Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Summer Wine]

Ok, lets return to the thread. An immigrant muslim minority party has decided that it would like to implement muslim rule/law in Australia. How is this beneficial to Australian citizens? Non muslim and do I have to point that out?

[dbee]

Bible New Testament:

MATTHEW:
Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." 10:34-36

Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. 11:20-24

"the children of the kingdom [the Jews] shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 8:12

Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery. 5:29-30

Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. 5:17

MARK:
Any city that doesn't "receive" the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. 6:11

LUKE:
Jesus says that entire cities will be violently destroyed and the inhabitants "thrust down to hell" for not "receiving" his disciples. 10:10-15

ACTS:
Peter wrongly claims that Dt.18:18-19 refers to Jesus, saying that those who refuse to follow him (all nonchristians) must be killed. 3:23

Peter and God scare Ananias and his wife to death for not forking over all of the money that they made when selling their land. 5:1-10

HEBREWS:
God will not forgive us unless we shed the blood of some innocent creature. 9:13-14, 22

ROMANS:
Homosexuals (those "without natural affection") and their supporters (those "that have pleasure in them") are "worthy of death." 1:31-32
.... didn't know about this one myself until now ...

The guilty are "justified" and "saved from wrath" by the blood of an innocent victim. 5:9

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt.html

[bigverne]

Very simplistic paraphrasing indeed. I'll deal with one just now:

Here is the orginal Bible quotation

3:23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

And here is what the website construes it as:-

Peter wrongly claims that Dt.18:18-19 refers to Jesus, saying that those who refuse to follow him (all nonchristians) must be killed. 3:23

One of those quotes is a prophecy, of what will happen, perhaps in this life or the hereafter, it is not clear. The website you use, then turns a prophecy into a direct injunction to kill. That is a gross misrepresentation.

The Koran on the other hand, contains direct injunctions for muslims to kill non-believers.

Qur�an 9:5 �Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.�

That is a far more explict, unambiguous injunction to kill non-believers that still echoes to this day. It is why, muslim terrorist groups are many and numerous, and why there are few such organisations representing other religions.

Your other quotes are mostly prophecies or parables, open to interpretation. None of them could be taken as direct, unambiguous injunctions to kill non-believers. The Koran on the other hand, contains many, which is why so many terrorist organisations use it to justify their actions. When you add in the example of the prophet Mohammed, this gives them even more ammunition.

[Nowhere Man]

Your handling of the "majority of Muslims" is...
a)Diplomatic
b)Neutral
c)Provocative
d)Insulting

4 choices.

Please choose one.

[bigverne]

e) realistic

[Nowhere Man]

[bigverne]

You have added nothing to this debate, and are merely seeking to divert it with your obviously loaded questions. You cannot ask someone a question (and one which is ludicrous anyway) and then ask people to give answers stipulated by yourself. If you have nothing to add to the debate, then move on. Dbee, at least, is able to construct an argument, and argues his point, much as I disagree with him.

Perhaps you could answer this. Your views on Islam are:-

a) naive
b) misguided
c) ignorant
d) hopelessly dogmatic, liberal, politically correct shite.

[Nowhere Man]

Been there. Tried that.

But I'll make some points based on those two questions I've posited:

1) You have little, if any direct experience with people of the Islamic faith.

2) You cite contemporary immigration statistics and make hysterical proclamations about how they will continue and offer apocalyptic suggestions about the state of things if immigration such as this continues for 50 years.

3) When you aren't squawking about immigration, you're on about pidgeon-holing Islam as a whole based on your own non-Islamic interpretation of Islamic scripture.

4) When confronted with such evidence, you're off to the races labeling people liberals who think Islam is the "religion of peace", a term used at least three times by the likes oif you if not far more than the people you seek to hang this dumbed-down argument upon.

5) Would it be entirely wrong for me to say that you're suggesting that Muslims are "polluting your civilization"? Isn't that what you want changed? Is your position remarkably different from that of "white people" about blacks in the 1960s US and the Muslim Louis Farrakhan?

6) I've read your posts for some time now. They are incredibly redundant. Consistently, they roll Islam up into a nice concise, ball to your liking.

Leaving you to squawk about the Muslim menace you see unfolding across the Western World.

Who really cares if there is a Musliim party in Australia seeking to institute Shariah law?

There has been a communist party in America seeking to institute a politburo in America for a good 70 years.

During those 70 years, how have immigration trends changed?

Dramatically.

On the other hand, in 1911 America, dolts like you froze the size of Congress because of their fears about immigrant influence. As a result, we are represented by corporate butt-lickers.

Our representation decreases daily while corporations buy more influence in the House of Representatives.

Why? Because the foreigners are coming to get us!

Is this all a bit of liberal doggerel?

Your own absurd take: California will become a part of Mexico after Hispanics overrun it.

[mithridates]

I'll just add a little bit here: bigverne, I don't necessarily disagree with everything you say and I do think the west as a whole has been coming off rather weak when it comes to protecting its identity and culture. That being said, when talking about curbing Muslim immigration you have to be very specific, because they aren't a race - there are Asian muslims and Christian Arabs. There are also examples of Canada in WWII for example accepting a mere 5000 jews from 1933 to 1945 and later being quite sorry for being so anti-semite at the time. Part of that is the reason why immigration is so liberal right now because it's a way of saying sorry for all the hardassed policies of yesteryear even if if people unrelated to the halocaust benefit as well.
You also have to make sure that certain people don't apply when laws are changed, because it would be ridiculous if the laws were changed to keep people from a certain country from visiting and it turns out that Harmad Karzai's cousin can't join him on his next visit to the US or England, for example. IOW, be very specific and very careful in what you are trying to achieve. You don't want to mess things up and have the pendulum come swinging back in your face as a result. And at the risk of fulfilling Goodwin's law, remember that Hitler inversely succeeded in making a country for the people he hated so much.

[mithridates]

Or inversely failed, or directly failed, or whatever. You know what I mean.

[bigverne]

[bigverne]

[Tiger Beer]

[bigverne]

[Summer Wine]