The Islamophobia split on the left.

Well, that was pleasant, Thanks for that, Phrossack.
 
Which all goes to prove my point! Imagine how much more bloodthirsty the Danes and Swedes would have been had they not converted to Christianity.
 
No. My point is that the Koran has a set of ideas and values that are incompatible with European societies. My point is that Islam is not equal to Koran, as the Bible is not equal to Christianity.

Your point relies on: Islam is the Koran. This is where we disagree.

I am just wondering what you would call a person who claims to be a Marxist, but ignores what Marx says?
 
I know this one! Not a true Marxist.
 
I am just wondering what you would call a person who claims to be a Marxist, but ignores what Marx says?
Disregarding the blatant look-at-me hyperbolic strawman in that, are you also wondering what you would call yourself, since you clearly don't live according to the Bible?

Oh wait, I remember. You can cop-out with: no man lives according to the bible, every man sins, but I say I feel sorry for it, so I'm good :)

And you actually believe yourself when you're saying it.
 
Ooh. So that's selling all one's worldly goods, giving the proceeds to the poor, and leaving one's family behind, taking not a cloak with one but not taking a thought for the morrow either, then? (Hmm. Is that Christianity or is it Marxism, though?)

There aren't many people who do that. And those that do tend to lead chaotic lives, I'm told.
 
I'm sure our Saviour had something to say about not casting the first stone, so what do you call someone who only selectively follows the teaching of Christ?
 
Jesus said to treat others the way you want to be treated.
You complain about people bashing Christians, because that's not how you want to be treated.
Do the math.

Spoiler the math :

Keep in mind that nice Muslim family living next to me, who's religion you're happily bashing.


Wow, triple x-post. Must have been an easy one.
 
Is that hard enough for you to understand?

This is an interesting question? How do I answer it?

If I say yes, that means I understand it, but I wouldn't if it were an easier question.

If I say no, that means I don't understand it, but I would if it were harder.

My brain's beginning to overheat now.

Generally speaking I understand simpler things more easily than harder things.

I'm sure, though, there must be something out there in the world so ridiculously easy to understand that I completely fail to understand it. Equally something so hard that I couldn't possibly fail to understand it. I wonder what these things might be.

I wish I could ask such questions.
 
I'm kind of flattered that Classical thinks of me as the kind of guy who wouldn't want to bore his understanding with simple questions.
 
Which all goes to prove my point! Imagine how much more bloodthirsty the Danes and Swedes would have been had they not converted to Christianity.

Not sure if that is a valid point - Christians did to each other and to other people some of the most horrifying things imaginable. Religion is no protection against barbarism.
 
A Christian is one who follows the teaching of Christ. Just like someone who is a Marxist because they follow the teachings of Marx. Is that hard enough for you to understand?
I've never heard Marxism defined as "the teachings of Marx". I don't even know what "the teachings of Marx" would refer to. He left no gospel, revelation, or scripture of any kind, and there exist no canonical or even coherent recollections of his words and deeds. Perhaps the analogy needs refinement?
 
I thought the Communist Manifesto contained, if not the teachings of Marx, then at least what Marx expected would happen to society, which people developed into ideologies both coherent and nonsensical.
 
I thought the Communist Manifesto contained, if not the teachings of Marx, then at least what Marx expected would happen to society, which people developed into ideologies both coherent and nonsensical.
Well, in the first place, The Manifesto of the Communist Party was written in 1848, when Marx was thirty and Engels twenty-eight. Marx died in 1883 at the age of sixty-four, and Engels died in 1895 at the age of seventy-four. The Manifesto couldn't possibly provide any exhaustive account of their lives' works.

In the second place, Classical Hero specified not simply the subscription to a particular set of theories, the following of teachings. Nothing in the Manifesto could be seen as a "teaching", there's no ethical content or even a firm social vision. The closest is a ten point program for Day One of revolution, which by their own admission was rendered obsolete almost immediately (the text was published on February 21st, 1848; the French Revolution of 1848 began on February 23rd), hardly a body of teachings comparable to those of Jesus or Muhammad.
 
It's not a Muslim problem, it's an Arab problem. Ever notice how all those death threats and female mutilating come from Arab Muslims in particular?

I find it somewhat ridiculous to see people like Bassem Youssef being portrayed as a victim of Morsi and now Sisi. When you've had three fascist regimes in succession, the problem just might be systemic.
 
Back
Top Bottom