Crime Deadly gun Attack on French Magazine

[Luger]

What you are missing is this:

What I AM willing to bound by and abide in PRACTICE is completely separate from what I COULD be willing to be bound by and abide in THEORY.

The two are completely separate notions. You will not understand what I mean unless you can separate things this way.

It does not work that way.
Thinking something is just and not being pro to that same thing?
And the argument "freely agreed upon by everyone..." Of course does not work. Some people may disagree and that minority/majority would have to go by those silly religious laws.

You are pro oppressor in a way. Forcing religious values on people.

 

[Balto]

And you'll never be able to make sense of the Old Testament and the New Testament together until you can separate things this way either. Otherwise the two are completely irreconcilable.

The purpose of the Old Testament is show how a theoretically sound legalistic moral code fails miserably in practice due to selfish human nature. Everyone becomes a hypocrite. They want harsh punishments for others, not for themselves.

The purpose of the New Testament is show how the practically sound Golden Rule is better.

 

[Luger]

And you'll never be able to make sense of the Old Testament and the New Testament together until you can separate things this way either. Otherwise the two are completely irreconcilable.

The purpose of the Old Testament is show how a theoretically sound legalistic moral code fails miserably in practice due to selfish human nature. Everyone becomes a hypocrite. They want harsh punishments for others, not for themselves.

The purpose of the New Testament is show how the practically sound Golden Rule is better.

I never mentioned the new testament.

 

[IDL]

The purpose of the Old Testament is show how a theoretically sound legalistic moral code fails miserably in practice due to selfish human nature. Everyone becomes a hypocrite. They want harsh punishments for others, not for themselves.

Kinda like Communism.

 

[Luger]

Kinda like Communism.

And capitalism

 

[Balto]

It does not work that way.
Thinking something is just and not being pro to that same thing?
And the argument "freely agreed upon by everyone..." Of course does not work. Some people may disagree and that minority/majority would have to go by those silly religious laws.

You are pro oppressor in a way. Forcing religious values on people.

Lol no thinking about something in theory does not mean you are in reality in favor of that thing. Have you ever heard of the phrase Devil's Advocate?

And to your second part: OF COURSE IT DOES NOT WORK! And for the exact reasons you just listed! That's why the New Testament is showing a better way. Of course the old way does not work. That is the entire point!

I am sorry that this seems pro oppressor to you. I am actually here right now because I have a few hours to spend before I work a volunteer 12:30-4:30 AM shift at my church because we provide a warm shelter for the homeless in the winter.

I will try to make sure that I do not oppress them for you, okay?

 

[Balto]

I never mentioned the new testament.

Of course you didn't. You completely ignored the fact that my post you were criticizing was entirely about how to interpret a central message of the New Testament. Then you twisted that like I was some oppressor trying to stone people.

It's okay though. I am used to it.

 

[Luger]

Lol no thinking about something in theory does not mean you are in reality in favor of that thing. Have you ever heard of the phrase Devil's Advocate?

And to your second part: OF COURSE IT DOES NOT WORK! And for the exact reasons you just listed! That's why the New Testament is showing a better way. Of course the old way does not work. That is the entire point!

I am sorry that this seems pro oppressor to you. I am actually here right now because I have a few hours to spend before I work a volunteer 12:30-4:30 AM shift at my church because we provide a warm shelter for the homeless in the winter.

I will try to make sure that I do not oppress them for you, okay?

The "stoning is just" really seemed silly.
But I agree to disagree and I have nothing against you.
You just contradicted yourself to liking the idea of stoning as a punishment and then you did not.

Good to hear that you help the homeless.

 

[Luger]

Of course you didn't. You completely ignored the fact that my post you were criticizing was entirely about how to interpret a central message of the New Testament. Then you twisted that like I was some oppressor trying to stone people.

It's okay though. I am used to it.

If I misunderstood what you were saying, I am sorry.
But you did say that stoning was/is just.
I can't say that I agree with that point, no matter how that is justified

 

[Balto]

The "stoning is just" really seemed silly.
But I agree to disagree and I have nothing against you.
You just contradicted yourself to liking the idea of stoning as a punishment and then you did not.

Good to hear that you help the homeless.

I hate the idea of stoning as a punishment. I think most others do as well. This is why it fails.

I am just making the distinction that something that I, personally, hate could in theory not be hated by an entire society. In that theoretical world, it would be theoretically just. But it is all theory, and we do not live in a theoretical world. The real world that you and I live in is nothing like this theoretical world.

I am fine with agreeing with disagree on such an abstract point.

I don't know if you train BJJ, but if you are ever in the Northern Virginia area and want to train, PM me. I will hook you up.

Take care brother.

 

[Luger]

I hate the idea of stoning as a punishment. I think most others do as well. This is why it fails.

I am just making the distinction that something that I, personally, hate could in theory not be hated by an entire society. In that theoretical world, it would be theoretically just. But it is all theory, and we do not live in a theoretical world.

I am fine with agreeing with disagree on such an abstract point.

I don't know if you train BJJ, but if you are ever in the Northern Virginia area and want to train, PM me. I will hook you up.

Take care brother.

Thank you for the offer but I am on another continent.
I would take you on the offer if I was close.
There is nothing wrong with arguing different values.
Take care.

 

[Balto]

Thank you for the offer but I am on another continent.
I would take you on the offer if I was close.
There is nothing wrong with arguing different values.
Take care.

Maybe you will travel someday. Who knows right?

Take care my friend!

 

[Luger]

Maybe you will travel someday. Who knows right?

Take care my friend!

Constantly traveling but Virginia is unfortunately not one of the places I go to.
Take care.

 

[CauseImbetta]

I suppose France's colonization of Muslims for 100 years and their massacring of thousands in Algeria had nothing to do with it.

 

[Balto]

I was thinking, would there be a solidarity with Westboro movement if they were killed? Dim some lights somewhere? Of course not.

I will say this was one of my initial thoughts when I read the news of this attack and the subsequent reactions.

I am 100% pro free speech. I don't care if it is offensive or not. You have the right to say it. Period.

But at the same time, me defending your right to say it does not mean that I endorse your message.

I imagined a KKK rally protected under free speech. What would happen if someone shot them? That shooter would be apprehended, tried for murder, and that is absolutely how it should be. But I don't think everyone would tweet #IAmTheKKK either.

I don't think this type of analogy to racism is as overblown as many are making it seem either. From what I understand, French Muslims are poor and marginalized by society. The cartoons that I saw would have been extremely hurtful, especially in light of the socioeconomic factors. It feels like rich, powerful, white people punching down just to punch down.

Such things are 100% protected by free speech. But I am not willing to go so far as to endorse the message myself.

 

[LionExMachina]

That's disgusting if you ask me.

It's pretty insane. A rabbi got in trouble for giving a two year old herpes. The child died.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/baby-d...mcision-nyc-orthodox/story?id=15888618&page=2

 

[JonesBones]

I will say this was one of my initial thoughts when I read the news of this attack and the subsequent reactions.

I am 100% pro free speech. I don't care if it is offensive or not. You have the right to say it. Period.

But at the same time, me defending your right to say it does not mean that I endorse your message.

I imagined a KKK rally protected under free speech. What would happen if someone shot them? That shooter would be apprehended, tried for murder, and that is absolutely how it should be. But I don't think everyone would tweet #IAmTheKKK either.

I don't think this type of analogy to racism is as overblown as many are making it seem either. From what I understand, French Muslims are poor and marginalized by society. The cartoons that I saw would have been extremely hurtful, especially in light of the socioeconomic factors. It feels like rich, powerful, white people punching down just to punch down.

Such things are 100% protected by free speech. But I am not willing to go so far as to endorse the message myself.

Exactly. It shows there is an agenda being pushed here. It is group think. It isn't free speech. It is not unconditional free speech. It is conditional on political correctness itself. It is a fraud.

 

[dissolved]

That is funny, as you are using the same argument as the pro sharia people.

You are forgiving stoning under the argument of "in a perfect world"...

People that want sharia law argue that cutting the hands of a thief is OK, since under pure sharia law, no person would have to steal.

Funny how the Abrahamic religions are so closely connected, and yet how easily you condemn each other.

lol no, no, no.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Christianity is the realization that we live in an imperfect world. People are imperfect. The type of Old Testament Torah never did, and never could work. That's the difference.

Islam doesn't understand this so forces a flawed ideology on an imperfect world. All it does it demonstrate itself more hypocritical, brutal and oppressive.

I would never advocate stoning for adultery.

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

I suppose France's colonization of Muslims for 100 years and their massacring of thousands in Algeria had nothing to do with it.

 

[Luger]

lol no, no, no.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Christianity is the realization that we live in an imperfect world. People are imperfect. The type of Old Testament Torah never did, and never could work. That's the difference.

Islam doesn't understand this so forces a flawed ideology on an imperfect world. All it does it demonstrate itself more hypocritical, brutal and oppressive.

I would never advocate stoning for adultery.

But you did say, in a post that was pro stoning

It does seem like an odd part of the post . . . I believe he means "in a perfect world (or if everyone applied the law perfectly)."

That is just like the wishful thinking that the people that want sharia go by.

Why don't you just say that the laws of the books of Moses are stupid?
Instead of trying to defend the laws.