https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl6e4emx-4k
Jonathan Drake - you have a point, the Islamists should get the blame for their own actions.
But surely the Quran shares a little of the blame? I mean, if the Quran said: 'be peaceful, love your enemies and killing is wrong' then the Muslim extremists would be very, very peaceful. The violence and killing in the Quran must take some blame, even if it's a tiny amount. Needless to say, this is not an attack on all Muslims.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl6e4emx-4k
we should point fingers at the real reasons for these things. And that isn't a book, it's just really bad people who want to cause pain. That's all. They don't even need a reason for it - head-in-the-sand nonsense. There're not just really bad people; they're really bad Muslims. And they have a reason for it - their interpretation of the Quran plays a big role in what they say and do. You don't see really bad Hindus or Christians joining ISIS.
Throwing the blame on the book (at least in part) has nothing to do with attacking random Muslims like that shooting by the American guy.
What he did was terrible - I hope he gets locked away forever.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl6e4emx-4k
Jonathan Drake - I have three points for your consideration:
1. If you're not a Muslim, why do you defend the Quran?
2. Your view that the Quran is a continuation of God's previous messages is too neat, too simplistic. God allowed Jews and Christians to drink alcohol but then forbade it for Muslims. Why?
3. Why did God choose such a f**king hopeless method of communicating his message to humans?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl6e4emx-4k
Jonathan Drake - no amount of 'modernising the language' can make this particular verse any clearer. Correct?
So the question naturally arises: why would God write something, like the Bible, so muddled, confusing and open to interpretation?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl6e4emx-4k
@Jonathan Drake - the Quranic verse that says 'I will cast terror into the disbelievers; therefore, strike at their necks and strike off the fingertips of them' is given different interpretations. Most imams interpret this verse in context - making any jihad for muslims internal. Extremist imams, and groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda, interpret this verse as a literal, open-ended command to kill disbelievers (in reality anybody outside their group).
Surely, you have to admit that both interpretations are plausible.
check it out.
literally the message is if you don't pay attention at the meetings you could die.
how insane, i feel like this must wake some people up..
Literally the message is if you don't pay attention at the meetings you could die - wasn't it always like this?
As an unbaptized publisher, I also played football with 'worldly' friends. If I ever missed a meeting, I was told by the brothers and sisters that 'getting to the meetings means your life'.
At around the same time, I did work experience when I was 15. I had to get up at 6am so I missed the Tuesday book study and Thursday meeting one week. On Sunday, some of the 'friends' looked at me as if I'd committed a crime!
The WTS is now cleverly and slickly marketed but I think some things stay the same with this cult.
they insist that their understanding of the bible is correct.
if you challenged their current view, you would be considered an apostate.
what they teach as the truth, constantly changes.
I agree with you, Min. This latest arse-about-face change of the 'understanding' of Gog of Magog is solid evidence
of the WTS not teaching 'truth'.
Gag of Moregag - love it.
one time, i heard a father in a meeting with married couples say `i sometimes have to smack my children a bit, but never in the face so as to not humiliate them.how beautiful!
he knows the sense of dignity!
he has to punish them but does it justly and moves on.
I'm glad that the UK has moved on from smacking and that it's illegal.
Little_Socrates makes a good point - it may be difficult to decide what is acceptable or unacceptable in every circumstance.
Suppose a child is about to run into the road. The parent grabs the child's arm, and yanks it back onto the pavement. If the child has bruises and a sore arm I could well imagine some pointless jobsworth bringing criminal charges against the parent. In Britain, authorities sometimes take almost perverse pleasure in punishing the innocent, while at the same time ignoring retarded aspects of BME cultures lest they be called 'racist'.
one time, i heard a father in a meeting with married couples say `i sometimes have to smack my children a bit, but never in the face so as to not humiliate them.how beautiful!
he knows the sense of dignity!
he has to punish them but does it justly and moves on.
What does a child learn from being hit by a parent? Is it really necessary? - the child learns not to misbehave. But I agree with you - reasoning, grounding or stopping pocket money are much better ways to get children to behave.
I'm also glad that corporal punishment was done away with in secondary schools.
It is the lazy option - in many cases, I'm sure it is.
I think there may be differences in cultural attitudes to smacking children - again, the African women beating seven shades out of her daughter above doesn't compare to the occasional smack I received as a child.
one time, i heard a father in a meeting with married couples say `i sometimes have to smack my children a bit, but never in the face so as to not humiliate them.how beautiful!
he knows the sense of dignity!
he has to punish them but does it justly and moves on.
The above video was absolutely disgusting.
But does that beating really compare to a short sharp smack, with open hand, to the backs of a child's legs/backside?
