UK ISIS/IS Fighters

finchy

Ballysmate wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

I have no time for Christianity either. But in its defence, it has moved from medieval times to some extent, even if it is mumbo jumbo.
You talk about the west as being the common enemy, but I suggest you take a fresh look at who IS are fighting. Have a look at who Saudi Arabia attacked.
Shiite is fighting Sunni and Kurd. All followers of Islam.
The fact is that the vast majority of victims of these conflicts are Muslim.

Exactly. This is the real challenge in the 21st century. All mainstream religions bar one have now become a marginal aspect of the followers way of life, certainly in western society and advanced far eastern society. Education and improved living standards have seen to this. For many people, myself included, it is quite shocking to see a religion that is exceptionally orthodox even in its moderate forms and one that goes against the grain of what we all want - an open and fair democratic society.
In my opinion Islam is still clinging onto its origins of the few educated (all men) controlling and subjugating the masses with religious dogma. This also leaves it open to being hijacked and used as a banner to reap havoc and bl00dy murder against non believers and believers of its different sects.
The Middle East is a complete and utter mess. The only reason that Saudi and Iran are involving themselves against ISIS/Al Qaeda/et all, is that they are the last two major dictatorships in the region. An 'arab spring' in either would be catastrophic.

The problem is that you are both looking at this entirely from a Western perspective. Christianity has been marginalised in large parts of Europe, that is true, but throughout many other parts of the world, it is still a major force and is still linked to many forms of oppression - look at Uganda, for example.

Finchy, just to be clear, I think that mankind is being held back by all religions with their bizarre superstitions. At the moment though, fundamental Islam seems the most primitive.
Word of God written down in the desert centuries ago ...yeah right.

Don't worry, I know that you're an equal opportunities offender towards all faiths.

I just thought you were giving a bit too much credit to Christianity. Once the power base of that religion finally shifts to the developing world, it'll be interesting to see the results. OK, this is only anecdotal evidence, but when I was at university I was having a conversation with quite a few African Christian friends about what it is permissible to do according to the Bible. They were unanimous that masturbators and adulterers should be put to death by stoning, but divided on fornicators.

Needless to say, the effects on Cake Stop would be disastrous.

CYCLESPORT1

ai_1

CYCLESPORT1 wrote:

Helpful :roll:

Many religions are pretty brutal, christianity included, . Thankfully most people don't adhere very literally to the rules. I've always wondered why bother at all if you're not going to do it properly. Selective religion seems, to me, rather cowardly, self serving and dishonest. The implications of religion are too serious and fundamental to associate yourself with religions you don't really believe in just because it's the done thing.
If you believe it, follow it. If there are some bits you don't believe in then that rather calls the rest into question too, doesn't it? A world full of people who actually followed their chosen religions to the letter would be horrendous, so I'm much happier that most people don't do this. However, I'd much prefer if people would be honest with themselves and if they're not trying to follow a religion in it's entirety, just admit you're actually an athiest at heart but haven't had the guts or inclination to admit it. We might actually end up with a society where religion is in the minority, and a better world it would be.
The middle ground makes no sense.

ballysmate

Jediism is on the wane but Heavy Metal is on the rise.

Keep the Faith!

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/dec/ ... di-knights

Pituophis

What I really do not understand (genuinely) is why we are trying to stop people going off to fight.
If they do not want to live in our society and believe that they should go and help to set up a Caliphate where they can live within the boundaries of their own ideology, why don't we just let them get on with it?
Stop them coming back, yes. But stop them leaving? I really don't get it.
They do not want to be a part of our society. What right do we have to force them to stay?
Will this not just make them hate us more? Will they take out revenge over here for being "imprisoned in an alien culture"? Could we blame them?
I don't pay any attention to the religious persuasion of anyone until they begin to rally against our cultural values, then I may take a bit of interest as to where their allegiances lie. I am not anti muslim in the same way that I am not anti Irish catholic. I am anti terrorist/terrorist sympathiser. There is a difference.
Once they have left our country I genuinely do not care what happens to them, good or bad.
If that makes me a bad person, I can live with it.

Bobbinogs

I think we should actively encourage the traitors to leave, even pay for their airfare. Last thing before they leave though is to take away their passports and wish them a painful death and an afterlife packed with virgins. Sorted.

ai_1

Bobbinogs wrote:

I think we should actively encourage the traitors to leave, even pay for their airfare. Last thing before they leave though is to take away their passports and wish them a painful death and an afterlife packed with virgins. Sorted.

Nothing inherently wrong with being a "traitor" I would say.
Depends on the incentive.
If the reason for choosing another side is idealogical that in my mind does not make them worthy of disrespect. What their ideals are is a different matter.
On the other hand someone who changes side for personal gain does not deserve any respect.
Blind patriotism/loyalty are much worse than a willingness to change sides. The idea of a "traitor" belongs in the past. Where do you think most of the problems come from?
Of course many of these people may well have considered themselves a member of specific religious community all along rather than a geographical one. In which case it's probably blind allegiance that's driving their actions. So I don't think the word "traitor" is useful or accurate. It's emotive and that's about it.

finchy

We stop people going abroad to fight for ISIS because they'll be killing innocent Iraqis and Syrians, often in the most appallingly sadistic way.

That's why.

Pituophis

Is it better for them to kill innocent Britain's, by say, running them over and beheading them in the street, or blowing them up in buses and trains, instead of innocent Syrians?
If you think neither, then I actually agree.
The thing is though, there is a good chance they may be killed themselves in Syria, where as there is no chance on earth that they will be killed here, no matter how bad the atrocity they commit.
The do gooders simply won't allow it.

ai_1

Pituophis wrote:

...... there is no chance on earth that they will be killed here, no matter how bad the atrocity they commit.
The do gooders simply won't allow it.

You mean the civilised people?
You think it's best they are killed because they think and may do things you disagree with. They think they should help kill those they disagree with. You're both wrong IMO and rather similar in a number of ways.

bompington

Ai_1 wrote:

Many religions are pretty brutal, christianity included, . Thankfully most people don't adhere very literally to the rules

I'd be interested to hear which Christian "rules" you think are brutal. The one about loving everyone, perhaps? Going the extra mile when someone makes unreasonable demands of you? Turning the other cheek? "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone"?
When Christians don't adhere to the "rules", the problem is far more often that they head in the other direction - you will not find the Spanish Inquisition, burning "witches", or persecuting minorities of any sort in the bible.
The most brutal punishment actually prescribed by Christianity is getting thrown out of the church.
When you compare Islam to Christianity, we're really not looking at similar things.

Pituophis

Ai_1 wrote:

Pituophis wrote:

...... there is no chance on earth that they will be killed here, no matter how bad the atrocity they commit.
The do gooders simply won't allow it.

You mean the civilised people?
You think it's best they are killed because they think and may do things you disagree with. They think they should help kill those they disagree with. You're both wrong IMO and rather similar in a number of ways.

I was brought up a catholic. I never felt an urge to run off and join the IRA, here or there.
I don't think that anyone should be killed for their religious beliefs.
Am I happy to see violent terrorists/freedom fighters killed in their pursuit of their personal goal. Yes I am. Colour or religion doesn't come into it. If you want to live by the sword, I am happy for you to die by it.

chris_bass

bompington wrote:

The one about loving everyone, perhaps?

Even people who happen to be gay?

There is a lot of stuff in the earlier parts of the bible that are very severe on people who don't believe in god and also on women, just for being women.

Luckily, most Christians (those who live in the better off countries mainly) these days don't take these literally.

finchy

Pituophis wrote:

Is it better for them to kill innocent Britain's, by say, running them over and beheading them in the street, or blowing them up in buses and trains, instead of innocent Syrians?
If you think neither, then I actually agree.
The thing is though, there is a good chance they may be killed themselves in Syria, where as there is no chance on earth that they will be killed here, no matter how bad the atrocity they commit.
The do gooders simply won't allow it.

Well of course the answer is neither, but they have far more chance of committing an atrocity in the middle of a civil war with easy access to powerful weaponry than they do in Britain, where most attacks have either failed or been foiled.

ai_1

Chris Bass wrote:

bompington wrote:

The one about loving everyone, perhaps?

Even people who happen to be gay?

There is a lot of stuff in the earlier parts of the bible that are very severe on people who don't believe in god and also on women, just for being women.

Luckily, most Christians (those who live in the better off countries mainly) these days don't take these literally.

Precisely
I'm afraid bompington, that I can't give you any specific references without doing some research. I left catholicism behind many, many years ago and didn't make any effort to remember all of the nonsense I'd been taught. The teachings of many christian churches have certainly moderated over the centuries/decades but others remain pretty intolerant and I would say, brutal. The basic new testament teachings that you mention are certainly pretty benign, as are those of islam, but there is plenty contradiction in the bible, (and I think in the Koran too) and I suspect you could find plenty to support my assertions if you had a mind to.
The fact that the churches teachings have moderated is in itself a concern. It seems pretty clear to me that changes in the churches positions are reactive not proactive. It's trying to remain relevant and credible. Why? Does the bible represent the specific teachings of a deity and his representatives or is it just a chunk of mystical text to be re-interpreted at will?

The bible has been used to justify all sorts of atrocities, often with full support of the church. True, the worst examples, and most clearly equivalent to the current fundamentalist islamic slant are probably those in the middle ages but it's still the same religion based on the same texts.

bompington

So, you're telling me what the bible says, except that you don't know what it says. Plenty of people have tried to find "plenty to support your assertions" but they can only actually find any by distorting what the bible says. There has been an awful lot of reasoning on how and why the rules prescribed in the old testament have been superceded by Jesus's teaching, starting with what Jesus said himself: and it's Jesus's teaching that is the foundation of Christianity.
The teachings of the church haven't moderated over the years at all - the early church's teachings were certainly extreme, but not in the way you seem to think - extreme self-sacrifice and service were the name of the game. The examples I quoted weren't later additions to water down the message, they were the message, as preached by its founder: the Inquisition, the Puritans, Jonesboro - they're the ones who watered down, or rather wilfully distorted, the message.
I can't deny that the bible has often been used to justify atrocities, but only by distorting its message. You can't say the same for the Koran.

ballysmate

bompington wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

Many religions are pretty brutal, christianity included, . Thankfully most people don't adhere very literally to the rules

I'd be interested to hear which Christian "rules" you think are brutal. The one about loving everyone, perhaps? Going the extra mile when someone makes unreasonable demands of you? Turning the other cheek? "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone"?
When Christians don't adhere to the "rules", the problem is far more often that they head in the other direction - you will not find the Spanish Inquisition, burning "witches", or persecuting minorities of any sort in the bible.
The most brutal punishment actually prescribed by Christianity is getting thrown out of the church.
When you compare Islam to Christianity, we're really not looking at similar things.

Christians cite the teachings of Christ as validation of their faith. Are they seriously contending that prior to his existence, (and I am certainly not conceding that the New Testament is historically accurate) that no-one had a predisposition to treat their fellow man with love and respect? Is that all religion is to them, a code of behaviour?
Perhaps it is the case that atheists don't need to be told how to behave whereas people of religion are actually stating that they need guidance to be kind to their fellow man.

joenobody

bompington wrote:

I can't deny that the bible has often been used to justify atrocities, but only by distorting its message. You can't say the same for the Koran.

Except there are many interpretations of the Koran, some significantly more extreme than others, depending on the source (Wahhabi for example), so you can say the same for the Koran as the extreme versions do distort the message...

finchy

bompington wrote:

So, you're telling me what the bible says, except that you don't know what it says. Plenty of people have tried to find "plenty to support your assertions" but they can only actually find any by distorting what the bible says. There has been an awful lot of reasoning on how and why the rules prescribed in the old testament have been superceded by Jesus's teaching, starting with what Jesus said himself: and it's Jesus's teaching that is the foundation of Christianity.
The teachings of the church haven't moderated over the years at all - the early church's teachings were certainly extreme, but not in the way you seem to think - extreme self-sacrifice and service were the name of the game. The examples I quoted weren't later additions to water down the message, they were the message, as preached by its founder: the Inquisition, the Puritans, Jonesboro - they're the ones who watered down, or rather wilfully distorted, the message.
I can't deny that the bible has often been used to justify atrocities, but only by distorting its message. You can't say the same for the Koran.

Jesus also said that he had not come to repeal the old laws but to confirm them. And the old laws were pretty brutal. It's a contradictory book and you will find what you want in there. If you're a decent person, you'll linger on the bits about love and forgiveness. If you aren't, you'll just remember the nasty bits.

Personally I'm all in favour of getting Christians to follow the Bible more closely, and if there are any Christians on BR with a decent road bike and you're about 6'3", please don't forget that you have to give up your worldly goods. I'll take the bike.

bompington

johnfinch wrote:

Jesus also said that he had not come to repeal the old laws but to confirm them

Yes, he did, and you can find examples of him explicitly breaking those laws within a chapter or two of the bit where he said it. So, either he went around contradicting himself - and he, and those who wrote down what he said, were too stupid to realise it (the patronising modernist assumption, because hey, we're all so much smarter these days aren't we?) or he didn't mean exactly what you, for the sake of your argument, want him to mean.

johnfinch wrote:

If you're a decent person, you'll linger on the bits about love and forgiveness. If you aren't, you'll just remember the nasty bits.

But then, to paraphrase a well-known rabbi from a couple of thousand years ago, "what exactly do you mean by decent?"
It fascinates (and worries) me that so many atheists like to use a moral framework entirely inherited from religion to criticise religion - when, if you take atheist thinking to its logical conclusion, the concept of morality has no meaning: it is only a social construct, which means it is elastic and relative.

johnfinch wrote:

Personally I'm all in favour of getting Christians to follow the Bible more closely, and if there are any Christians on BR with a decent road bike and you're about 6'3", please don't forget that you have to give up your worldly goods. I'll take the bike.

Well, Jesus did tell one person, who had specific issues, to give away everything he had. I don't think he had a bike though.

CYCLESPORT1

UNHRC Confirms 200 Kidnapped Christian Girls in Nigeria Murdered by Devout Muslim Group
http://pamelageller.com/2015/04/unhrc-c ... roup.html/

rick_chasey

CYCLESPORT1 wrote:

UNHRC Confirms 200 Kidnapped Christian Girls in Nigeria Murdered by Devout Muslim Group
http://pamelageller.com/2015/04/unhrc-c ... roup.html/

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/m ... as-revenge

Only a year ago.

We can all find stories of faiths (or even atheists) doing awful things to one another. Not sure it proves anything.

rick_chasey

Ballysmate wrote:

I have no time for Christianity either. But in its defence, it has moved from medieval times to some extent, even if it is mumbo jumbo.
You talk about the west as being the common enemy, but I suggest you take a fresh look at who IS are fighting. Have a look at who Saudi Arabia attacked.
Shiite is fighting Sunni and Kurd. All followers of Islam.
The fact is that the vast majority of victims of these conflicts are Muslim.

Only 20 years ago there was one of the fastest and worst genocides in history. Rwandan genocide - 800,000 died in a few months. Guess what faith they all were? I'll tell you - Catholic.

In Yugoslavia in the '90s? Also genocide - Russisn orthodox / Greek orthodox / other Christian faiths.

2015 is a time where, post Iraq and afghanistan invasion, after a food price shock that led to wide scale unrest with Arab spring where popular uprisings tried to remove dictatorships occurred, has left large political vaccuums.

Colonial powers drew up borders for countries years ago with no feeling for local divisions between communities - that's the root cause of sectarian violence. With that and a power vacuum of course you'll grt unrest. It's nothing to do with their faith. Much more practical than that.

ballysmate

Ok Rick, you've convinced me.
Islam is just as evil as Christianity.

DeVlaeminck

It's the English teenagers who left Catholic schools in their droves to take part in that Rwandan conflict I feel sorry for. Oh wait a minute....

ballysmate

Following on from Rick's mention of food.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... Syria.html

Just when you thought IS could not get any more bizarre.


Edit: As a poster underneath the article points out, they are quite happy to use US made arms and munitions.

ai_1

johnfinch wrote:

Jesus also said that he had not come to repeal the old laws but to confirm them. And the old laws were pretty brutal. It's a contradictory book and you will find what you want in there. If you're a decent person, you'll linger on the bits about love and forgiveness. If you aren't, you'll just remember the nasty bits.

Agreed

bompington wrote:

It fascinates (and worries) me that so many atheists like to use a moral framework entirely inherited from religion to criticise religion - when, if you take atheist thinking to its logical conclusion, the concept of morality has no meaning: it is only a social construct, which means it is elastic and relative.

I'm confused by your view that atheists have inherited values from religion and that this is a problem or that it makes criticism of religion based on those common values invalid.
Many of my values (yes I'm an atheist! ) are common to christianity. Many are also common to judaism, islam, buddism, hindu and probably plenty religions I know absolutely nothing about. So what? If you leave out what I consider to be supernatural nonsense the rest is essentially a code of conduct for humans. Most people whether atheist or not believe there needs to be a code of conduct for a constructive and generally beneficial society to survive and develop. At least I hope they do. I do. Of course most atheists will share many of their principles with those of most religions. If these didn't work the societies built on those religions wouldn't have survived relatively stably as they have. Do you think prior to your religion of choice that everyone acted at all times in a way that you would consider completely immoral or unethical? Perhaps the biggest lie of religions is that they are what keeps us from descending into anarchy. Baseless nonsense.
Why would you think that a personal code of conduct must go hand in hand with belief in a deity? I have no problem with the idea that I should act in an ethical, sustainable and mutually advantageous way as a member of a community. I don't need the threat of a magical policeman to keep me in line.
Having said that, atheists are not a cohesive community and I'm only speaking for myself. Atheism is not a bunch of people with common views, it's just a description of NOT having a specific view and atheists can have utterly different views on every other topic - although in reality there tend to be other similarities.
The behaviour of the religious has proven itself "elastic and relative" throughout history. You can argue whether that's due to following or not following the teachings accurately and can blame the church instead of the religion if you wish, but to point the finger of fear at atheists shows a distinct lack of confidence in humans. I actually think people generally get along better and behave better towards each other when they don't have religion to fall back on as an excuse, a recovery plan or a simple assumption that everything will be okay in the end. My own friends are mostly agnostics, atheists and christians. In terms of honesty, cooperation, generosity, and what I would call ethical behaviour, there is not a clear difference but if anything it seems to me the unbelievers come out a little above the average.

bompington

Ai_1 wrote:

I actually think people generally get along better and behave better towards each other when they don't have religion to fall back on as an excuse, a recovery plan or a simple assumption that everything will be okay in the end.

Any evidence for this?

ai_1

bompington wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

I actually think people generally get along better and behave better towards each other when they don't have religion to fall back on as an excuse, a recovery plan or a simple assumption that everything will be okay in the end.

Any evidence for this?

Weak, experiential evidence only, nothing rigorous. Thus my use of the word "think" at the start of the sentence. If I thought I could support it as a proven fact I would have mentioned it, don't you think?
However, this does not make it untrue. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

mr_goo

Interesting.....

http://news.sky.com/story/1458154/anti-muslim-hitler-ads-on-buses-spark-outrage

.... I have always wondered why those that demonstrate against the likes of EDL/BNP/PEGIDA et all are doing so under an Anti-Fascist banner. 20th Century history is quite fascinating, especially Hitlers alliance with the Muslims and his forming an islamic SS battalion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_Waffen_Mountain_Division_of_the_SS_Handschar_%281st_Croatian%29

Distasteful as the adverts on the buses may be. They are actually reminding us of what actually happened in World War 2 in the Balkans. A chapter in history that I have hardly ever heard mentioned on mainstream media.