like my post again plz, i had to make some amendments.
spot onnnnnnnn
Probably some kind of libertarian, both socially and economically liberal (in the true, non-American sense of the word). If you lived in New Zealand you'd vote for the Act Party, maybe. Free markets, low and flat taxes, hard on crime, civil liberties.
lol, yes. If I were in power id rule with an iron fist. But it suprises me that it surprises you. What would you consider my views, given your knowledge on my political/social views?
I was going to comment on Facebook. But it won't load for me (Linux + Chrome). I'm surprised you scored on the socially conservative side. Were there questions about crime and punishment? I could see that tipping you over.
Vote Compass - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) Im just curious what you'd get (kinda).
Yeah you make good points. That helps me to understand it better. Seeing someone finally acknowledge the bad parts makes me feel like I'm not losing my mind in terms of why so many people follow despite Leviticus etc. Theres just so much going on these days, its constantly being thrown in my face on television, at work, with family etc. Im just so tired of people going on and on about it, yet I do the same. I just want my opinion to be heard, I guess.
I see your argument also. I mean, have you read Leviticus? There's some cray stupid shit in there. In fact shit that would put you in prison for doing it. I think my point is that the Bible/Quran/Captain Underpants have both good and bad things to live by. They're old ass books, written by different people in different contexts. They're bound to contradict. It's easy for people who are already prone to violence to then use those bits to justify their actions. I don't think the progression is [religion --> bad bits in holy book --> inclination to violence --> actual violence], but rather [inclination to violence --> religion --> bad bits in holy book --> actual violence]. However without that initial inclination to violence, which almost all people lack, the process seems to be from experience: [no inclination to violence --> religion --> bad bits in holy book --> carry on with your life despite them]. No one has ever been a "perfect Christian" or "perfect Muslim" if your litmus test is "never do anything that goes against the holy book". If that were actually possible to do, centuries of theological debate would have never taken place to resolve the contradictions contained within. Typically what happens is an "accepted school of thought" will develop to handle these things. So that despite the Quran saying that you should kill person X in situation Y, it will be decided that no in fact, in situation Y you should just ignore person X, because by following the letter of any given passage, you're probably going against the spirit of hundreds of other passages. I know it sounds complex and airy-fairy. It is. Holy books are not computers. They do not have discrete, universal rules that produce single answers for particular problems, IMO. They're guidance for people who put stock in them.
Yeah, I get what you are saying, you're right. I just dont know how people can identify with a book that says horrible things. You can call it cherrypicking, nitpicking etc, but it doesn't change the fact that its there. Not just in the quran, but the bible also. How do you explain your faith without ignoring the horrible things written in the book which you hold your beliefs on without 'cherrypicking' out the things that are bad?
To avoid derailing: Of course it plays a part, just not the whole part. Blaming "Islam" as a whole for militant Islam is the problem, and its the type of dumb guilty-by-association that leads to discrimination and xenophobia (and much worse). By way of analogy to things that may be more familiar: The Irish troubles were influenced by religion, but claiming that an IRA terrorist and my (completely harmless) mother have much in common just because they're both Catholic is bizarre. The vast majority of Muslims that have lived, live, and will ever live are just ordinary people trying to go about their day. I only found out last week that one of my colleagues is a Muslim. I'd had no idea, and never asked because religion typically isn't polite conversation. Blaming ordinary people for the actions of a visible few is offensive and is an immense logical flaw.
Nah im derailing the thread man. Too late. Theres no point either one of us getting upset over it. Thats my words. Im sick of upsetting people.
Don't delete anything! Then it'll look like I'm putting words in your mouth or something haha. We can just not discuss it any further.
I emphathise with you Alpha, I truly do. I wont argue with you about it, ill delete my other post in the thread cause theres no point us arguing something that means the same thing to us, even if our view differ.
Not rude, no. I don't think I can honestly separate my emotional feelings for my brother and all those I know living (happily) with a disability from my ability to rationalise this or similar situations, though. I'm probably not the best person to talk about it with. Or maybe I am, because I know what life with a disability that some would consider it acceptable to abort for is actually like (not personally, mind, just through my brother). I was actually recently made his third legal guardian: in case my parents die, I am primarily responsible for his affairs.
hey I hope you dont think what I said was rude at all.
