keep making a false equivalency between hate speech DESIGNED to (and with considerable success) produce violent behavior and hate speech spewed for little more than the self-serving act of spewing and eliciting "amens" and applause from fellow retards who might THINK they have the balls to murder a heretic if given the chance, but would in all likelihood recoil from such horror upon realizing they didn't have the stomach for it after all.

I don't believe that would be true of all Christians, but I think it would be true of MOST Christians because there is far more to Christianity than acting out the wrath of God. The major thrust of Christianity is to act out the love and mercy of God. Most of scripture, certainly the New Testament, reserves the wrath of God for God. For however poorly Christians typically display that call to love and mercy, I just don't think there is sufficient evidence that their failures are on a par with Islamic fundamentalists.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Sorry, Zum, but no one is holding a dead friend because of rhetoric. They are holding a dead friend because a killer took action for whatever reasons he deemed worthy of such a crime despite the fact that those reasons may have been inspired by rhetoric. Holding rhetoric responsible for someone else's gross irresponsibility is itself irresponsible. And while I would not expect anyone holding a dead friend to appreciate the distinction between the very real and obvious INTENT between militant Jihadists and Westboro twits, I would never make such an argument TO someone suffering such trauma.

I'm making it to otherwise "reasonable" people of our Lit community who keep making a false equivalency between hate speech DESIGNED to (and with considerable success) produce violent behavior and hate speech spewed for little more than the self-serving act of spewing and eliciting "amens" and applause from fellow retards who might THINK they have the balls to murder a heretic if given the chance, but would in all likelihood recoil from such horror upon realizing they didn't have the stomach for it after all.

I don't believe that would be true of all Christians, but I think it would be true of MOST Christians because there is far more to Christianity than acting out the wrath of God. The major thrust of Christianity is to act out the love and mercy of God. Most of scripture, certainly the New Testament, reserves the wrath of God for God. For however poorly Christians typically display that call to love and mercy, I just don't think there is sufficient evidence that their failures are on a par with Islamic fundamentalists.

10,000 dead Americans by guns. Muslims killed them all?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

So when preachers and imams are using the exact same language in the exact same tone, using the exact same scriptures, the imams are doing it to incite murderous hatred in their flocks, and the preachers are only hoping to open up some wallets.

Either that or you're going to have to come up with a pretty good explanation for why imams are apparently better at using the exact same language in the exact same tone, using the exact same scriptures to actually incite, if even in the most oblique way, a murderer to walk into an Orlando nightclub and actually kill people -- not to mention the gays who may have been in the Fort Hood medical clinic shot up by Nidal Hasan in 2009 or at the employee awards luncheon in Santa Barbara last year.

If Baptist bible thumpers are serious about producing the same results, they appear to be doing a pretty shitty job of it. And don't think these people don't care about numbers.

http://www.tracesoffaith.com/.a/6a01a511391751970c01b8d0ea2054970c-pi

 

[Colonel Hogan]

10,000 dead Americans by guns. Muslims killed them all?

Where did I come remotely close to making such a blatantly false allegation?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

You're making a rather inappropriate comparison. The settings are very different. If we didn't have laws enforced for murdering gays, I dare say and confidently believe more of these Christian wackdoodles would be killing gays just as Islamic jihadists do elsewhere. Even with the laws, some murders do occur.

Care to speculate on why the laws prohibiting murder seem to have had a greater effect on restraining Christian homophobes than a Muslim homophobe in this latest instance?

What different setting? The crime was committed in Orlando. There are gay clubs in most moderate to large size cities. What's stopping Christian vigilantes from "getting right with God"? The law? You don't seem to have noticed that militant Jihadists are not the least bit shy about murdering innocent people in a host of places where it is decidedly against the law.

 

[daimoniotica]

What's going on in YOUR country. You give an arsonist a book of matches and then complain he burnt down your house with them. The poll I put up here on Lit shows that Americans do not want to give up their guns. Who is to blame for the fact America leads the world in mass killings? Americans! Not just a few all 350 million of you.

Why on earth would anyone give an arsonist a book of matches in the first place? It seems your logic is backwards. And why would you fault a book of matches when it's the arsonist who is fully responsible for how he chooses to use them? And why do you fault 350 million Americans for the actions merely a relative few enact, even if there were 350 million of us instead of roughly 325 million?

 

[Christobal]

It is easy to damn a religion or group or whatever happened in all of history. Guess what? I don't choose to visit the sins of the father upon their children. What happened in the last 20 years that justifies the murder of the innocents. Innocents dancing at a gay club. Did they just deserve a good killing?

 

[wistfall1]

How to fix it?

I personally wouldn't mind deporting every fucking Christian preacher who said shit like this.

So what... Maybe 10 of them.

Throw in the couple thousand Imans who say the same shit and poof... The country is a better place.

How to fix it indeed! Andreas Wagner, a professor at the University of Zurich's Institute of Evolutionar Biology, and author of Arrival of the Fittest, says in his book:

"Christian beliefs are the best-known reason for...resistance..." to where the facts truly lead us. He states that "To Cuvier, life's diversity wasn't evidence of evolution, but of the Creator's great talents."

Wagner has much more to say on the subject, as do so many other scientists. Basically, it is static religious tenets along with cultural norms instilled in us by religion, that are a major cause of not having advanced our knowledge much untill recent years.

The late pope John Paul II was said to have told Stephen Hawking to leave creation alone as it was the province of god.

Someone in an earler post spoke of churches in the South preaching belicose sermons on the evils of homosexuality. That poster was absolutely correct--I've been in such churches, and know the mindset of a great many of those people and their preachers (who still take up rattle snakes because the bible says that they can and won't be harmed.

The great intelligence of the many has enthralled our society and made them love change, but only insofar as cell phones, the Internet, and such, but acceptance of evolution is a no-no, as is homosexuality.

w

 

[Christobal]

How to fix it indeed! Andreas Wagner, a professor at the University of Zurich's Institute of Evolutionar Biology, and author of Arrival of the Fittest, says in his book:

"Christian beliefs are the best-known reason for...resistance..." to where the facts truly lead us. He states that "To Cuvier, life's diversity wasn't evidence of evolution, but of the Creator's great talents."

Wagner has much more to say on the subject, as do so many other scientists. Basically, it is static religious tenets along with cultural norms instilled in us by religion, that are a major cause of not having advanced our knowledge much untill recent years.

The late pope John Paul II was said to have told Stephen Hawking to leave creation alone as it was the province of god.

Someone in an earler post spoke of churches in the South preaching belicose sermons on the evils of homosexuality. That poster was absolutely correct--I've been in such churches, and know the mindset of a great many of those people and their preachers (who still take up rattle snakes because the bible says that they can and won't be harmed.

The great intelligence of the many has enthralled our society and made them love change, but only insofar as cell phones, the Internet, and such, but acceptance of evolution is a no-no, as is homosexuality.

w

Are you saying that intolerance is a particularly a christian disease?

 

[daimoniotica]

How to fix it indeed! Andreas Wagner, a professor at the University of Zurich's Institute of Evolutionar Biology, and author of Arrival of the Fittest, says in his book:

"Christian beliefs are the best-known reason for...resistance..." to where the facts truly lead us. He states that "To Cuvier, life's diversity wasn't evidence of evolution, but of the Creator's great talents."

Wagner has much more to say on the subject, as do so many other scientists. Basically, it is static religious tenets along with cultural norms instilled in us by religion, that are a major cause of not having advanced our knowledge much untill recent years.

The late pope John Paul II was said to have told Stephen Hawking to leave creation alone as it was the province of god.

Someone in an earler post spoke of churches in the South preaching belicose sermons on the evils of homosexuality. That poster was absolutely correct--I've been in such churches, and know the mindset of a great many of those people and their preachers (who still take up rattle snakes because the bible says that they can and won't be harmed.

The great intelligence of the many has enthralled our society and made them love change, but only insofar as cell phones, the Internet, and such, but acceptance of evolution is a no-no, as is homosexuality.

w

Such gross generalization usually betrays a simple, dogmatic-inviting mind, whether one atheist or religious. That aside, what do you say of history's great scientists who believed there must be a creator since the odds of such exact precision ordering itself so perfectly are too minuscule to calculate?

Can you name just one thing man knows of that wasn't created by something? Do you fancy it's possible that anything can exist without being created? If you do, can you please explain that process?

 

[wistfall1]

Are you saying that intolerance is a particularly a christian disease?

No! Not at all, but I think you may be trying to interject something that you feel might be there. It isn't.

Ignorance, however, with regard to that which does not bring pleasure, is quite apt to remain cultureally, if not worldwide. Religion, as in the past, at least Christianity wise, has more than tempered with the natural human curiosity, and in many cases, desire to learn. That is historical since it's advent, and even now to a much too great degree.

Don't ask questions, or so saith the church, don't delve into the human mystery, and definitely not what the churrch teashes. That is also so for Islam, but, twas not always so for them. History speaks of many learned muslims who kept civilization for us in the West for our later use. They seemed to relish learning, if sometimes in limited ways. What happened? Too much satisfaction, maybe by the last rulers of the Islamic empire (the Mamalucs maybe?).

w

 

[wistfall1]

Such gross generalization usually betrays a simple, dogmatic-inviting mind, whether one atheist or religious. That aside, what do you say of history's great scientists who believed there must be a creator since the odds of such exact precision ordering itself so perfectly are too minuscule to calculate?

Can you name just one thing man knows of that wasn't created by something? Do you fancy it's possible that anything can exist without being created? If you do, can you please explain that process?

I can say that it is possible that all we know and see was created, but by what, that I can't say. We have no idea where DNA came from originally, nor can we say how it is that a cell learned to self-organize as it does.

What has been found is that there are more amino acids than the twenty we've always known about since they were discovered. In fact, many more, according to the scientists who have studied the Murchison Meteor in Australia. They did find that quite a few of the 20 amino acids that we already knew of were a part of the Murchison Meteor. Without amino acids, we couldn't be made as we are.

Insofar as what I think of scientists who believe that there must be a creator, not a thing, actually. That is unless they believe that the creator they think is responsible is the god of the Old Testament. If so, that is proven false by the Old Testament itself. That is irrefuteable especially since there are many places in the bible referring to that god being "perfect". A perfect god who wrote, caused to be written, inspired his word to be written as sacred scripture should be incapable of making mistakes. That is not the case here, and the bible that's set forward/has been set forward, proves it with its own words.

w

 

[Christobal]

No! Not at all, but I think you may be trying to interject something that you feel might be there. It isn't.

Ignorance, however, with regard to that which does not bring pleasure, is quite apt to remain cultureally, if not worldwide. Religion, as in the past, at least Christianity wise, has more than tempered with the natural human curiosity, and in many cases, desire to learn. That is historical since it's advent, and even now to a much too great degree.

Don't ask questions, or so saith the church, don't delve into the human mystery, and definitely not what the churrch teashes. That is also so for Islam, but, twas not always so for them. History speaks of many learned muslims who kept civilization for us in the West for our later use. They seemed to relish learning, if sometimes in limited ways. What happened? Too much satisfaction, maybe by the last rulers of the Islamic empire (the Mamalucs maybe?).

w

Let me sum this up. You said no it's not a christian disease but then you explain that muslims are are the enlightened ones. I don't know who is right but they all have a lot blood on their hands. No clear winner or best way.

 

[wistfall1]

Let me sum this up. You said no it's not a christian disease but then you explain that muslims are are the enlightened ones. I don't know who is right but they all have a lot blood on their hands. No clear winner or best way.

I see that the info that identifies you says that you are from Orlando. That was more than a terrible thing that happened in the Pulse club.

However, to your posts, you mentioned that you thought I'd intimated that intolerance was a Christian thing. I looked over my posts, and I see no where that I mentioned intolerance. You're reading something that just isn't there.

Insofar as muslims being enlightened: at one point in history, they were considered to be so. That's easy to check out. I did not say that they are the enlightened ones (presently). Please don't read what I don't say and tell me that I said it, K?

You are correct in saying that they all (if you refer to muslims and christians) have blood on their hands. That, I think, can be said of Christian, Islam, Hindu, and some others, historically.
Now please, read what I say, and ask as you wish, but only if it's something I said.

Peace.

w

 

[Christobal]

I see that the info that identifies you says that you are from Orlando. That was more than a terrible thing that happened in the Pulse club.

However, to your posts, you mentioned that you thought I'd intimated that intolerance was a Christian thing. I looked over my posts, and I see no where that I mentioned intolerance. You're reading something that just isn't there.

Insofar as muslims being enlightened: at one point in history, they were considered to be so. That's easy to check out. I did not say that they are the enlightened ones (presently). Please don't read what I don't say and tell me that I said it, K?

You are correct in saying that they all (if you refer to muslims and christians) have blood on their hands. That, I think, can be said of Christian, Islam, Hindu, and some others, historically.
Now please, read what I say, and ask as you wish, but only if it's something I said.

Peace.

w

A very lawyer like answer. Technically everything is true by your specific definition of what you said.


Context however betrays you.

 

[hashtag45]

Big scale geopolitics is rarely about ideology. Small scale politics, is a mix. The Uganda case is small scale, comparatively. If you look up these guys, it's definitely ideology. And fringe, hateful ideology at that. They saw a chance to cememt their anti gay agenda in a way they couldn't get away with at home, and they took it.

I looked it up and you guys were right.
Shocking stuff, indeed.