GasBandit
Staff member
That's another good example of differences...
What happens to a lapsed christian vs what happens to a muslim apostate.
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
What happens to a lapsed christian vs what happens to a muslim apostate.
Either there is a lot of white-knighting going on in this discussion or there is a lot of culture bashing going on this discussion. Here are some random thoughts:
1.) Forcing a person to wear something is a separate offense to stoning them. Those are not the same thing! You shouldn't equate them simply because there are examples of one provoking the other. Does it happen 100% of the time? If so, citation needed. If not, which topic are you talking about: stoning or forcing people to wear some kind of clothing? I think everyone on this forum can agree that stoning people to death is bad.
2.) I'm in favor of asking the women what they want. I suspect they would like more freedom, but maybe they do not view it that way. Do you think it is only men throwing the stones at the women being punished? I strongly doubt it, and that should highlight a difference in thinking that we do not comprehend. It is easy to view things through your personal lens (history, culture, etc.) but you probably aren't seeing the whole picture that way.
3.) Blots is trying to highlight a possible hypocrisy (judge "them" but don't judge "us"). It is America's favorite past time! (The hypocrisy part and the pointing it out part.) Obviously the two cultures, religions, societies, etc. are different. But I don't think blots is wrong that we tend turn a blind eye to some of our own sins while casting aspersions on others. This is naturally the way of people. "Look how spotless my house is!" (said while hiding the dirty laundry in the garage).
4.) Having said point 3, Western societies (and along with it, Christianity) is probably MUCH freer and more accepting than Islamic societies. That is changing and will likely continue to do so. This change is in no small part because people in those societies want that change, are setting aside old ways while maintaining their faith. It will be a very different religion in 5o years, I'll bet.
1.) Forcing a person to wear something is a separate offense to stoning them. Those are not the same thing! You shouldn't equate them simply because there are examples of one provoking the other. Does it happen 100% of the time? If so, citation needed. If not, which topic are you talking about: stoning or forcing people to wear some kind of clothing? I think everyone on this forum can agree that stoning people to death is bad.
2.) I'm in favor of asking the women what they want. I suspect they would like more freedom, but maybe they do not view it that way. Do you think it is only men throwing the stones at the women being punished? I strongly doubt it, and that should highlight a difference in thinking that we do not comprehend. It is easy to view things through your personal lens (history, culture, etc.) but you probably aren't seeing the whole picture that way.
3.) Blots is trying to highlight a possible hypocrisy (judge "them" but don't judge "us"). It is America's favorite past time! (The hypocrisy part and the pointing it out part.) Obviously the two cultures, religions, societies, etc. are different. But I don't think blots is wrong that we tend turn a blind eye to some of our own sins while casting aspersions on others. This is naturally the way of people. "Look how spotless my house is!" (said while hiding the dirty laundry in the garage).
4.) Having said point 3, Western societies (and along with it, Christianity) is probably MUCH freer and more accepting than Islamic societies. That is changing and will likely continue to do so. This change is in no small part because people in those societies want that change, are setting aside old ways while maintaining their faith. It will be a very different religion in 5o years, I'll bet.
Yeah, one religion still actually applies what it's scripture demands.
GasBandit
Staff member
So... you're in favor of Christians reinstituting slavery, banning the charging of interest, and capital punishment for cases of adultery?
Dave
Staff member
No, he's just pointing out the hypocrisy of christians not following their own "holy" book while castigating a religion of people who do.
I mean, really, Christians are supposed to not judge each other and leave it to God to do it. New Testament replacing Old and all that. I imagine most Christians just like to cherry pick though.
GasBandit
Staff member
I've seen some astoundingly apologist bs in my day, but you guys are really taking the cake today.
It's hilarious how often religion's biggest critics want to have their cake and eat it too - they will, with the same breath, castigate "evangelicals" for their backwards clinging to religious doctrine, and then lambast them as poor christians for not faithfully adhering to religious doctrine enough. Even when the neglected parts in question is abhorrent by modern ethical standards.
But only when it criticizes white christians, of course.
(And I'm as agnostic as they come)
GasBandit
Staff member
Are you kidding? The last 2 pages of this has been nothing but "but, but Christians!"
Meanwhile Iran is literally killing people as we speak because they don't want to wear a hijab.
Dave
Staff member
I got no horse in this race, I'm merely asking questions and attempting to make clarifications. I'm not saying ISLAM GOOD CHRISTIANS BAD. I think they are all ludicrous. But it's amusing to watch one group be all high & mighty while ignoring their own doctrine (unless it suits them - see homosexuality, racism, etc.), yet this same group castigates an entire religion because a certain number of them strictly adhere to their own. And yes, I give christians more shit about this than I do muslims, mostly because I see the hypocrisy more from christians due to where I live.
While I gave your post a bro-fist @MindDetective I would add that we should be careful to avoid allowing oppression simply because the oppressed say they prefer it. As long as there are structures and education available to allow them to make an informed choice then ok, but if they’re brainwashed* then they aren’t necessarily able to make a decision good or bad.
*shortcut, inflammatory word, but should get idea across.
*shortcut, inflammatory word, but should get idea across.
I agree entirely. Keep in mind that people generally abhor change. Change is pretty scary, so even in the face of instant, total freedom, I imagine many people would stay very closely with what they know. We are all "brainwashed" to a great extent by our personal histories.
Just because having a desire to wear the hijab is internalized misogyny doesn't make banning it the right solution. Same as orthodox Jewish women wearing wigs.
GasBandit
Staff member
THAT is a convention I'll never understand. Cover your hair for modesty... with this wig. I mean, that's like wearing a T-shirt with a naked woman on it.
GasBandit
Staff member
The fact that we know what Fark is means we're old.
"He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God."
(Micah 6:8, NIV)
I only quote that because it's pertinent. The argument before & after is that of God bringing charges against Israel about what He really wants from them.
Can't recall if I've mentioned this before:
Before Trump was elected, I'd see several women in hijabs at the metro daily. Since the inauguration, maybe one or two a week. You don't have to be in Iran to fear retaliation for what is or isn't on your head.
Before Trump was elected, I'd see several women in hijabs at the metro daily. Since the inauguration, maybe one or two a week. You don't have to be in Iran to fear retaliation for what is or isn't on your head.
There was a precipitous drop after 9/11.
GasBandit
Staff member
Of about 104 stories or so.
Oh yeah, that's totally what i was going for...
That's actually a relatively new interpretation of Scripture. Which is why they still burned people at the stake a few hundred years ago.
Or, you know, pointing out that it's not what the religion says, but what people do with what it says.
And i wasn't lambasting Christians, but pointing out that it's written philosophy isn't any better then that of others (not that that would have helped, see the current crisis on Myanmar, and those guys are Buddhist), so any criticism of religious motivated action by others either requires you condemn both religions, because they both demand it, or is excusable as an action of individuals acting on parts of the religion that should be ignored, and the issue isn't the religion, but the individuals choosing to obey the wrong parts.
Yeah, no one ever criticises non-white christians...
I honestly couldn't care less. We've been systemically preventing minorities from participating in legal weed, so the only people making cash off of this are rich white kids anyway.
Related:
So he's on-the-record as saying states rights... at least before he was elected.
Nevada did, and while they'd be called purple, they did vote trump. The conspiracy theorist in me says they'll only do raids in the deep-blue states.
I'd tend to agree. Unless it's a prelude to...
Trump issuing a counter-order so he gets credit and praise for "bringing back the legal weed."
Doesn't matter at all.
Also plausible.