[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEnWw_lH4tQ[/video]

There is a sweary in it.

Indeed OP. As a Catholic I am reasonably familair with the Bible.

But I don’t see passages from the Old Testament being used to justify flying civilian airliners full of passengers into office blocks, suicide bombing the tube or the bus or a market, executing thousands of prisoners or those who believe in a slightly different version of the religion, taking sex slaves, shooting school children and university students, cartoonists or hundreds of people having dinner or attending a music concert.

But I don’t see passages from the Old Testament being used to justify flying civilian airliners full of passengers into office blocks, suicide bombing the tube or the bus or a market, executing thousands of prisoners or those who believe in a slightly different version of the religion, taking sex slaves, shooting school children and university students, cartoonists or hundreds of people having dinner or attending a music concert.

Remind me what happened during the Crusades. Maybe the Crusaders (etc) were just a couple of hundred years ahead of ISIS (etc)?

jambalaya

Indeed OP. As a Catholic I am reasonably familair with the Bible.

But I don’t see passages from the Old Testament being used to justify flying civilian airliners full of passengers into office blocks, suicide bombing the tube or the bus or a market, executing thousands of prisoners or those who believe in a slightly different version of the religion, taking sex slaves, shooting school children and university students, cartoonists or hundreds of people having dinner or attending a music concert.

It’s not, but it easily could be given the right set of circumstances. You don’t have to look very far (ie Northern Ireland) and there are places where the Bible has been used to justify killings. In 2005 a friend of mine walked out of a gospel hall because, to his amazement a pastor was quoting the bible to justify the killing of a catholic by the UVF. In the pastors words, killing a catholic was no different to killing a cat or a dog as hey hadn’t been baptised in the one true faith and therefore they were damned anyway.

Extremists in all walks of life, not just religion. You just got to look at the cx fraternity!!!

Jamby Blathered on with…But I don’t see passages from the Old Testament being used…and carried on pointlessly

familiarise yourself with Islam…the religion, and Islamist.. a political movement, and an Islamist Terrorist… a person who uses violent means to get the political changes.

Whilst their belief system is derived from Islam, they have pretty much nothing to do with it, in the same way that the Westboro’ Church, Anders Brevik and the KKK are “Christian” in their beliefs and outlook, and use passages of the Bible to justify their actions.

Did you even watch the video?

and use passages of the Bible to justify their actions.

Or, arguably, misuse.

Whilst their belief system is derived from Islam, they have pretty much nothing to do with it, in the same way that the Westboro’ Church, Anders Brevik and the KKK are “Christian”

It’s just silly to say that fundamentalist Muslims or Christians aren’t Muslim or Christian and have nothing to do with Islam or Christianity when they’re all about those religions.

They said pretty much but you get the point, Many will take a belief and use it to justify certain acts and extremists always use the book – was there not another attack on an abortion clinic in the US by another bible basher. When they do this they are both of the faith and not of the faith. Of course we dont talk about Christian terrorists nor the lords Resistance Army as Christians just dont do that,

Did you even watch the video?

I dont think he has got the revelatory bit at the end yet 😉

This has to be his greatest work of satire/trolling to date

Applauds

But I don’t see passages from the Old Testament being used

What specifically is your point there Jam?

By the way STW – this is why RE is important on the curriculum.

But I don’t see passages from the Old Testament being used to justify flying civilian airliners full of passengers into office blocks, suicide bombing the tube or the bus or a market, executing thousands of prisoners or those who believe in a slightly different version of the religion, taking sex slaves, shooting school children and university students, cartoonists or hundreds of people having dinner or attending a music concert.

The pro-life bunch in the US hold pretty hard line beliefs they fully believe are Christian but they are happy to bomb abortion clinics etc…

Pretty sure the ‘Lords’ Resistance Army in Uganda will have been quoting from the bible and elsewhere in Africa so called Christian militias have committed horrendous atrocities in the name of the bible.

It’s just silly to say that fundamentalist Muslims or Christians aren’t Muslim or Christian and have nothing to do with Islam or Christianity when they’re all about those religions.

So much this. They are applying their religious texts literally. They couldn’t be any more Muslim/Christian/Buddhist/whatever.

here it is in one sentence
Listen ikds some religious folk will abuse the books to do bad things dont judge the entire religion or all those with faith as being just like them or that their beliefs justify this. Ignore those like ISIS, those like the Lords resistance Army or the extremist Jew who went on a stab frenzy at Israel gay pride or the ones who firebombed a Palestinian family and killed an 18 nth old baby as it slept. They dont speak for their religion they are just very bad people.

@TFO

The social science suggests that the common factor is extremist tendencies, upon which the most convenient religious superstructure is placed. Not the other way around.

There’s some good stuff coming out of the LSE about this.

So much this. They are applying their religious texts literally. They couldn’t be any more Muslim/Christian/Buddhist/whatever.

Yeah, this. The only way you can be religious and a decent human being is by being very bad at the religious bit.

Couldn’t carefully selecting and reporting the activities of religious people to fit an agenda or opinion be considered a form of extremism?

After all: “advocacy of extreme measures or views” is one definition of extremism, and these extreme views can only really be put forward if one carefully selects the information and discards what doesn’t fit. In the same way that ‘religious extremists” would seem to.

As above, in fact: the video the OP has put forward is just the opinion of someone- does it reflect the full spectrum of believers?

No, of course not.

So, putting up videos like the above, with no balance, is really another extremist act, in many ways the same as any other kind of extremist view.

Huff Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/12/06/holy-bible-versus-holy-quran-dit-is-normaal-experiment-casts-light-on-prejudice_n_8731048.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

I read the bible (not by choice)and it’s just a book about women,blokes and gods being total dic*s

I am happy i have found a new god to beleave in. She has a Xbox and a unlimited data plan

Remind me what happened during the Crusades. Maybe the Crusaders (etc) were just a couple of hundred years ahead of ISIS (etc)?

Nope.

I don’t mind a good religious discussion at all, but I do mind historical caricatures and inaccuracies. Without a lesson in Crusade history, suffice it to say that – as in all war – we can be sure there were mixed motives on the part of the many participants; but the Crusades were by and large a series of wars comprised of two distinct sides with clear objectives.

They were NOT comprised of Christians overwhelming the Holy Land and indiscriminately slaughtering Muslim men, women, and children in the most horrific possible ways, and then turning even on their own to do likewise.

I think there is quite a strong argument that the Crusaders were the Isis of their age.

Luckily mass Christian extremism is more rare these days.

I read the bible (not by choice)and it’s just a book about women,blokes and gods being total dic*s

Stop! You’re overwhelming us with your depth, your culture, and your awesomeness.

codybrennan – Member

Couldn’t carefully selecting and reporting the activities of religious people to fit an agenda or opinion be considered a form of extremism?

After all: “advocacy of extreme measures or views” is one definition of extremism, and these extreme views can only really be put forward if one carefully selects the information and discards what doesn’t fit. In the same way that ‘religious extremists” would seem to.

As above, in fact: the video the OP has put forward is just the opinion of someone- does it reflect the full spectrum of believers?

No, of course not.

So, putting up videos like the above, with no balance, is really another extremist act, in many ways the same as any other kind of extremist view.

No, the above video (or the posting of it) is not extremism. The video is satirsing some peoples’ knee jerk reaction to global events and shows how their perception is skewed by the media or their own lack of any knowledge.

I would have thought we could all agree that cutting off heads, or mutilating the genitals of little girls (or boys) or picketing the funerals of dead soldiers in the name of god is extremist regardless of which flavour of the Abrahamic sky fairy you prefer.

I think there is quite a strong argument that the Crusaders were the Isis of their age.

Made by whom? Serious medieval historians? Or primary school teachers who have just read the one book in the library before teaching it to their Year 5 class?

Didn’t England purloin half the globe and people becuase the bible says they were far superior.
Don’t get me started on the crimes of those Roman Catholics raping and stealing in the name of god. They should send the loot back or ditch it.
Don’t forget Blair and Bush having a chat with god before the airstrikes

Must Google crusades…

Didn’t England purloin half the globe and people becuase the bible says they were far superior.

Er no, don’t think so..

I would have thought we could all agree that cutting off heads, or mutilating the genitals of little girls (or boys) or picketing the funerals of dead soldiers in the name of god is extremist regardless of which flavour of the Abrahamic sky fairy you prefer.

It is. But selecting only these things and ignoring anything good is exactly what religious extremists do- careful, biased selection to fit an agenda.

codybrennan

It is. But selecting only these things and ignoring anything good is exactly what religious extremists do- careful, biased selection to fit an agenda.

Yes, I agree with you 100%. But these books do contain these verses and the religions haven’t matured to edit them out or dismiss them (with the exception of the more progressive schools of thought within Judaism maybe). You can’t call something the literal word of god then simply dismiss the parts you don’t like.

From the perspective of the extremist, whether we talk about ISIS, Westborough Baptist, Crusaders, the Inquisition, Anabaptists or whatever they are on the side of god and people who don’t follow their interpretation are damned, but from a moderate perspective they are an aberration.

Didn’t England purloin half the globe and people becuase the bible says they were far superior.
Er no, don’t think so..

What was the reason for it then?

Given the Op, can we all not just agree that religion is used a political tool to motivate idiots, and then move on to a discussion that is relevant.

top tip, It ain’t about religious books. 😆

Didn’t England purloin half the globe and people becuase the bible says they were far superior.

Sure. That’s Imperialist doctrine in a nutshell. The economy; competition with continental neighbours; the rapid evolution of the nature of the nation-state: these had nothing to do with it. 🙄

Please re-read what you have written, and consider whether or not it could be even remotely true. A bunch of people, all of whom had both read, and come up with exactly the same understanding of a series of books (bound into one cover and called ‘The Bible’, which say exactly nothing about the British, or Europeans, or even white people being ‘superior’), decided that this series of books established them as a superior people, and so invested everything they had in ships and arms and personal risk to… what? Rule other people? To what end? The Enlightenment was already well under way by the time England was undertaking its little adventure in colonialism. And as far as religious scepticism goes, England was well ahead of the game. As always with history, we can be sure that some people involved with a given project were religious. But what you suggest with your statement is utter nonsense.

If a person wants to ridicule religious history, fine; just do it with knowledge and understanding please.

Example, Islamic state, much is made of their religious intentions. But scratch beneath the surface, what are they actually doing? Working the oil wells and punting the oil into Turkey and reaping the profit..

The financial motive superceeds any religious motivations in most things.

What was the reason for it then?

Really?!?

Quote from my post, above:

The economy; competition with continental neighbours; the rapid evolution of the nature of the nation-state

But no. A bunch of post-enlightenment men, in the most sceptical society in the Western world, somehow managed to agree that these voluminous religious texts meant that they had to rule other people.

And I’m a world-class mountain biker.

and so invested everything they had in ships and arms and personal risk to… what? Rule other people? To what end?

bath in the fortunes of their conquests.

Take away profit and most of the wars in the world would not have happened.

What was the role of christian missionaries?

They were NOT comprised of Christians overwhelming the Holy Land and indiscriminately slaughtering Muslim men, women, and children in the most horrific possible ways, and then turning even on their own to do likewise.

While that might not have been the only motive, I’m not sure you can completely dismiss it. The Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars was a pretty good example of Christians turning on their own, and the Sack of Constantinople was hardly a high point in Christian history either.

Take away profit and most of the wars in the world would not have happened.

That may well have significant basis in fact…

Look at the exploits of the Catholic Church in the conquest of the new world and the wealth of the Vatican to this day

(Why isn’t all the gold and whatnot sold off to do good deeds for the poor and needy anyway?)

By the same token, 2 of the main hubs of extreme religion in the world at the moment, Saudi Arabia and Israel are doing very well for themselves…

wanmankylung – Member
What was the role of christian missionaries?

The (sometimes) friendly face of conquest?

Main course?

What was the role of christian missionaries?

Depends when, where, and who you are talking about.

mrsfry said that ‘England purloined half the globe and people because the Bible said they were superior’, and I called bullshit.

If you want to start with the French missionaries to New France, then you are talking about people who, heavily influenced by 17th century pietism coupled with Thomas More’s ‘Utopia’, wanted to build a gentler, peaceful, truly Christian society, devoid of the baggage of European conflicts, alongside the Natives they encountered. This involved ‘Christianising from within’ – that is, living among the Natives in such a way that they would be so impressed by their Christian guests, they would become Christians themselves. This is explored by the Canadian historian John Webster Grant, the American Michael Oleksa, and your truly. The project was somewhat derailed by the English and the French creating alliances with the Iroquois and the Huron tribes respectively, as the two nations competed with one another for territory in the New World.

The same thing happened in South America between the Spanish and the Portuguese. Even as someone who is less than enamoured with the Jesuits, I have to acknowledge that their work among the Brazilian tribes was sincere and peaceable – born of the desire to improve their lives and see them reach heaven. It was the Portuguese and Spanish crowns in competition with one another that saw this destroyed. I am less proficient with South American history, but I know enough to say that what is depicted in the film ‘The Mission’ (with Robert DeNiro and Jeremy Irons) is not at all atypical.

The African situation is even more complex, because there you had Germany, Belgium, France, Holland, and Britain. All were after riches, and most (though not all) carried missionaries aboard their ships. The normal course of events there was that the members of the missionary societies piggybacked on the trading excursions made by the various crowns.

Anyway, just a snapshot.

Belief in omipowerful supernatural entities who have only communicated with humans through obscure means which rely on personal testament, which is known to be a flawed way of ascertain truth and is inevitably distorted by cultural and environmental influences, is not rational. Adhering partially to the texts that emerged from the political wranglings about who is most closely able to guess at the will of these mythical beings, despite the obvious contradictions and huge amount of evidence to the contrary (The earth is older than 6000 years, evolution, etc etc) is not a sensible basis for making any decisions on, let alone justifying abuse and murder.