France under attack by Islamists (including Erdogan)

Then maybe getting closer to the solution is asking why there are peaceful practitioners of Islam in parts of America like Austin, Texas, where most citizens of all denominations feel safe living around Muslims and letting Muslims practice their faith. If you can figure out why Islam can be peaceful in Austin and other democratically governed parts of the globe, maybe you get closer to finding a solution with Europe.

I really don't know the answer to this, but I assume Austinite Islamic practitioners haven't eliminated certain texts from the Q'uran in their readings, nor edited certain text to fit the modern world. How come they're able to read the same books that are a foundational part of Muslim practice and not become radicalized like refugees fleeing from theocratically operated countries to Europe? How come Austinites that are non-Muslim practitioners feel safe living around Muslims that actively practice their religion?

What do Austinite Muslims do differently that European refugee Muslims from places like Afghanistan don't?

Clearly peaceful Islam can exist, if it exists in Austin, Texas like you said. How do we get that type of peaceful practice to be a more global phenomena?

Again I don't have solutions but I would think looking at peaceful models of Islamic practice in democratic parts of the world would be worth taking a look into at least.

Maybe you find Islamic practice isn't the complete picture that explains why terrorism is occurring in Europe. Maybe it's only part of it.

 

Irony is that we are 90% in agreement after so many tense arguments in the past.

I do think that Europe (and the US) need to play a role in investing in the Muslim world to create economic opportunity there outside of petrol and take an approach to foster a pluralistic and open society rather than a western style gov't. Pure democracy might not be right as it's easy for fundamentalists to take charge but secular dictators aren't the answer either.

 

You obviously have no idea what's in the old testament. You also obviously have no idea what's in the new testament because you don't seem to care that it's in succession.

Abraham was ordered to sacrifice the first born son only to test his faith -- and later God stopped him to explain this... What, did you think God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac and it actually happened?

I'm leaving this video here, hopefully everyone takes some time to actually study the religious texts...

 

I went through all the sacraments of Catholicism....I've done my time and know the Bible.

You obviously have a bad habit of trying to play "gotcha" like when I schooled you about Obama's role in the shale revolution when I triggered you.

Nope just giving the examples of how the Old Testament is.... you didn't mention all the war and all the babies killed over the chosen people. Just playing your usually "gotcha" game.

Yea I don't think Islam is a religion peace.... like I don't think Christianity is either. You do understand Islam and Christianity are Abrahamic faiths?

 

I obviously don't play games -- I've established my position completely. You're the one who claimed that Islam isn't any more dangerous than any other religion, I'm here to challenge that idea. Who's playing the "gotcha" game?

Catholicism relies also quite a bit on ignorance. Again, I point to you that Jesus came after the old testament, so did Apostle Paul... Through Jesus and mostly Apostle Paul, the archaic rules were undone. If you're really well-studied on Christianity as you say, I'm quite sure you'd know this. It seems very evident that you don't know this at all.

Quran and the Hadith work in the opposite direction. The older that Muhammed got, the more violent the verses that were written that compose their holy books.

Not sure why you just threw the actual argument out and just try to call me a hack.

 

And you’re trying to divorce the Old Testament from Christianity because it is convenient.

They are Abrahamic faiths. I’m sorry if that offend your Protestant (I’m assuming) sensibilities. And again.... thousands of years of bloodshed due to this crap.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-547798824

Three men have been hailed for helping a police officer and an elderly woman during Monday's attack in Vienna.

Turks Recep Gultekin was shot in the leg while aiding the woman with his friend, Mikail Özen.

They also carried an injured police officer to safety after a Palestinian man, Osama Joda, gave him first aid.

 

Did you say that I'm the one trying to divorce the old testament from the new testament?

You seem to think Judaism is exactly the same as Christianity. I hope it's not news to you that it's not the same religion.

And it's not even like I'm trying to say look at only the new testament, I'm trying to keep the entirety of the bible together in the discussion. You're the one trying to isolate the discussion into just the old testament, with absolutely 0 thought about the new testament. It's to the point where you can't even refer back to the point I made at all. In a debate that's called conceding the argument.

The usage of the word "Abrahamic" is just wrong here. We're here to see if Christianity is just as violent as Islam is, and you're here to just categorize them into the same bucket, the only reason being "Abraham".

At this point, I don't even know why you told me you went to Catholic school. You clearly need to spend a good few hours just reading up on the differences in the religions.

 

I would say the core Christian base in the US if they were transplanted in a tumultuous war torn region and spent multiple generations there would turn into violent extremists similar to ISIS.

 

Nope.... just bringing up the inconvenient Old Testament which has been the reason why Christianity has such a violent history. They sure ain't using the "turn the other cheek" side of the bible....

Your point seems to be that because the New Testament came after the Old Testament, we can just ignore all the bloodshed and violence.

Considering Christianity and Islam hold Abraham as an important prophet.... seems relevant to their founding and practice. Did the Christian god only just appear right before Jesus was born?

Because I'm schooling you.

 

We just have to look at history to find that to be the case.

 

Yeah, keep up with the conversation if you want to be in it... We're not talking about FOLLOWERS being violent. We're talking about if the religion itself advocates violence.

ISIS is the worst possible example you could've given. Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi had a PhD in Islamic studies. He literally commanded people to blow themselves up in the name of Allah.

If you want to dumb everyone down, please don't even step into this.

 

NPR: Is The Bible More Violent Than The Quran?

TLDR.... it all depends on how you interpret each holy text.....

 

The old testament isn't inconvenient to me at all. I honestly think it's only inconvenient to you. Looking back at the replies I left, I don't even know where you get the feeling I'm under any pressure. I'm honestly just trying to educate you.

I never said we should ignore the bloodshed and violence -- that has happened, that's part of the history of the religion. And if you told me David came after Jesus, I'd have a totally different opinion on christianity since David waged wars, killed people, etc. Samson? Same thing.

It's really more inconvenient for you that Jesus is the central figure of the religion, followed by Paul the Apostle. The only people Paul has ever killed were other Christians he persecuted before his conversion to the faith. And all the Apostles died violently holding onto their faith during persecution.

You're not schooling anyone with your arguments. You want to throw the entire bible in the bin with the only basis being old testament. Like, at that point you haven't even gotten to the point where Jesus was born.

It's the definition of ignorance. Just because you're atheist or agnostic doesn't make you smarter/educated, that's a terrible, cheap misconception.

 

The problem is the Old Testament is what is used by Christians to do the things the Muslims did..... I understand well that the Christ part is what makes Christianity but I am talking about history and how it was actually practiced.

Christ kept the company of lepers, prostitutes, and society's undesirables while turning the cheek.... where was all that when Christians were committing genocides and starting holy wars? What gives them the okay to commit murder in the name of God?

It's so obvious once you free yourself from the grips of antiquated thinking.

 

I think it's more this.

I mean let's use some perspective from a refugees POV. You are born and raised in a theocratically governed country and probably had to become a hardened individual to survive. All you've known all your life is a more literal interpretation of Islam. But **** has gotten so bad in your country, you're willing to re-locate yourself and your family to an entirely different part of the globe. Hundreds of thousands of people like you migrate to countries across Europe in sweeping force, completely unfamiliar with the democratic way of life and with democratic citizens unfamiliar with your way of life. This unfamiliarity may pose as a breeding ground for xenophobia from both sides despite initial intentions of welcoming all asylum seekers into their country.

You also have European country governments who have policies to help/deal with asylum seekers but they are probably overwhelmed by the sheer volume of refugees. They are underfunded, understaffed and above all under prepared. I mean which country's world leaders were anticipating such a mass exodus of asylum seekers from the Middle East and adequately prepared for it? How do you even predict and anticipate something like that beyond having basic measures for the usual flow of refugees you statistically expect to get annually? I'm making this stat up cuz I don't know the real stats, but if over the past 10 years, statistically you grant say 10,000 refugees every year into your country, then you probably staff only enough people to handle the casework of 10,000 refugees every year. So when hundreds of thousands flock to your country for help and you're only staffed to help 10,000, that's a lot of refugees left out in the cold getting away from their native country's hell. A lot of upset people still indoctrinated to a theocratically governed way of life.

What if some of the homeless asylum seekers then go to mosques with leaders who have radicalized agendas, and are fed and clothed? They get to talk in their native language around other like minded people and get a sense of community they haven't found elsewhere. This seems to me like how you develop a breeding ground for recruiting terrorists willing to die for a radical leader's cause.

This doesn't include the refugees that are granted asylum but for whatever reasons reject the democratic governance of the country they reside in and instead choose to attack people in their community ideologically different from them. Maybe they too go to the type of religious community centers that harbor hateful interpretations of Islam but they feel welcomed in.

I think it's an easy answer to say the core of Islamic teaching is violent and is the root cause of that type of terrorism though. I think that's only partially true. Like I've never read a page of the Q'uran, but I imagine there are some texts that say it's okay to treat women less than equal and other morally reprehensible things. I still refer back to Austinite Muslims and other peaceful practitioners of Islam that live in democratically governed parts of the world who treat others equally despite reading some morally questionable text in their religious books. What do peaceful Muslims in democratically governed parts of the world do differently from their radicalized contemporaries? What are the quality of life differences both endure? Again why are they able to read the Q'uran and other Muslim text and not become radicalized themselves? Why do non-Muslims feel comfortable letting Muslims practice their faith in these peaceful regions of globe?

I mean I've read Game of Thrones and you don't see me looking to flay people's skin off, torture them in my sex dungeon, lop off their genitals, throw them in excrement and routinely abuse them for my own sadistic pleasure. Why are we to assume the Q'uran is the one book with violent passages that is capable of brain washing people by the masses and all other books with violent text aren't?

Perhaps intelligence officials for European governments should monitor wealthy Muslims who publicly share radicalized ideas of Islam and harbor people who are poor and vulnerable that could be manipulated for nefarious causes. I'm certain they do already. Perhaps there's not enough manpower or money necessary to completely monitor them all and some terror attacks slip through. I'm only guessing and talking out my ass here though and again unfamiliar with European politics. Yung-T and AroundTheWorld, feel free to tell me to stfu and say I don't know what I'm talking about because I really don't.

 

For the Bible, that article somehow only means Book 1 of Samuel (Old Testament) and then later adds the "says the Quran explicitly condemns religious aggression and the killing of civilians. " statement, which is just blatantly wrong and can be disproven by dozens of Quran passages.

I mean even if you want to approach this topic openly, you should realize that article is abysmal quality.

 

A lot of the attacks in Europe were committed by native citizens (many even born in Europe) with medium to high income families, making the issue about war-torn regions or wealth is really misconstruing the issues we're currently seeing.

 

Thanks for the polite reply and educating me on something I'm ignorant over. It's easy for us in the states to guess the answers when we're not in your shoes.