Charlie Hebdo massacre - 2015-Jan-07 (10 Viewers)

[Seven]

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.

Very good point. You know, they could have written all is forgiven on an otherwise completely empty cover. That would have been a statement. They could also have foregone the entire press conference, instead of the charade they had now. I doubt it was their intent, but I have been very much offended by their behaviour the last couple of hours. With every fiber of my moral being.

But I suppose it's what you get when an obscure magazine suddenly finds itself in the center of the world's attention.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Valerio.]

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

that's so not true.
People get nothing just enslaved.
They want cheap workers with no rights. Most of people who get in Italy nowdays just want to get elsewhere like Germany,France or UK problem is that they're not welcome there and they get sent back to Italy. Cause Euro laws states that if someone get in Europe they should stay where they landed.
Italy has always been yelled at cause we gave a kind of passport to let them trip around europe and some money to get them away.

What's more recently in Italy we got a huge scandal named "Mafia Capitale" where they had spied on some politics and so on via phone where they were talking how the immigration business is better then drugs one

 

[Ocelot]

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.

Agree with most of what you wrote anyways, but something to add here is that the church was pretty much only able to retain the population under its control because no one actually knew what the bible said in reality. They were only available in Latin (sometimes Greek or Hebrew), and even the messes where it was read were held in Latin even though no one fucking understood a word. Luther (among other lesser known priests) noticed the discrepancy between what the bible said and what the church proclaimed the bible to say, wanted to get the people to read the bible for themselves, translated it into german, and, for the time, "mass produced" using the just recently invented printer press. Naturallly, this was a huge threat to the church, and a big part of why they reacted so aggressively towards Luther.

 

[Fr3sh]

that's so not true.
People get nothing just enslaved.
They want cheap workers with no rights. Most of people who get in Italy nowdays just want to get elsewhere like Germany,France or UK problem is that they're not welcome there and they get sent back to Italy. Cause Euro laws states that if someone get in Europe they should stay where they landed.
Italy has been always yelled at cause we gave people a kind of passport to let them trip around europe and some money to get them away.

You have reading comprehension issues.

 

[Post Ironic]

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".

I agree entirely with you. Especially the bolded part. The problem is that people in power will be extremely biased toward self-interest, they will deliberately try to abuse scripture for their own designs, and they will take advantage of the ignorance of the uninformed and the lowly in order to teach whatever appalling interpretation of scripture they want, and in a way to make their position and interpretation as dogmatic as possible amongst their followers.

This is what is great, and conversely incredibly dangerous, about the information age. It is much easier to be informed in this modern world, especially if one has developed or is willing to develop their critical thinking skills. At the same time, it is much easier for radical fundamentalists, to spread messages of hatred and intolerance, to bombard people with such messages. It's the paradox of this age of freedom of access to information. It's a good thing, if one has faith in humanity as whole... Sometimes that faith is quite difficult to keep though.

 

[Maddy]

that's so not true.
People get nothing just enslaved.
They want cheap workers with no rights. Most of people who get in Italy nowdays just want to get elsewhere like Germany,France or UK problem is that they're not welcome there and they get sent back to Italy. Cause Euro laws states that if someone get in Europe they should stay where they landed.
Italy has been always yelled at cause we gave people a kind of passport to let them trip around europe and some money to get them away.

Not even third world refugees escaping war wants to live in Italy

 

[pitbull]

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.

What I am trying to say is that if You have read whole Bible and You are not an idiot, no one will be able to convince You that is ok to slaughter another person in Christs name, the book itself isn't open to interpretation if we speak about radical violence, nowadays it simply wouldn't be possible as almost everyone is capable of reading and grasping simple messages.

What You refer to is a case of manipulation, how many participants of crusades for example knew how to read? How many had read bible from cover to cover?

 

[Post Ironic]

Agree with most of what you wrote anyways, but something to add here is that the church was pretty much only able to retain the population under its control because no one actually knew what the bible said in reality. They were only available in Latin (sometimes Greek or Hebrew), and even the messes where it was read were held in Latin even though no one $#@!ing understood a word. Luther (among other lesser known priests) noticed the discrepancy between what the bible said and what the church proclaimed the bible to say, wanted to get the people to read the bible for themselves, translated it into german, and, for the time, "mass produced" using the just recently invented printer press. Naturallly, this was a huge threat to the church, and a big part of why they reacted so aggressively towards Luther.

And correspondingly with the advent of the printing press, and an accessible and translated bible, alongside the increasing ability to read amongst the lower classes, Christianity (and its churches) evolved further and further towards a religion that actually cared about the message and teachings of the New Testament and the saviour Jesus Christ. The Roman Catholic Church for example was forced to slowly retreat from its status as an almost-state, so heavily involved in politics and warfare on the Continent.

- - - Updated - - -

What I am trying to say is that if You have read whole Bible and You are not an idiot, no one will be able to convince You that is ok to slaughter another person in Christs name, the book itself isn't open to interpretation if we speak about radical violence. What You refer to is a case of manipulation, how many participants of crusades for example knew how to read? How many had read bible from cover to cover?

I'm agreeing with you for the most part. I'd suggest the same is mostly true of Islam also. Having read the Qu'ran, it's very hard to interpret it in a way that suggests Holy Wars and Fatwas are actually a good thing, or anything besides the very last resort. In the case of a last resort, yes, radicals and fundamentalists arise, and people take advantage of humanity's nature to follow "leaders"... Put Christianity in the hands of an oppressed and warring people, and you get something like Rwanda happening, where over 90% of the population was Christian at the time. Same with Islam.

 

[Seven]

that's so not true.
People get nothing just enslaved.
They want cheap workers with no rights. Most of people who get in Italy nowdays just want to get elsewhere like Germany,France or UK problem is that they're not welcome there and they get sent back to Italy. Cause Euro laws states that if someone get in Europe they should stay where they landed.
Italy has always been yelled at cause we gave a kind of passport to let them trip around europe and some money to get them away.

What's more recently in Italy we got a huge scandal named "Mafia Capitale" where they had spied on some politics and so on via phone where they were talking how the immigration business is better then drugs one

Dublin II Regulation. It's ridiculous.

 

[pitbull]

And correspondingly with the advent of the printing press, and an accessible and translated bible, alongside the increasing ability to read amongst the lower classes, Christianity (and its churches) evolved further and further towards a religion that actually cared about the message and teachings of the New Testament and the saviour Jesus Christ. The Roman Catholic Church for example was forced to slowly retreat from its status as an almost-state, so heavily involved in politics and warfare on the Continent.

- - - Updated - - -



I'm agreeing with you for the most part. I'd suggest the same is mostly true of Islam also. Having read the Qu'ran, it's very hard to interpret it in a way that suggests Holy Wars and Fatwas are actually a good thing, or anything besides the very last resort. In the case of a last resort, yes, radicals and fundamentalists arise, and people take advantage of humanity's nature to follow "leaders"... Put Christianity in the hands of an oppressed and warring people, and you get something like Rwanda happening, where over 90% of the population was Christian at the time. Same with Islam.

Well I think the disagreement comes from our definitions of christians which is bound to be different since you see it from an atheist standpoint while I consider myself a christian, I think that the church of Christ as defined in the Bible has way less participants than the sum of all the official church-goers around the world.

I've very little idea about the Quaran and can't comment about it.

 

[ReBeL]

By a Lebanese artist...

 

[Maddy]

Needs a bit more work.

 

[swag]

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.

I don't buy that for one minute. Holy wars are people justifying their actions and deeds with divine inspiration. It's rarely the other way around.

Just look up David Koresh. A death cult is a death cult, and it should be treated as such. Religion is just finding the right words and interpretations to justify yourselves as if you've been ordained by the gods. Fox News does this all the time.

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.

Naw. Didn't see the press coverage.

Knowing Hebdo, I am sure there is an arrogance behind it. But that would be true no matter what their response would be to having 8 staffers executed. Did you expect something different? That suddenly the paper would say, "We were wrong to offend other people and now we're packing up our pencils and going to make Garfield cartoons"??

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.

Do you honestly think Hebdo knows any other way to communicate without cartoon imagery?

And if you reread my post, I deliberately tried not to compare those buffoons to Nelson Mandela. But the fact remains they have a platform now that's 100x bigger than before (if not moreso). They have millions of people walking around France and other countries holding up placards saying that they, too, are the name of their very publication. If that's not an opportunity to capitalize on moral authority, I honestly don't know what is.

 

[IliveForJuve]

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".

The thing is that nowhere in the bible it says The Old Testament doesn't count, not even close.

Let's quote a few gospels from The New Testament:

Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

5:19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Baby Jesus also said this:

Luke 16:17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for one dot of the Law to become void.

But if I remember correctly, there are other verses that contradict the verses above but they're less direct and explicit. Anyways, my piont is that the Church could've used those verses (from the NT) to do as they please and they surely did.

 

[king Ale]

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.

We simply cannot afford not to seek forgiveness, reconciliation and co-existence.

Times have changed. Globalisation is inevitable and we must accept that peacefully.

I don't quite understand who they are forgiving. Terrorists? Makes absolutely no sense. What happened in Paris comes from a sickening ideology followers of which would certainly not even ask for forgiveness. Not to mention that the symbolic nature of the message (it has no jurisdiction, not really sure if I'm using the correct term) makes it even more absurd if aimed at those who attacked and killed. I don't really think they mean terrorists. So who then? Muslims? It's distasteful, arrogant and void of any value then. They either say that they are forgiving an ideology which kills for a cartoon (which is ridiculous at best) or they are implying to forgive a large number of people who have neither committed nor supported the crime which is disgusting.

 

[swag]

I don't quite understand who they are forgiving. Terrorists? Makes absolutely no sense. What happened in Paris comes from a sickening ideology followers of which would certainly not even ask for forgiveness. Not to mention that the symbolic nature of the message (it has no jurisdiction, not really sure if I'm using the correct term) makes it even more absurd if aimed at those who attacked and killed. I don't really think they mean terrorists. So who then? Muslims? It's distasteful, arrogant and void of any value then. They either say that they are forgiving an ideology which kills for a cartoon (which is ridiculous at best) or they are implying to forgive a large number of people who have neither committed nor supported the crime which is disgusting.

I think they absolutely mean the terrorists. That's why it's radical. Forgiveness means nothing if you've suffered nothing. How could it then be all Muslims? That is what would make absolutely no sense because they've done nothing.

It's perhaps a way of saying that they know the terrorists are sick and brainwashed murderers, but they forgive them for their failures so they can move on with their lives. It's a gesture that perhaps doesn't have much meaning in Muslim culture? (Though the Qur'an has a lot of quotes from Muhammad about the power and value of forgiveness and a forgiving God.) Because in Christian culture, it's classic Golden Rule ideology. Christ is crucified and dies on the cross, but yet he forgives those who tortured and killed him for not knowing or comprehending what they have wrought.

It's a classic call to end retaliatory justice: the old "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".

Martyr culture and revenge fantasies may have little comprehension of its inherent ethical value. There's a whole school of psychological thought that also suggests that forgiving transgressors can do more, mentally and psychologically, to benefit the forgiver than the forgiven.

 

[king Ale]

I think they absolutely mean the terrorists. That's why it's radical. Forgiveness means nothing if you've suffered nothing. How could it then be all Muslims? That is what would make absolutely no sense because they've done nothing.

It's perhaps a way of saying that they know the terrorists are sick and brainwashed murderers, but they forgive them for their failures so they can move on with their lives. It's a gesture that perhaps doesn't have much meaning in Muslim culture? Because in Christian culture, it's classic Golden Rule ideology.

It does mean a lot in Muslim culture also but it still doesn't make any sense. Lets say they arrested everybody linked to that massacre and wanted to punish them (I don't know what would be the typical proper punishment for such a crime in Europe). Then suppose that these guys (who say to have forgiven the attackers) were actually given legal power to forgive those guys and considerably reduce the punishment. Only then would this forgiveness be meaningful and a respectable gesture (even if I'd find it absurd). In reality though, they neither have this power nor (I do believe) would they use it if they had it. That's why I really don't understand who they are saying to forgive and how.

 

[swag]

It does mean a lot in Muslim culture also but it still doesn't make any sense. Lets say they arrested everybody linked to that massacre and wanted to punish them (I don't know what would be the typical proper punishment for such a crime in Europe). Then suppose that these guys (who say to have forgiven the attackers) were actually given legal power to forgive those guys and considerably reduce the punishment. Only then would this forgiveness be meaningful and a respectable gesture (even if I'd find it absurd). In reality though, they neither have this power nor (I do believe) would they use it if they had it. That's why I really don't understand who they are saying to forgive and how.

A crime against the state is a crime against the state. Policemen were killed, tons of national money went into the hunt, etc. The events were far bigger than any one group of victims to dismiss charges. So yes, they don't have any legal power for that.

That said, every person has the power to forgive their transgressors... children, loved ones, friends, lovers, parents, etc. Surely forgiveness isn't meaningless outside a court of law. Have you never been wronged by a friend, a boyfriend, a family member, etc., and had forgiven them for past transgressions?

People can hold grudges for 50 years until the day they die. But my life has directly benefitted from forgiving the sins of the past.

 

[Hust]

A crime against the state is a crime against the state. Policemen were killed, tons of national money went into the hunt, etc. The events were far bigger than any one group of victims to dismiss charges. So yes, they don't have any legal power for that.

That said, every person has the power to forgive their transgressors... children, loved ones, friends, lovers, parents, etc. Surely forgiveness isn't meaningless outside a court of law. Have you never been wronged by a friend, a boyfriend, a family member, etc., and had forgiven them for past transgressions?

People can hold grudges for 50 years until the day they die. But my life has directly benefitted from forgiving the sins of the past.

One of the reasons why I'm always so annoyingly optimistic. I always try to be friendly and sincere. The hardest thing to do is not stay mad at something no matter the reason.

True Example: One of my brothers stopped talking to me because I married a Muslim. (him, his wife, my two nephews and niece). He is a bible thumper which obviously "conflicted" with his beliefs to the point where he no longer talks to me. Didn't even call me on my birthday on Jan 2nd. Interestingly enough, I was mad at him for a day or two after our argument and told him I forgave him and God will be the judge. I hit him with a few of his own bible verses to shut him up, such as, it isn't his place to judge, only God can judge. And instead of praying for me and my new family, he decides to judge, accuse and label which is directly opposite of Christ's teachings. I called him out on his hypocrisy and haven't heard from him sense. In my own path with God I prayed for him and God's will to be done regardless of how I felt and moved on. Moral of the story, it takes a unique individual in my opinion to be able to do that.

As annoying as I might be, especially in this thread, because I'm always trying to learn different points of view from everyone scattered all around the world but once thing I am certain of: the world needs a little bit more forgiveness.

It's strange: I called him and wish him a happy bday on his bday, called to say merry christmas, stopped by his house even and he barely said a word only because he didn't have a choice because I was standing right there. Called him when I heard he broke his foot (called him twice actually). I've made the effort to forgive and move on and try to rebuild the bridge.

Keep in mind, this is my oldest brother, 40 now, I think...he is the one I was supposed to go to for help with lifes issues cuz he has been through it all...and now, a newly wed and soon to be new father he abandons is little bro.

Sucks, but what can you do? My conscience is clean and THAT I can take to my grave. Not sure he can. Forgiveness is hard.

 

[king Ale]

A crime against the state is a crime against the state. Policemen were killed, tons of national money went into the hunt, etc. The events were far bigger than any one group of victims to dismiss charges. So yes, they don't have any legal power for that.

That said, every person has the power to forgive their transgressors... children, loved ones, friends, lovers, parents, etc. Surely forgiveness isn't meaningless outside a court of law. Have you never been wronged by a friend, a boyfriend, a family member, etc., and had forgiven them for past transgressions?

People can hold grudges for 50 years until the day they die. But my life has directly benefitted from forgiving the sins of the past.

Forgiveness is liberating, don't get me wrong, and it means a lot outside the courtroom, but it's more a personal way of coping with having been wronged. When you shout it in the public, and precisely because there's no legal power to it, it suddenly becomes a meaningless gesture which, in this case, has more of an arrogant and belittling (rather than a liberating peaceful) tone to it (a picture I assume of Mohammad implying that we forgive Islam and Muslims). Regarding Maddy's point that we have to accept co-existence, this horrifying ideology is not possible to co-exist with and is absolutely not influenced by such a supposedly peaceful (which I highly doubt) message of forgiveness.