The 2014/15 Off Season Thread

[lingard]

If it had nothing to do with religion why are most terrorist a certain religious bavkground? Cant just be a coincidence.
Most Muslim are peacefull, just as most catholics are too.But plenty of those dirty priests who touched kids and gave catholic church a bad name too.

Your brain learn so much in your first 6 years of life and how you perceive things.It continues too learn and perceive things by the people your around . People coming from war stricken countries have less value for human life as they have seen death around them. When people are bored-Lonely or depressed they will turn to something.ISIS preys on the weak and vulnerable.

I guess what I'm saying is that terrorism has nothing to do with pure religion. But religion is often hijacked by politics. And, as O M C. pointed out, in some areas of the world and perhaps in some religions, the separation of Church and state is less well-defined. When the brave and noble knights of England went across to fight in the first Crusades, for instance, how could this have been a religious war (as it was called), when their religion forbids them to kill? It is not religion per se that is at fault, it is human beings and their interpretation/misinterpretation of religion.

 

[oldmancraigy]

I do agree with you Lingard - with the mild caveat that not every religion proposes peacefulness! But yes, for those that do, someone who acts in the name of said religion (or philosophy), while directly contradicting its obvious tenants, shouldn't be regarded as an adherent of such.

 

[oldmancraigy]

I can see both side of the coin. Many would think westerns way of life is one where there minds have been taken from them and schooled to become a slave to society too keep the rich making money and in return we get too live the way we have been trained and given a few joys along the way to make us think we are happy.

Casper?

That you???

 

[lingard]

They have plenty to do with religion. There's no need to be dishonest just to protect the innocent is there? Everyone knows most Muslims aren't violent extremists. As always, it's up to the majority to show (not tell) who they are to shape the perception of outsiders. Non-Muslims might mean well when they get up on soap boxes and tell us all what Muslims are like, but when they say things like such and such politically motivated attack by an individual invoking a particular religion has "little or nothing to so with religion" they just look naive or dishonest.

Politics is all about group identity and values. How could that possibly have little or nothing to do with religion?



Me too. There's nothing more polarising than when the moderates deflect and blame the West for this sort of thing.[/QUOTE]


Absolutely. Which is why it's so good that so many Muslims in Australia are currently demonstrating that they identify as Australian citizens and are appalled at the recent events.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

I guess what I'm saying is that terrorism has nothing to do with pure religion. But religion is often hijacked by politics. And, as O M C. pointed out, in some areas of the world and perhaps in some religions, the separation of Church and state is less well-defined. When the brave and noble knights of England went across to fight in the first Crusades, for instance, how could this have been a religious war (as it was called), when their religion forbids them to kill? It is not religion per se that is at fault, it is human beings and their interpretation/misinterpretation of religion.

I think the early Christians struggled greatly with the idea of killing people. Then Augustine (St. Augustine) came up with the 'just war' doctrine which seemed to help a bit, and Thomas Acquinas got quite stuck on the idea.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I guess what I'm saying is that terrorism has nothing to do with pure religion. But religion is often hijacked by politics. And, as O M C. pointed out, in some areas of the world and perhaps in some religions, the separation of Church and state is less well-defined. When the brave and noble knights of England went across to fight in the first Crusades, for instance, how could this have been a religious war (as it was called), when their religion forbids them to kill? It is not religion per se that is at fault, it is human beings and their interpretation/misinterpretation of religion.

Their religion didn't forbid them to kill though, it forbid them to commit murder; 'murder' being a legal term to signify killings that don't comply with the law (whatever that may be).

It would be impossible to protect yourself, your community or its interests (i.e. access to resources) if there was a blanket ban on killing. Such a religion wouldn't last very long without an external patron willing to kill.

 

[lingard]

Their religion didn't forbid them to kill though, it forbid them to commit murder; 'murder' being a legal term to signify killings that don't comply with the law (whatever that may be).

It would be impossible to protect yourself, your community or its interests (i.e. access to resources) if there was a blanket ban on killing. Such a religion wouldn't last very long without an external patron willing to kill.

And yet the commandment simply says "Thou shalt not kill". Doesn't mention murder or 'justified' killing.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

And yet the commandment simply says "Thou shalt not kill". Doesn't mention murder or 'justified' killing.

It's often translated that way. But the original Hebrew specifically prohibited unlawful killing (murder). The same books (Exodus and Deuteronomy) allow capital punishment for f**ks sake. How you gonna dish out the death penalty if you're not allowed to kill?

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

It's hard to turn the other cheek when you've just had your eye poked out (Matthew 5:38)

 

[Poupou Escobar]

'Turn the other cheek' is a funny one. Is it a command to make yourself a victim or just a prohibition against revenge (rather than against self defence)?

The beauty of it all is that everyone is free to interpret it however they like.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

The other curious one is 'Sometimes you gotta fight when you're a man' (Kenny 3:21)

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

I don't like cider. There, I said it.

 

[strider]

I don't like cider. There, I said it.

I agree ... there is some weird f**kin cider obsession going on ... it sucks

 

[The Elephant In The room]

The other curious one is 'Sometimes you gotta fight when you're a man' (Kenny 3:21)

I thought it was "walk like a man" (Valli 2.17)

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

I thought it was "walk like a man" (Valli 2.17)

That was always hard to take, given that the bloke was singing in falsetto.

"Wham! Bam! I am, a man, job or no job you can't tell me that I'm not" (Michael 4:Alan)

 

[Suitman]

Wow.

Parra fans are so exciting............

 

[phantom eel]

So back to the Wanderers forum for you, then?

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Wow.

Parra fans are so exciting............

You're just repressed Suity.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

I agree ... there is some weird f**kin cider obsession going on ... it sucks

Yeah it's rubbish. There's a reason people stopped drinking it. And will again.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

You guys need to try rough cider (scrumpy). That'll put some hairs on your chest (and trace amounts of cyanide in you).