The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

First, definitions are important if we want to discuss the topic of christian branches.

Christianity is defined as whatever is doctrinally written within the bible just like a construction blueprint is used to create buildings. If a 'christian' behaves contrary to what is in their text, then you can call them out on it. These texts are an anchor and in the religious sense serve as a self correction mirror.

Now, the different branches of christianity either add on their own exta-biblical ideas, or they emphasise some parts more than others without contradicting either. e.g. some churches prefer doing crazy 'speaking in tongues' (pentacostal) while some place more emphasis on 'spreading the word' (evangelical). However, evangelicals and pentacostals do not disagree with each other. They are branches in the sense that a tree may have different shaped branches, some with fruits and some with just leaves, but they all consistently sprout from the same roots.

Catholicism is an example of the addition of extra-biblical ideas like popehood, sainthood, worship of Mary, confession, self flagellation, anti-contraception, purgatory, indulgence etc. It is first and foremost a political system (long dead roman empire) mixed with christian influences.

In Islam you either support the example of prophet Muhammed in killing apostates, gays, and non-believers, raping children, treating women as second class citizens, taking sex slaves etc. or you deny Islam as described in the Quran and Hadif because of its immorality. There is no doctrinal support for a 'peaceful' Islam because the later violent passages are specifically stated within the text by Muhammed himself to overturn the earlier peaceful ones.

There is only one minority sect of peaceful 'muslims', and they are the Ahmadis (not shia/sunni). However, they are only peaceful because they deny certain Islamic scripture and add on their own extra-Quranic ideas in much the same way the catholic church does with the bible. For example they believe in strict non-violence and another prophet 'Mirza Ghulam Ahmad' who is supposed to come after Muhammed. This means Muhammed isn't the last word. For this reason they are viewed as apostate and routinely killed and persecuted across the Islamic world.

Ahmadis are wonderful and the world would be a better place if all muslims were like them. Any time you hear of muslims genuinely standing up against terror, protecting christians and non-believers they are Ahmadis.

As I already said, the things that Tatsu quoted are from the old testament. There are many ways to say Christianity does not stand for those practices.The easiest of those to understand is that the new testament overrides the practices of the old testament in the same way that a new contract overrides an old one. Islam has something of the same only it is the very opposite - an anti-human contract replacing a peaceful one.

N0t only is Sodom and Gomorah old testament, but it was an act by elohim (abrahamic god) himself. Elohim did all the destroying, and the only thing he commanded humans to do in this instance was for some of them to flee the city. Sodom and gomorah is not a passage that can be used to justify christians taking up arms against nonbelievers. It is infact quite the contrary as it reinforces the christian idea that justice through violence is for god only.

Even so, there was no hatred from Abraham at all towards the people of sodom and gomorah. Infact there was great sorrow and he plead with god to spare them - illustrating very nicely the christian idea of hate the sin but love the sinner Genesis 18:16-33

If you asked me who i would rather invite into my home, a fundamental atheist, a fundamental christian, or a fundamental muslim, I would be hard pressed to choose between the atheist and the christian. The christian will be trying to convert me all the time, but i know with 100% certainty that they will not steal my property, my health, or my life. The atheist won't be converting me, but there is a very small chance they will try to rob me. The muslim on the other hand will be trying to get me to submit to the will of Allah either by the sword, or a slave tax.

Xankar was right, this thread is filled with inane gibberish and I am crazy for participating.

Oh, sorry tatsu i didn't mean to be 'dismissive' of xankar as a nazi. I meant right as in the dictionary meaning of it. Please sir, don't report me to word police central command.

What this thread labels as "left" or "right" covers about 2-3 completely different parties (per side) where i live. It's not the only thread i see this, it's a byproduct of the american system that you can only ever be "for" or "against" and any sense of nuance is completely destroyed.

"left want's less guns" "yea but you also want a thought police" "but that's not what i.." "THOUGHT POLICE, ARGUMENT INVALID".

That's roughly how this tends to go.

To be honest, i've wondered for some time why christians never changed or decanonized their Old Testament, considering how strong the contrast is to the New Testament. It's not like there haven't been splits, discussions and outright wars over the interpretation of the bible. But it always struck me as weird that one moment i'm reading about god casually annihilating a village and the next i'm reading about jesus saving everyone and pitying the very people that crucify him.

If Jesus was Old Testament, God would've come down and destroyed Rome for trying to crucify Jesus. Old God picks sides, New God doesn't. I've seen people use the "it makes sense in context" argument, but every time muslims come up, "it makes sense in context" is rebuffed by "they're savages!" or some variant thereof.

EDIT:

I've been wondering what to say to this. Not my first thread to see religion come up in, and it never really ends well. So after some contemplation, my response is this:

I get the point you're trying to make, but when i look at how christians (of all sorts) actually behave, it looks to me like they didn't get a memo. Or a couple of memos.

If Muslims truly believed in their most extreme stances, we wouldn't be seeing the occasional terrorist, we'd be seeing straight up invasions on our beaches. There are, after all, more than a billion of them. I ascribe the difference to the fact that the christians explicitly named their differences, whereas Muslims mostly call themselves just that.

It's not that long ago that christians had witch hunts and executions. Even now we have people like Mike Pence essentially calling for a Christian Sharia. We're not THAT different from them.

The only way in which "leftie" is used is in a perjorative manner, in this thread.

I mean you literally just proved it again by being very offended at how much offense I apparently take at things. Also by saying that left wing principles "used" to stand for things like gay rights and so forth. It still does.

All this is is a tiring semantic game where you attempt to defend your apparently-besmirched honour because someone called you out for using a perjorative. Which you did. Multiple times.

And no, we're not doing the free speech thing. Left wing is an ideological leaning that is larger than just America. Free speech is a more complicated issue than being used as a shield for being criticised for insulting others.

poor you.

yes this thread is alot of work. what? you though it would be easy? this thread is hard. I'm glad you realize that now.


politics are a lot of work namely when people are entrenched.

on topic : you & gang have opinions of the very entrenched sort.

let's run through some of them shall we?

What have we learned from you, @mered4, @thetrophysystem, @killerkiwijuice,
and @walmartdialup (who all rather identify with the right than the left and rather with authoritarian than libertarian)

since the beginning of this thread?




•Women are not the same worker as Men, not inferior nor superior just different in some ways

•Equalizing the employment field will make women loose jobs.

•Sexism is okay.

•Racism/Sexism is a choice as opposed to a learned experience starting from birth.

•There is such a concept as genetically programmed choices per the different sexes.

•There is such a thing as human race.

•(this is, of course, accounting for the above rule otherwise my terminology would differ) In human races there are genetically programmed (or some other cause, regardless I disagree with it) penchants for the black man that there aren't in the white man. Tendencies that will spring up regardless of birthplace or context towards a life of crime/violence/unlawfulness or any other differentiating factor as compared to the average white man.

•Criminality/wealth/poverty is a choice as opposed to a learned experience starting from birth.

•There is no such thing and no measurable metric for a bias in cops towards blacks (again, with the rule up three slots).

•That the earth's climate might be on average warming is a myth.

•If above is acknowledged to be true it is a sure-fire certainty that in no way shape or from Man has had anything to do with it.

•The majority of immigrants are undocumented.

•It is a scientifically provable fact that these same immigrants are more aggressive/violent/yada yada in the same way that blacks are. must be the genes.

•An American practicing Islam has a lower net trustworthiness value than an American practicing Atheism (but hey exxxtra brownie points for not trying to convert me!) who himself has a lower net trustworthiness value still than an American practicing Christianity.

•A gun is required to walk in the streets and in some other contexts in America. Without one (or several) the chances of dying or being unable to spare a hostage or other sort of victim via shooting of the aggressor go through the roof.

•Most cases of such events are resolved with comparatively meliorative results thanks to a non-government or state-issued carry. meaning the cops mop up for the few while the people and militia care for the many.

•Obama made "things" worse. for things take any metric of what determines the rise/fall of a country.

•No health care at all would be better than Obamacare / people do not need health care cheap or free health care (it would be a bad thing).

•Less taxation of the rich is better for the Economy capital E.


I left some of the more detailed opinions for later as they are the type to hog all the response and leave all these unanswered for.

forgive me for being blunt but : ....you guys make sure to keep us busy



now you may not all be unanimous about these points as a group (which IMO does little for their individual credibility) but you've all said at least one of these things with variations. feel free to correct me on the exact syntax but please my aim isn't for a semantics war, I realize the entire point of a semantics war is for me to never ever be able to quote you and yet for you to still get away with saying the things you say so please do get it out of your system and then address the point(s).

WUT I am not right wing haha. @tatsujb

I think Obama was a great president, he had an awesome personality and accomplished a whole lot. Though some things were a bit shady i think he was great. You can find me earlier in this thread- I was a hardore Bernie supporter. Birth control for women, pro choice. Pro LGBT (obviously, I'm trans???) Just because I'm really on the fence about carrying guns (against real rifles and shotguns etc though... Outside controlled hunting and ranges- Who needs that for protection ??) And I support taxing the rich as the middle class has been destroyed. Trickle down doesn't work.

You've got me all wrong Tatsu. O . O?

Edit: Not to mention atheist.

Edit2: The reason I'm so iffy about Hillary is because she's backed by Wall Street. She's not Left- She's pretty dang center compared to euro politics. I support her a hell of a lot more than Trump though- Mostly due to my fear of him making an absolute mockery of our country. Trump is a big business man who's failed and went bankrupt many times- I don't think giving tax cuts to the rich helps anybody. More taxes for the supremely rich less for the poor- as it should be. Not to mention his absolutely obvious racial points.

@squishypon3 I'll admit to testing the waters with you. I really needed to know since given your other wise free-spirited and open mind you were starting to show some signs of falling right.

As I said in my post :

the thing one that would concern you here is :

what you said there actually makes alot of sense to me I mostly agree with it. Obviously you disagree with :

you realize there is not a choice in certain situations as opposed to "always a choice" and you credit the increased numbers in crime among blacks to defavorable circumstance which is true.

however this comes with the claim that zero cop bias or racism exists at all whereas in reality there's a severe racism and even KKK involvement problem amongst cops multitudes higher than the problem in the non-police american population. It's undeniable.

there's also this :

I can't stress enough how it is not an actual thing. there are statistical anomalies as well as biased researches but it is otherwise proven that genetical girl and boy are not predestined to choices.


That being said you were in my above post in a really uncertain way and on basically all other points you don't align with the left.
I'll remove your tag. sorry for pinning you wrong.

rest assured though I already knew these stances from you :

success !

if anything politics are depressing
and people with differing opinions are threated like the outsiders of your "cool"kidschoolgang and being bulied

Oh yes. Oh YES.
Someone quoted the Bible again!
I won't argue politics here anymore, but I sure as hell am going to defend the Word of God.
So, let's begin:

We'll start with trophy's comment. First off, if we don't judge religions based on their teachings, then what in hell are we judging them by? Not all belief systems are created equal. I can call the sky green, then create an entire religion based on my inane belief that the sky is green. Then, I can proceed to be called completely insane before being locked in a madhouse.

Islam preaches violence against people who don't believe as they do. Christ said to love your enemy.
Islam teaches men to do whatever the hell they want to their wives, and the women HAVE to go along with it. Christ teaches women to respect men as the head of the household, and for men to respect women as the keeper of the household.
See the difference? I could go on, but I've made my point.

First off, it's Ezekiel, not Ezechial. Have some respect.

Second, Ezekiel 9 is a continuation of the vision that the Lord showed Ezekiel starting in Ezekiel 7. It was a vision he showed to Ezekiel so he could warn the leaders of Judah what would happen if they did not stop defiling the Lord's name. If they did not stop the sin, the atrocities. The utter disdain for His Name. Basically, he's telling them to shape up, or he would lift his protection from Judah. Simple, and he wasn't advocating that the Jews stand up and start slaughtering everyone who wasn't a Jew.

Third, Numbers 31 is God basically telling Moses to go on a war of vengeance against the Midianites. I don't condone what they did to those folks, which was basically Ghengis-Khan style pillaging. That said, they did it for a reason, not just for the hell of it. The Lord ordered them to do this to the Midianites so they would not look weak to the other tribes in the area. After all, the Midianites sucker punched them earlier. They aren't just going to sit there and turn the other cheek. That's New Testament.

Fourth, Judges wasn't God talking. That was the people of Israel, crying out against their leaders who were systematically destroying the tribe of Benjamin. So they went out and got some wives for the Benjamites. Utterly unethical, sure. But again, they aren't advocating that Jews actively hunt down and kill people because they aren't Jews. They just wanted to steal some wives in a situation that in NO WAY could be interpreted as a command to kill some dude and marry off his virgin daughter.

Fifth, Christianity isn't a religion. It's not about following a bunch of rules and checking the right boxes. It's about forgiveness, not violence. Acceptance, not tolerance. Love, not judgement. Peace, not appeasement.
Islam is a religion in the strictest sense of the word. You follow a bunch of rules. You check the right boxes. You pass judgement on those not in your exclusive club. That's Islam. It's brutal. It's primitive. And it needs to go. It is unacceptable to the West's values, and it is an abomination in this time of technological and informational enlightenment. Stop treating them like they have something.

Know what? My roommate is Muslim. He's not a radical. He doesn't believe a bunch of BS about treating women like slaves. I'd call him a moderate Muslim, personally. And he's a great guy. Known him for years. I don't hate him, I love him. I accept him for who he is and for the choices he has made. I don't force my beliefs on him. He doesn't force his on me. We both know the score.

And you think that you are better than the rest of us because you don't have a belief system? Please. You claim that no religion is better than another. I claim that you are an ignorant fool, desperately lurching from verse to verse of the Bible, gleefully looking for a flaw without taking the time to understand that which you oppose. I try my best to understand the beliefs of those who oppose me in debate. If not to better know their side, and counter it, then to love them for it. Maybe you should find some peace, Tatsu. Jesus is right here. As a friend of his, he's a great guy.

"What have we learned from you @xankar"
Nothing, really. I don't recall preaching my views here like a crazed self-imposed authority on politics/religion.

Quote me the biblical passage that says to go hunt witches. Guess who was doing all that? Catholics.

The first time i explain all this to people who understandably know very little about religion I always do so in good faith. Having to do so a second time because they have some selective reading problem is just irritating.

All i'll say is you need to splash some cold water on your face and look at the world as it is, not as you want it to be.



German intelligence warns of IS hit squads among refugees
http://www.politico.eu/article/german-intelligence-warns-of-is-hit-squads-among-refugees/

This was the cringiest video I've seen in my entire life

0/10000000000000000000069

refresh your mind:

https://www.thenation.com/article/its-not-just-uganda-behind-christian-rights-onslaught-africa/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Angola
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Botswana
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Burundi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Cameroon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Eritrea (Equal Christian/Muslim)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Ethiopia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Ghana
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Kenya
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Liberia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Namibia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Nigeria (Equal Christian/Muslim)\
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_South_Sudan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Swaziland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Tanzania
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Togo (Indigenous religious majority, more Christian than Muslim)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Uganda
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Zambia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Zimbabwe

Most countries listed above are Christian majority or 50:50 split between it and Islam. If Islam is the majority then I noticed it'd be Suni- if Christianity was the majority it'd be Orthdox Church.

Tell that to the jehovah's witness' kek.

propper ethics >>>> religion

Yup, again that stuff is political christianity mainly due to catholic influence. It's entirely unbiblical and can be fought with the very same holy text that these people claim to believe in.

Not only does the figure of Jesus say nothing about homosexuality, but regarding law and governance he says some very important things.

John 18:36

This idea forms one of the pillars of separation of church and state. Christians believe that the only kingdom that really matters is the one you go to after you die and that they have no right to impose laws and judgements on people in the 'earthly' world. These guys are in many ways like the hippies of the old world.

James 4:11-12

Christians believe in original sin, meaning everyone has sinned and thus no-one has any moral standing to judge any other person. Political institutions that do so are contradictory to Christian doctrine that only god can judge.

Mark 12:13-17

Again, reinforcement of separation of church and state and clear instruction for Christians to fully submit to the law of earthly kingdoms - in this case the Romans.

Now, i could contrast this with Quranic verses of Muhammed and his obsession with judging, controlling, raping, killing, and enslaving others but i would probably go over the post word limit. Islam is political in nature and duly reflects Muhammed's use of it as such. It's about getting others to submit to Allah in the current physical world.

You see the problem is that when ISIS does crazy stuff, you can't quote Quranic doctrine to fight them like you can do with Christians. Quoting Quranic teaching tends to do the opposite and lends support to what they do.

Ok, so another old testament quote. I'm only explaining this one last time for my own sanity. The old testament is an old contract of laws between god and man, and the new testament is a new contract. Where new testament ideas contradict with the old testament, the new testament overrides them just like what happens when you renegotiating a business contract.

OT is held as cannon for the very reason of demonstrating the creation of this new contract by the figure of Jesus who sacrifices himself in order to make it happen. The OT is held as a historical account, and not necessarily as a moral obligation to follow.

Old testament books: Anything before Jesus. (Genesis to Malachi)
New testament books: Anything after Jesus. (Mathew to Revelation)

Mered will get mad at me for boiling down the differences between the old and new contracts to eating bacon, but this is an easy way for people to grasp how Christianity is not tied to the moral obligations of the OT. (fun fact: old testament bacon ban was forked by Islam and never reformed)

OLD TESTAMENT - Deuteronomy 14:8

NEW TESTAMENT - Acts 10:11-19

But what's confusing is even in Islam much of the same is shown.

"He who unfairly treats a non-Muslim living in a Muslim State, or undermines his rights, or burdens him beyond his capacity, or takes something from him without his consent; I will be his opponent on the Day of Judgment. "

"Whoever kills a non-Muslim citizen under a Muslim government shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise."

"Christians are my citizens, and by God, I hold out against anything that displeases them. No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims’ houses.

The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray. Their churches are to be respected. No one of the Muslims is to disobey this covenant till the Last Day."

"Whosoever shall annul any one of these decrees, let him know positively that he annuls the ordinance of God."

All quotes from Muhammed.

"Say: Allah is Best Aware how long they tarried. His is the Invisible of the heavens and the earth. How clear of sight is He and keen of hearing! They have NO protecting friend beside Him, and He maketh NONE to share in His government." S. 18:26 Pickthall