Politics
Posted: 07 Jul 2017 03:02
The Christian Bible is split into two parts. The 'old' and 'new' testaments. Deutronomy is in the old testament. Christian values have evolved from that view, and it's followers largely adhere to the new testament which preaches tolerance, not death to infidels. The Quran has not been updated for the world we live in today. That was my point.So does the Bible (e.g. Deuteronomy 17:2-7, Deuteronomy 13:6-16)http://forum.spaceengine.org/viewtopic.php?p=9416#p9416 Firstly, the holy Islamic scriptures explicitly state that non-believers are to be executed.
Firstly, why did you split that line? It was a statement in entirety. I never claimed that members of other faiths don't rape kids, so please don't try and change my statements of fact into a falsehood to forward your own argument.I feel compelled to mention the Catholic church here...rape kids and avoiding arrest despite being reported years beforehand
Citation please?so they don't get offended
Contrast that with how quickly the widespread abuse of children in the Catholic church (which you cite) was investigated and prosecuted. Perhaps you explain what other contributing factors may explain the difference?"three reports from 2002 to 2006 highlighted the extent of child exploitation and links to wider criminality but nothing was done, with the findings either suppressed or simply ignored."
"The report said council staff were scared of being accused of racism by flagging up the issue in a town of nearly 260,000, where 8 per cent were from black and minority ethnic backgrounds."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 91825.html
Oh, I agree... I was just stating why Islam specifically, is far more odious and backwards. And that comparing what their followers do today, now, in this era, in the name of their belief, to what other religions did in the past before becoming enlightened and tolerant, is ignoring the fact that all other religions don't do those things any more.As I've said before, Islam has more than its share of problems, but it is either naïve or ignorant to suggest that other religions don't have theirs as well. To criticize Islam - to the exclusion of all other religions - is to promote a double standard.
That may be true in your country, but in my country there are a lot of fundamentalist Christians who adhere to the old testament. And last I checked, the new testament ADDS to the old one, it does not utterly invalidate it or redact it. It's still there, and a lot of people still look to it to inform their actions. In fact, Jesus himself states that everything in the old testament is still valid and to be upheld (Matthew 5:17-19).The Christian Bible is split into two parts. The 'old' and 'new' testaments. Deutronomy is in the old testament. Christian values have evolved from that view, and it's followers largely adhere to the new testament which preaches tolerance, not death to infidels. The Quran has not been updated for the world we live in today. That was my point.
So I could respond to each part of it by itself, of course. I thought that was obvious.
I did no such thing. However, YOU brought up that example as a specific case against Islam. I merely showed an example of how it wasn't just an issue with Islam.
I hope you've not forgotten how the Vatican actively worked to protect officials from prosecution by shuffling them around to places where they couldn't be touched.
You're describing a problem with the authorities here, not a problem with Islam.My claim is that when followers of other faiths rape children, they are generally investigated and punished swiftly when those offences are made known to the authority responsible to prosecute them. That standard procedure was not followed when a group of 'asian men' (a quote from a report that wasn't followed up) were investigated for rape and child abuse in Rotherham, UK. And that was done because the authorities involved were afraid of being called racist.
You keep claiming that other religions are so enlightened and that they evolved, yet you don't back it up. You say the New Testament negates the Old (it doesn't), you imply that there's not a whole bunch of bad stuff in the New anyway (there is), and you repeatedly fail to show any evidence of true, systematic and fundamental change of Christianity. Statistically, yes, Christians do not behave as badly as they used to, and some Christian institutions have evolved, but the fundamentals of the religion have not changed at all. The Bible is the same today as it was centuries ago.Oh, I agree... I was just stating why Islam specifically, is far more odious and backwards. And that comparing what their followers do today, now, in this era, in the name of their belief, to what other religions did in the past before becoming enlightened and tolerant, is ignoring the fact that all other religions don't do those things any more.
But by splitting that line into two separate parts, you appear to suggest I said two separate statements, which I did not. And one of those is practically the exact opposite of my belief. And besides, if a statement is worth quoting to give a reference point in a counter-argument to aid clarity and prevent misunderstanding, it's worth quoting in its entirety... to aid clarity and prevent misunderstanding.
Well I certainly was not suggesting any such thing, and I'm sorry if you thought otherwise. I'll do things differently in the future. But this is irrelevant to the topic and not worth getting too hung up on.
As far as I know Marx envisioned a government existing in a communist society, but of course it should act completely in favor of the people, not as a brutal dictatorship like the Soviet Union. Anarcho-communism is pretty popular, but personally I drift toward Marx's original vision, mainly because I don't believe an anarchic society could achieve deep space colonization, which I consider to be pretty darn important.