Charlie Hebdo massacre - 2015-Jan-07 (5 Viewers)

[Seven]

I think the message of forgiveness on the cover is truly radical. As radical as any fundamentalist imam.

It's a message of peace and redemption, and it's the perfect foil to a cult of death and brutally totalitarian religious dogma. That someone could publicly appeal to forgiveness under those circumstances is more hardcore, more a show of strength, and more mind-blowing than anything the terrorists could ever achieve.

It forces observers to choose which side are they on: the side of forgiveness, or the side of unforgiving murder?

You can imagine that terrorists behind the plot could only react to that message of forgiveness as radically alien as how a picture of Muhammed could incite murder to the Western world.

Did you see their press conference about the cover? The guy who made the cover was ridiculous. The way he was speaking.. As if a New Testament was written right then and there. As if he he was making history himself (he wasn't, his contribution in all this will be forgotten the day after tomorrow, maybe the cover will survive, he won't). It was truly disgusting.

I think you're taking this at face value. Their message about forgiveness is nice. But there's an incredibly inflated self image and arrogance behind it. They are "big enough to forgive". It's not all bad, because at least the right values are highlighted and I can only be happy when people focus on forgiveness and peace, but it would have been cool to hear that message from normal, sane people and not buffoons.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Valerio.]

Edmonton, is in Canada. If you pay for the round trip, house, feed, get the tickets, I'm down.

in Italy we usually say "and a bit of my ass no?"

 

[Maddy]

in Italy we usually say "and a bit of my ass no?"

You are boring. Step up your game.

 

[Fr3sh]

in Italy we usually say "and a bit of my ass no?"

Quite frankly, all animosity put aside, I wouldn't be able to accept even if you were willing to do so. Why would I go to a place where you're unwanted due to the way you look. I got crippled by your doctors already, don't want to hear monkey chants my way.

- - - Updated - - -
@Valerio. heard of Cécile Kyenge? Heard she gets treated very well in the senate.

 

[Valerio.]

Quite frankly, all animosity put aside, I wouldn't be able to accept even if you were willing to do so. Why would I go to a place where you're unwanted due to the way you look. I got crippled by your doctors already, don't want to hear monkey chants my way.

that's so hard to accept and read. Sorry to hear you got crippled ;( malasanità it's bad in Italy

- - - Updated - - -

Quite frankly, all animosity put aside, I wouldn't be able to accept even if you were willing to do so. Why would I go to a place where you're unwanted due to the way you look. I got crippled by your doctors already, don't want to hear monkey chants my way.

- - - Updated - - -
@Valerio. heard of Cécile Kyenge? Heard she gets treated very well in the senate.

Just like Laura Boldrini she get treated so well for all the crap she spit. My gosh you wouldn't believe what she says

 

[Post Ironic]

As a Christian I agree that Bible is not as open to interpretation as PostIronic states and as a whole it clearly is against physical or any other kind of violence, there's no such thing as killing in Christs name.

If you can, please elaborate on Paul justifying violence, egoistic actions and ideas, this is what got me interested.

Clearly, by how Christians have behaved in this world for the past 1500 years, the bible in all its forms is very open to interpretation. How one could argue otherwise, is beyond me. If the Papal authority condones war, bloodshed, violence, throughout its history, and previously offered blessings for men to become soldiers of god, and had an inquisitorial office that tortured and burnt people alive, with the backing of scripture and the church, how is this not "open to interpretation"? It clearly is. The Roman Catholic Church interpreted the bible and scripture in whatever ways it saw fit for hundreds of years. It's easy to interpret any piece of scripture to justify pretty much any behaviour. The New Testament might be placed ahead of the old testament in terms of importance, but it has not stopped the church from resorting to old testament instructions to provide justification for committed atrocities.

Just as certain elements of Islam still do.

 

[Fr3sh]

that's so hard to accept and read. Sorry to hear you got crippled ;( malasanità it's bad in Italy

- - - Updated - - -


Just like Laura Boldrini she get treated so well for all the crap she spit. My gosh you wouldn't believe what she says

Malpractice?
It was pure neglect, completely refused to do his job. Regardless, a cripple dog still has 3 good legs to loose.

My problem with you and your country is the mentality. Why so heinous? Why so vile?

 

[pitbull]

"Justifying violence, egoistic actions and ideas" was mainly referring to later historical figures and movements to be honest, did not quite have Paulus in mind when I wrote that part

What I meant though were parts of his writings that are in my opinion morally very questionable to say the least, and also not in line with what Jesus (again according to the gospels) was teaching. This includes for example his evident sexist mindset and ideas. A particularly clear example is his very negative attitudes towards prostitutes, whereas Jesus was actively reaching out to them, as he did with all members on the societal periphery.

Again, it's not really violence or egoism, just meant to be an example of how the ideas and interpretations of followers of and believers in Jesus often rather obviously contradict the actual accounts of Jesus' life and teachings, and how this already began extremely early in the developement of Christianity.

Ok, that clarifies it

But I disagree with Paul having a particularly negative attitude against prostitutes, he warns against using their services as sex out of marriage is obviously a sin, maybe I need to re read some letters, but if you refer to Corinthians, then I don't see anything contradictory with Jesus teachings there. Jesus was confronted with a situation where bunch of self righteos guys were going to stone a prostitute while Paul is addressing a Christian community in Corinth that apparently has a problem with physical sins of course to completely different problems there's two completely different responses.

 

[Valerio.]

Malpractice?
It was pure neglect, completely refused to do his job. Regardless, a cripple dog still has 3 good legs to loose.

My problem with you and your country is the mentality. Why so heinous? Why so vile?

well dunno man maybe simply cause you (not yourself) foreigners aren't wanted but people get forced to accept them?

There is a popular old song which goes :

Spoiler

The Piave whispered calm and placid under the crossing
of the first Infantrymen on May 24;
the Army was marching to the frontier,
to make a wall against the enemy...
Silently the Infantrymen crossed that night;
they had to be silent and go forward!
From the beloved riverbanks it was heard
light and low the exultation of the waves.
It was a sweet and propitious omen,
the Piave whispered: "the foreigner not pass!"




But a sad night it was heard of a gloomy event
and the Piave felt the ire and the dismay
Ah, how many people it saw coming, leaving their homes;
because the enemy irrupted at Caporetto.
Refugees everywhere, from far mountains,
they came to crowd all its bridges.
It was heard from the violated riverbanks
light and sad the murmur of the waves
Like a sob in that black Autumn
the Piave whispered: "the foreigner returns!"

And the enemy returned: he wished to wreak his desires
because of his pride and his hunger,
he saw the fertile plains from the upper ground,
he wanted to feed and to exult again!
"NO!" said the Piave, "NO!" said the Infantrymen,
the enemy will never advance again!
It was seen the Piave raising his waves
and with the Infantrymen were fighting the waves.
Red of the blood of the haughty enemy,
the Piave ordered: "go back, foreigner!"

 

[Enron]

Did you see their press conference about the cover? The guy who made the cover was ridiculous. The way he was speaking.. As if a New Testament was written right then and there. As if he he was making history himself (he wasn't, his contribution in all this will be forgotten the day after tomorrow, maybe the cover will survive, he won't). It was truly disgusting.

I think you're taking this at face value. Their message about forgiveness is nice. But there's an incredibly inflated self image and arrogance behind it. They are "big enough to forgive". It's not all bad, because at least the right values are highlighted and I can only be happy when people focus on forgiveness and peace, but it would have been cool to hear that message from normal, sane people and not buffoons.

Also, how are they showing forgiveness while at the same time attempting to insult? It's basically a defiant taunt. Which is fine in this case, but should hardly be compared to what Nelson Mandela did.

 

[pitbull]

Clearly, by how Christians have behaved in this world for the past 1500 years, the bible in all its forms is very open to interpretation. How one could argue otherwise, is beyond me. If the Papal authority condones war, bloodshed, violence, throughout its history, and previously offered blessings for men to become soldiers of god, and had an inquisitorial office that tortured and burnt people alive, with the backing of scripture and the church, how is this not "open to interpretation"? It clearly is. The Roman Catholic Church interpreted the bible and scripture in whatever ways it saw fit for hundreds of years. It's easy to interpret any piece of scripture to justify pretty much any behaviour. The New Testament might be placed ahead of the old testament in terms of importance, but it has not stopped the church from resorting to old testament instructions to provide justification for committed atrocities.

Just as certain elements of Islam still do.

They obviously had different motives than truly understanding and putting in practice God's word. You can kill and claim You did it in Winnie Pooh's name, but that doesn't mean the book instructs You to do so.

 

[Fr3sh]

well dunno man maybe simply cause you (not yourself) foreigners aren't wanted but people get forced to accept them?

There is a popular old song which goes :

Spoiler

The Piave whispered calm and placid under the crossing
of the first Infantrymen on May 24;
the Army was marching to the frontier,
to make a wall against the enemy...
Silently the Infantrymen crossed that night;
they had to be silent and go forward!
From the beloved riverbanks it was heard
light and low the exultation of the waves.
It was a sweet and propitious omen,
the Piave whispered: "the foreigner not pass!"




But a sad night it was heard of a gloomy event
and the Piave felt the ire and the dismay
Ah, how many people it saw coming, leaving their homes;
because the enemy irrupted at Caporetto.
Refugees everywhere, from far mountains,
they came to crowd all its bridges.
It was heard from the violated riverbanks
light and sad the murmur of the waves
Like a sob in that black Autumn
the Piave whispered: "the foreigner returns!"

And the enemy returned: he wished to wreak his desires
because of his pride and his hunger,
he saw the fertile plains from the upper ground,
he wanted to feed and to exult again!
"NO!" said the Piave, "NO!" said the Infantrymen,
the enemy will never advance again!
It was seen the Piave raising his waves
and with the Infantrymen were fighting the waves.
Red of the blood of the haughty enemy,
the Piave ordered: "go back, foreigner!"

We'll see how the future plays out.

 

[Valerio.]

We'll see how the future plays out.

i fear in blood dude. Poverty get people angry and the closest is the enemy

 

[ReBeL]

I should thank everybody who took part in the discussion in this exact thread during the last 24 hours. It was really a rich discussion and having a good way of communicating just to understand each other, not to fight as usual. I really enjoyed reading this.

I loved the participations of the new active members at this thread. They certainly have made great points. @Fr3sh & @PostIronic

When I went to Jordan a couple weeks ago. I went to Jerusalem (obliviously for the first time) for a sort of pilgrimage I guess. Took me 5.5 hours to get across the Border when its literally an hour drive from Amman. Only took me 1.5 hours to get back into Jordan. Security was ridiculous, sorta was thinking to myself why we can't build a fence like that here.

Why didn't you tell me? I would have invited to my house, and slaughtered you

And that's the way this should have been interpreted.

Of course, Turk & Rebel won't see it that way.

Great.

So @ReBeL, what do you think about this phrase:

"The biggest sin wasn't to draw Muhammed, it was to kill 12 of Gods creations.".

I reply with a verse of Quran, Seven:

"whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely."

keep in mind that organization is not just targeting west because of drawing of mohammed. they are doing so because of recent airstrike attacks on iraq.

this whole thing is deeper than drawing cartoons.

Absolutely yes.

 

[Fr3sh]

i fear in blood dude. Poverty get people angry and the closest is the enemy

I can agree that poverty pushes people to the extremes, but for you to claim blood, reveals a lot about what you truly desire.

 

[Post Ironic]

They obviously had different motives than truly understanding and putting in practice God's word. You can kill and claim You did it in Winnie Pooh's name, but that doesn't mean the book instructs You to do so.

You are right...

...but at the same time, if what is considered the highest authority around (with regards to Christianity) is interpreting the bible to allow for soldiers of God, and a place in heaven for those who kill Muslims and burn witches and blasphemers and heretics and the like, it suggests that the book they use as scripture can really be interpreted however they want it to be, and they can pick and choose parts to focus on, from old to new testament. It's much the same with Islam.

Christianity gained prominence in the world, not by separating radically from Judaism, as Christ's original teachings would have had it do. Christ wanted to take the power away from the Temple Priests and give it back to the people, much the same as Siddhartha wanted to take the power away from the Brahmin sect and give it back to the people in Buddhism's origins. Both religions gained prominence and many followers by compromising with the religions they were born out of. Christianity, through scripture and the later teachings of people like Paul, merged Christ's teachings with that of Judaism, to make it a more accessible and universal religion, not a religion of selfless ascetics, and it was much the same with how Buddhism developed. A religion of selfless ascetics, where each person has power of self-determination, and the choice of the path they take in following that religion, is a religion that will never grow, will barely survive, is monastic only. It's not a religion that the average person will take up. People don't want to be free to choose, they want to be told what to choose, told how to behave, told how to act. It's easier this way, it's easier to have a fixed path ahead of you. Hence the reason Christianity basically became Judaism 2.0

And this leaves it very open to interpretation for the Church authorities to push almost any agenda they desire.

 

[Valerio.]

I can agree that poverty pushes people to the extremes, but for you to claim blood, reveals a lot about what you truly desire.

if people reactions get extremes what happens? bloodied wars aren't what i wish cause unlike you i live there
My wish would be for the army to pack and send back everyone. Just that. Buyout whatever they own give them the money and out back to where they come from.

 

[Ocelot]

Clearly, by how Christians have behaved in this world for the past 1500 years, the bible in all its forms is very open to interpretation. How one could argue otherwise, is beyond me. If the Papal authority condones war, bloodshed, violence, throughout its history, and previously offered blessings for men to become soldiers of god, and had an inquisitorial office that tortured and burnt people alive, with the backing of scripture and the church, how is this not "open to interpretation"? It clearly is. The Roman Catholic Church interpreted the bible and scripture in whatever ways it saw fit for hundreds of years. It's easy to interpret any piece of scripture to justify pretty much any behaviour. The New Testament might be placed ahead of the old testament in terms of importance, but it has not stopped the church from resorting to old testament instructions to provide justification for committed atrocities.

Just as certain elements of Islam still do.

Just because certain people and institutions used it as a justification doesn't mean the scripture can necessarily be interpreted in any meaningful way to fit those justifications. For example, purgatory is nowhere mentioned in the bible, yet it was utilized to keep whole societies in fear for centuries, and exploit them by the introduction of indulgence*.

You can certainly find justifications of violence in parts of the old testament (Yahwe often is a vengeful god there), and probably with a little bit stretched interpretation in parts of the new testament, but the general message conveyed be Jesus Christ in the gospels is without any doubt one of non-violence, forgiveness, helpfulness, and of course an uncompromising belief in god. To understand that in any other way, one would have to be extremely biased, deliberately trying to abuse it, or simply be completely stupid.


Don't know nearly as much about the Quran, a big gap in my general knowledge tbh, so I honestly can't say as detailed how the situation is over there.






*I know there are one or two miserable justifications, but they don't really make any sense. Basically, there is a passage in one of the later books in the new testament where it says "nothing that is unclean can enter heaven" or something like that. Now apparently this means, due to whatever reason, that there "has to be a place where those who are unclean have to go to become clean by being punished for their sins. And btw, if you buy this little piece of paper, your time in that horrible place gets shorter".

 

[Fr3sh]

if people reactions get extremes what happens? bloodied wars aren't what i wish cause unlike you i live there
My wish would be for the army to pack and send back everyone. Just that. Buyout whatever they own give them the money and out back to where they come from.

Bro, you have no idea how much I'd want the last part. Do me a favor and read up on Marcus Garvey.

- - - Updated - - -

Worst part is that you actually believe your country has something to offer to these people

 

[Post Ironic]

I reply with a verse of Quran, Seven:

"whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely."
.

The holy scripture of almost all religions is filled with such beautiful verses, expressing such beautiful sentiments. And this is why, even as a lifelong atheist, I find religion beautiful. Yes, it can be terrible, nightmarish even; but it can also be absurdly beautiful.

And it is all interpretation. Every religion has had radicals throughout history and will continue to have radicals, especially during periods of oppression, occupation, ostracism, etc. The hope is that over time, those interpretations will involve to be more and more peaceful.