[Closed] Boris says jihadists are w***ers

Why just the gospels now?

Yeah... the thing with that is that even the catholic church gave up literal interpretations of the bible in 1650, with the Enlightenment.

Yes, some Muslim countries could do with being dragged kicking and screaming into the 17th Century. But this is a problem with the leaders and the society that's been created, it's not a problem with the particular religion.

Ok. I'll rephrase. Where in the Gospels?

Aha, so because some parts of one section of the Bible are okay with women, the Bile is fine with women? I bet there are some bits of the Quran which are quite nice about women too.

But this is a problem with the leaders and the society that's been created, it's not a problem with the particular religion.

Yes it is. The fundamentals of that religion, even in its more moderate form (which isn't actually particularly moderate at all), are diametrically opposed to the values of a secular, liberal democracy. Thats the elephant in the room, that is going to be addressed at some point.

The fundamentals of that religion, even in its more moderate form (which isn't actually particularly moderate at all), are diametrically opposed to the values of a secular, liberal democracy. Thats the elephant in the room, that is going to be addressed at some point.

Indeed. But I'd argue that the fundamentals of Christianity were also diametrically opposed to the values of a secular, liberal democracy. So Christianity had to change - that's why people keep saying that you can't take the Bible literally any more.

binners - Member
Yes it is. The fundamentals of that religion, even in its more moderate form (which isn't actually particularly moderate at all), are diametrically opposed to the values of a secular, liberal democracy. Thats the elephant in the room, that is going to be addressed at some point.

So there aren't any 'real' muslims living happily in secular liberal democracies?

Yes it is. The fundamentals of that religion, even in its more moderate form (which isn't actually particularly moderate at all), are diametrically opposed to the values of a secular, liberal democracy. Thats the elephant in the room, that is going to be addressed at some point.

This.

Until the hand wringers wake up and realise this needs to be addressed, then we re going to have massive problems in the future.

Jiha(n)di sha(n)dies?

So there aren't any 'real' muslims living happily in secular liberal democracies?

That would depend on your definition of real.

If they are following the Koran correctly, they would living by Sharia law, which is opposed to democracy and free speech. So they probably wouldn't be very happy in our liberal democracy.

**** me you really believe that?

They've done that because of pressure from secular society. Do you think a country run by the Christian church would do that kind of thing?

Why just the gospels now?

the core message is arguably about treating all people (and especially the socially excluded and children)how you would want to be treated and getting together for a nice meal with booze to remind yourself of who initiated the message

the rest of the Christian message/ ceremony is arguably guff based in the post crucifixion cultures and pre-existing social norms

That would depend on your definition of real.

If they are following the Koran correctly, they would living by Sharia law, which is opposed to democracy and free speech. So they probably wouldn't be very happy in our liberal democracy.

By that definition there aren't any "real" Christians either, because they're not following the Bible strictly.

The whole oddly specific number of virgins in paradise thing seems to basically being saying. "Well we know you ain't getting any in this world but strap on this suicide vest and then go fill yer boots"

Is there a reason that they are all virgins? Is it because they will not/do not have sex with anyone?

If that is the case, there will be a shed load of sexually frustrated suicide bombers there.

bencooper - Member

"That would depend on your definition of real.

If they are following the Koran correctly, they would living by Sharia law, which is opposed to democracy and free speech. So they probably wouldn't be very happy in our liberal democracy."

By that definition there aren't any "real" Christians either, because they're not following the Bible strictly.

Yeah but that's different Ben.

the core message is arguably about treating all people (and especially the socially excluded and children)how you would want to be treated

That's the core message [u]now[/u] - it's most certainly not the core message of the Bible. Most Christians no longer follow the core messages of their own religious texts, and that's a good thing.

So there aren't any 'real' muslims living happily in secular liberal democracies?

this western lawyer doesn't think so...

http://www.legalcheek.com/2015/01/clifford-chance-trainee-pulls-paris-attack-rant-youtube/

By that definition there aren't any "real" Christians either, because they're not following the Bible strictly.

It's really not the same.

Each Christian Church has it's own rules for it's followers. Some of them are more whacky and extreme than others but as far as I know none of the mainstream ones teach that the Church should run the state.

Islam teaches that the Koran has the rules for religion, business and the State, only God can make law.

Fundamentally different.

That's the core message now - it's most certainly not the core message of the Bible. Most Christians no longer follow the core messages of their own religious texts, and that's a good thing.

no, the gospels were the core message [b]then[/b] as they are supposed to record the life and the message of the person credited with starting the faith

the easiest examples is the distillation of the ten commandments to two, or the concepts of an eye for an eye and then the gospel lessons on forgiveness

the next issue it the interpretation of what are the appropriate texts to follow, the Bible is a distillation of many other texts, so are the texts the right ones?

but Ben as you have clearly studied the texts in detail can you tell me what is their message so I can go around telling people what they should be doing 😉

I've always been surprised that any religion that stops you looking at pretty ladies,drinking beer and eating bacon sandwiches have any followers at all.

The thing about the fundamentals of christianity is that god apparently gave us a handy pocket-sized, cut-out-and-keep guide

Thou shalt have no other gods before me
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy
Honour thy father and thy mother
Thou shalt not kill
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour
Thou shalt not covet (neighbor's house)
Thou shalt not covet (neighbor's wife)
Thou shalt not covet (neighbor's servants, animals, or anything else)

Its fairly straightforward, seems reasonably reasonable IMHO, and entirely in line with secular, liberal democratic values. You could sum it up as: remember I'm the boss, don't nick stuff, lie, kill people or shag other peoples wives. Try not to buy shoes on a Sunday. You can interpret the rest of the Bible how you like. You're not contractually obliged to do anything, as another one of the fundamental values enshrined in christianity is freedom of choice. Jesus was quite big on that.

Allah wasn't. Islam isn't.

...none of the mainstream ones teach that the Church should run the state

There might well be influence. Very, very limited in the cases you've stated like the House of Lords

Thats a lot different from saying that all laws are made by god, and administered by his anointed choice of beardy bloke, and thats the end of that!

gobuchul is a western extremism and he has just as much zeal as any islamic extremist and the same ability to take text out of context and manipulate it to justify his views.

OH Binners is not far behind

It always amazes how lucky we are to have such learned scholars of the Quran on here....must get them free with enough pasties eh 🙄

ben - Have you ever had anything to do with any organised religion?

I have when at school.

Even in a modern, mainstream Christian parish, there are some absolute nutters.

When I was a kid at school, I had a mate who's parents and their friends were pretty mental when it came to religion. Now these were educated professional people but by all accounts their "prayer group" was pretty full on. Speaking in tongues and all sorts. Way more "extreme" than what was preached in Church on a Sunday.

However, if you met them you wouldn't of thought "hardcore fundamentalists", however, they pretty much were.

Now they were totally harmless and actually very decent people, they were never taught that they were superior to others, that women should obey their husbands and that if someone turned away from their Church they should be executed.

However, if the same personalities had been subject to the teachings of the Koran then they could of been extremely dangerous.

gobuchul is a western extremism and he has just as much zeal as any islamic extremist and the same ability to take text out of context and manipulate it to justify his views.

Junkyard - Just piss off with your trolling.

What is a "western extremism"? Is that Lands End?

JY - Can you tell me how saying that God is the only person who can make the law, is compatible with liberal secular democracy? I'm all ears!

gobuchul - the scary thing is, he isn't trolling. He actually believes this shit 😯

Can you tell me how saying that God is the only person who can make the law, is compatible with liberal secular democracy? I'm all ears!

I'd be more interested in how you would solve this problem binners.

gobuchul is a western extremism and he has just as much zeal as any islamic extremist and the same ability to take text out of context and manipulate it to justify his views.

got you down to a tee there Gob.

same ability to take text out of context and manipulate it to justify his views.

got you down to a tee there Gob.

Really?

What extreme views have I expressed on here?

You can bet your life many of the early muslim settlers here came to be rid of all the religious bullshit, most of those I've met can no longer be asked with it all, any more than I can with the Catholic church I married into but was refused entry unless I complied with BS I had no intention of agreeing to.

But then more came, then more, then they started building Mosques, then with that came peer and no doubt mullah pressure and we know the rest..

IMV it's absolutely for certain the jihadi thing has some basis in sexual frustration of youf, heck we had our victorian young men couldn't wait to go of and fight for honour and bollox to show their manliness to the simpering females of the period, in fact didn't that carry on until WW1?

It's been managed badly, there should have been more encouragement to integrate, even down to the stupid clothes they now wear more often than used to be the case. Just today I drove by two primary schools on the way to work and couldn't help noticing the young Ghurka wives and how well they and their kids are turned out. They are a friendly bunch not sure what religion, probably Buddist or Hindu most of the men folk naturally are soldiers Garrisoned near where I now live, like everyone else we have round here Chinese, Caribbean, half of Eastern Europe, they mix in and rub along, there are no Mosques round here yet, but you could bet your sweet bippy if there were, the root cause of all the evil would be upon us.

However, if the same personalities had been subject to the teachings of the Koran then they could of been extremely dangerous.

So every Muslim in the UK is potentially extremely dangerous? More so than Christians?

Rubbish.

I'd be more interested in how you would solve this problem binners.

All the pandering to one religion, just because they're more shouty, and beardy and potentially explodey, needs to stop, We're a secular democracy, start acting like one, by affirming our values properly.

It is a two way street. You get to build your temples and worship your god, free from persecution. But theres a quid pro quo. You respect the rule of law, and acknowledge that that is where supreme power lies. Laws laid down by our democratically elected representatives, and enforced by a fair and transparent judicial system. Your god isn't 'betterer than anyone elses, and he/you don't get to make the rules.

And in a democracy, you do not have the right not to be offended. Neither does anyone else. Deal with it!

I read recently that many Algerian immigrants to France actually left that country to get away from the Islamists who had taken control of Algeria post French Colonialism. The irony now is that the Franco-Algerian community in France is a breeding ground for extremist Islamists, the children/grandchildren of the very people who fled such nuttery for a free & secular State so their kids wouldn't grow up in a world run by such butters.
EDIT: Not butters 😳

So every Muslim in the UK is potentially extremely dangerous?

That's basically the opposite of the point I was trying to make.

Any organisation will have members who go a lot further than the vast majority of it's members. It doesn't matter if it's a football club, a business or a religion.

I gave up scuba diving regularly years ago as both of the clubs in my area had a distinct minority, who just made it a pain in the arse for everyone else. They enjoyed the "club" and the rules more than the real reason for it's existence.

If you are so inclined to be a pain in the arse jobsworth in a small club, or a workplace you generally just piss a few people off.

If your "club" tells you must kill people who leave then you become more of a problem.

I know it seems a strange analogy but it works for me.

You respect the rule of law, and acknowledge that that is where supreme power lies. Laws laid down by our democratically elected representatives, and enforced by a fair and transparent judicial system.

Spot on. Now which religion has representatives in Parliament? 😉

The vast majority of Muslims want to live in a country like that too - if they didn't, they wouldn't be here.

Funny that you typed this before telling me to piss off and calling me a troll 🙄

When I was a kid at school, I had a mate who's parents and their friends were pretty mental when it came to religion. Now these were educated professional people but by all accounts their "prayer group" was pretty full on. Speaking in tongues and all sorts. Way more "extreme" than what was preached in Church on a Sunday.

FFS your views are so extreme even the atheists argue with you and defend religion. you are just as intolerant as the Islamic loit though you stick to swear wirds and insults rather than killing.

Binners sums up my view on you as well

the scary thing is, he isn't trolling. He actually believes this shit

I dont know how you canot call gobuchuls views extreme and its reasonable to point out you are not that well informed on the religion you are criticising

Anyway dissenting voices from the "liberals" must be mocked

dislike all religions Check out this Buddhist for example and quiver
then the Lords resistance army etc .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-30930997

Now which religion has representatives in Parliament?

I would guess all of the major ones in the Commons.

There was a Muslim in the House of Lords before he was booted out for antisemitism.

Is there a reason that they are all virgins? Is it because they will not/do not have sex with anyone?

Personally I do believe the fundamental message of Judeo-Christian religions is tolerance and forgiveness. That doesn't necessarily mean integration or mixing of communities but it does mean accepting others will have a different view. I also believe that most recognise the laws of a country are to be recognised.

EDIT : Gobchul - google Lords Spiritual - I assume this is what they meant
https://www.churchofengland.org/our-views/the-church-in-parliament/bishops-in-the-house-of-lords.aspx

We're a secular democracy

No we are not the head of our state is the head of our church...how did you miss this?They get representation in the LORDS - how did you miss that
The Church of England is the officially established religious institution of England as well - I can accept you not knowing that to be fair
WHo do we ask to save the head of our state in our national anthem ?

We are not secular IMHO we are moving towards it but we have a long way to go and it wont happen in the next 100 years

What percentage of the MPs in the Arab States are women?

In Saudi Arabia 20%. The same as us.

The vast majority of Muslims want to live in a country like that too - if they didn't, they wouldn't be here.

In Saudi Arabia 20%. The same as us.

Saudi is an absolute monarchy. It doesn't even have a real parliament as we understand it.

The fact you are trying to suggest that women in Saudi have similar influence as they do in the UK just says it all really. 🙄

Now which religion has representatives in Parliament?

I would guess all of the major ones in the Commons.

Those are elected representatives who happen to be religious. There's only one religion which has representatives in Parliament who are there as unelected representatives of their religion.

Yeah JY... having a little old lady who is a kind of figurehead to the church, and also a monarch with no constitutional power, and the odd bloke in a dog-collar occasionally falling asleep on some leather benches, is exactly the same as having an islamic state which ruthlessly enforces sharia law on gods behalf 🙄

Do you want to go and look up the word 'perspective' in the dictionary. Here you go. I'll do it for you

perspective (per·spec·tive) - The ability to perceive things in their actual interrelations or comparative importance:

binners - Member

All the pandering to one religion, just because they're more shouty, and beardy and potentially explodey, needs to stop

We pander more to other religions. Islam has nobody in the house of Lords, the head of state has to be a protestant. David Cameron claims we're a christian country because a minority of us are practicing christians (*). Theresa May tells us in headlines we need to take action on Jews' fear of persecution even though muslims are far more likely to be victims. And so on. The idea of muslim courts creates shock and horror but Jewish courts have operated for years. We demand that all muslims denounce terrorist acts committed by people in far off lands (but not that all christians denounce Tony Blair for invading countries, or Irish protestants and catholics for blowing people up)

So tell me again how we pander to muslims just because they're explodey.

(* Yes, a majority of people identify as christian in the census, but a substantial portion of that majority also say they don't believe in God. Go figure)

Personally I do believe the fundamental message of Judeo-Christian religions is tolerance and forgiveness.

History tells a different story.

All the pandering to one religion, just because they're more shouty, and beardy and potentially explodey, needs to stop, We're a secular democracy, start acting like one, by affirming our values properly.

Where's the pandering? In my lifetime the "West" has devoted a fair portion of its time either bombing, invading, or propping up regimes in the middle east. Its hardly pandering is it?

And then when a few of them turn up on our doorstep and get a bit shouty and explodey.

Are we not trying to impose our ways on them? I am all for the degrading of all religion, perhaps this is not the way to go about it.

Also your views are simply based on the Western belief that we are always right, you'll deny it, but you are already speaking the language.

In the end, both sides are doing the same thing, one side its called extremism, the other, foreign policy.

you are not that well informed on the religion you are criticising

Junkyard - Didn't you state there were no Muslims in Nigeria on the Paris thread? 😀