Let me add a few "pointers" to the abovemade points.
My main point is that when you are young and barely out of your teens, the first hair should grow on your upper lip, thus making your mustache the first facial hair that you will be able to grow. So, being a symbolism of youth, the mustache has become a big part of american hipsterism culture.
Now, we all know it, but lets spell it out. Most females, with a little time on their hands, are able to grow a mustache.
Is that considered manly? Can a mustache still be considered manly for that reason?
Also, the notable number of people with a mustache who did great things....
Yea,. let me question that.
See, mostly, the mustache is a fashion phenomenon. Most people who did have a mustache had so because it was the fashion of their times. The few who didn't had a great time making it the fashion of their times.
Now, when considering that, lets look at natural beards, worn from the dawn of time whenever people were old and wise enough to "opt out" of the shaving scene.
We have beards in egypt, babylon, and even in greece.
everytime it was that a man became sophisticated enough that he gave a rats ass about fashion, he just opted out, and became a full beard warrior.
So, while I find it commendable that mustaches brought back the images of the bearded man in modern times, and served as a brave step in the right direction:
Come back when you are man enough to grow real facial hair.
Samstag, 12. Mai 2012
So, as of today, a little storytime.
Light your pipe, have a scotch, and enjoy.
I bought myself a bike.
Not that I dislike walking. But sometimes, you just want to get places quicker.
Nice modell, I have to admit that. I waited for ever though.
In the US, they had that modell for a year.
They didn't in germany.
And Importing would have been illegal. believe me, I checked.
Last month, I was able to get it for free for a few days, by visiting our local station, where they were parked up front, just ready for the taking, and to make a short ride.
Me gusta.
But at the end of the week, men in black suits arrived, and took all of the bikes. Because, the company did not want to loan them out for ever, they said.
I have to admit, that I was tempted. In the Backyards of the hood, there were people with that kind of bike, and they said that they would just give you a bike, for free.
I was not sure on that offer, and quickly walked on. After all, I am a law abiding citizen, and do not trust people who claim that stuff is free.
However, that is all irrelevant now.
My bikle is there, and it looks beautifull. However, now that I have it, I notice a few things.
Like, the big stickers on the wheels. Please, do not steal or copy the design of this bike. As a german, I am a bit confused.
Why should I steal that? After all, I payed good money for it.
And copy a bike? I mean, all jokes aside, I am not that talented. I am barely able to open a soda without hurting myself.
All in all, why should I? I mean, I bought it fair and square, so I will enjoy the hell out of it. But the sticker right on the saddle is not good quality, and when I sweat a bit, you can read the sticker from my pants. Not that I dislike people looking at my crotch, but it just feels wrong.
And the thing about the bike is only marginally inconvenient.
Before driving off for the first time, I have to call the manufacturer, and let him know in which three parts of the city I want to use the bike. Sound pretty strange, but it is actually more convenient that way. I mean, I don't really speak turkish, or chinese, so I don't have to look around the chinese quarters that much.
And if I would want to do that,. I would have to get a second bike, and register it for the foreign quarters. Even if I just drive there once a month to get chinese lessons, and eat some noodles.
I mean, if I drive into an unregistered part of the city, the bike locks down, and I have to call the manufacturer and excuse myself. Usually, they ask a lot of money to unlock the bike for me.
That ius just unfair, in my opinion, but well, I can understand it, at least a bit.
After all, the people buying the chinese version of the bike don't generally have that much money, and so the company does sell the bikes that are locked to only be driven in chinatown at a much cheaper rate. So, while I would love to get the cheap chinatown rate on my bike, I do not want the normal population of chinatown to suffer.
I tried calling the manufacturer last week, to ask if I could register my bike to drive to little italy< for shopping, to germantown to meet my mother, to the inner city to go to work and meet english speaking people and to little italy to meet with my current Girlfriend.
The guy on the other end just sighed, and told me that in my case, it was not possible to register the bike in all areas, and if I would consider purchasing a second or third bike for using it in the other sectors?
I did not want to give him any trouble, so I declined, and told him that I would walk then. He just continued to laugh like a hyena and make rude assumptions about my monetary status.
Well, there is also the thing with the body mass index. See, loaning the bike to my friends / my sister / my GF is not allowed. If I want to do that, I have to purchase second bikes for them at full price.
to prevent that, the saddle has tiny spikes, which poke into my bottom, and then send a soft electric current through. barely notable, but it results in my resistance number, measuring the fat percentage and the water percentage of my bum in the process. The problem is, I have to register a specific number. If I moove too much, I get below the number, if I moove to little, I get above.
If the actual resistance value does not fit within 1 % diviation, then the bike just locks up, and starts ringing its bell endlessly.
Holy guackamole, I have to watch what I consume now, or else my bike will not recognise me. As I have tried to call the manufacrturer and ask for a less secured bike, they told me that I was just a thief, who complained that their protection was too good, and that they would not change anything at all.
The other day, I wanted to give it a paintjob. Black, like the ammount of hate in my heart. but in the supermarket, they just laughed as I told them what I wanted to do.
"Have you asked the manufacturer? It says here you can only use his approved paints, or else the warranty is lost"
As if I hadn't noticed. The original manufacturer approved color is roughly 4 times the price of the standart no name color. I can't pay that.
"Well, then leave the bike like it is. besides, the manufacturer will have put some thought in it why he made it pink"
Most likely, the color change would be illegal too.
What I also like is that my city recently implemented new bikeways, besides the roads.
I was happy as a bug for a while, untill the new rumors started coming up.
"Well, the new bikeways will not be compatible with your bike. The tires are too small. they will just fall between the bumps, and get stuck. "
I asked a techie friend of mine, and got an answer I did not like. I would have to buy the next generation bike, that looks exactly like this generations bike, except with bigger tires.
And just unmounting the normal tires, and then building in bigger ones?
Not possible. The forks of the bike were of highly breakable specialist glass, which made it so that buying a new fork from any material remotely the same quality as the old one would be three times the price of buying a new next generation bike.
I often thought about buying a no name bike, but the one I have now just looks that pretty, and the hype around them is not as massive.
But on the upside, the next generation bike will have slightly bigger wheels, with a sealed chain case. So the last part that could break will be safely stored away, for increased safety.
Also, now each time the bike breaks I have to buy a new one.
They also started to put up little electronic stations at my way to work. to controll who sits on what bike. I found that a bit disrespectfull, but complied. After all, I told myself, that is only to keep our bikes safe, and to prevent theft. The interesting part came as I was out of sight of the houses, leaving the city for a drive in the countryside. Apparently, the manufacturer had refused to pay for controlling stations in the countryside, so as soon as my bike was out of sight of the controlling house, it locked up the front wheel, planting me firmly face down in a bush of nettles. I had it good, compared to the day when misty weather blocked the view of the sensors of the little controlling stations. 400 people had the same fate as me, but in the city, where there is not much soft earth around to break your fall.
The manufacturing company just said that they were sorr<y, and instead of contributing to the hospital bills many people had, or to the time off of work, they simply offered everyone a free bell for their bike. There were protests at first, but it was quickly stifled. if you don't like it, or are too poor or too soft to drive the bike, please cry for yourself.
Nobody likey being called a crybaby, so people toughened up.
Oh, and last week, the manufacturer sued my friend Bill.
His Problem? His bike was stolen, and since the company could now hardly sell the same bike to the thief, even though he was unknown, they argued that they had missed a sale, which was as bad as stealing. So, since he supplied his details, and the thief didn't, bill is now being sued for stealing and distribution of a free bike.
He should have been more carefull.
Like me. I walk a lot more on foot now. Watching all the people on bikes has become a lot of fun.
I wanted to give my bike away, for free, as a gift to my little sister.
I asked the manufacturer if I was allowed to, and was told that it would mean that they were unable to sell the bike, thus, it would be like stealing from them. I wouldn't steal, would I?
I don't steal.
I now spend a lot more time in the backyards of the hood, sitting with a few friends, and building my own bikes from scratch. I will continue doing that till I die.
If they come, I am prepared....
Today, I stumbled upon a nice piece that seems deserving.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to1naH2A7GU
So, let me get my Analysis pants on.
First of all, I could not agree more with the base message.
HIPPIES ARE EVIL!
That
is right, I said it. Hippies are not as evil as true haters, and may
never rise to that sphere, but damn me, they are evil and annoying.
They pester me all the time, and want me to change.
But wait. Is that my troll sense tingling?
Lets look at that video again, and the arguments in it.
"Radical environmentalism is striving to put america and the world under its destructive controll. "
That
at least seems true. I mean, I see how every damn political argument is
influenced by environmental issues, and I just can't take it anymore. I
mean, seriously, why the hell?
I agree that we need a nice place to live, and that flowers and grass are essential to living, but it stops right there.
I
am allergic against the damn stuff, thats right, multiple heavy
allergies against all types of pollen. So, I have the right to hate
nature, with a vengance, because mother nature has me bent over a
barrel, and is pounding my rectum every time the sun so much as shines,
and these icky flowers release their pollen.
"The so called green dragon is seducing your children in their classrooms and popular culture. "
I cou.... Wait a Minute, Green Dragon?
how high do you have to be that you call it by a foreign name?
I
mean, I call them hippies, flower-fuckers, evil Beatnicks, longhaired
babboons, and filthy people, who want to spread love and forgiveness as
if anyone would want to touch their STD ridden bodies...
But back to the wording.
Yes, it seduces our children in classrooms and popular culture.
It
sickens me every time I have to watch " a dangerous truth", or an other
presentation with power point on how I have to save the universe.
I would not call it seduction.
Seduction is when something attractive comes along, and convinces me to follow it.
Hippies
basically drone onb and on about the same thing, repeating endlessly
how I am evil ( well, thank you) and how I need to be put down, and if I
could please stop smoking and flicking my ashes at their babies.
I
would call it rape of the mind, repeatedly, untill you either have to
agree and find pleasure with the idea, or are a hater, like me. I have
many a friend who became a hater after too much hippie propaganda, so it
pains me little to say, yes, you evil buggers, you with the long hairs
and the birkenstock, get a haircut and thank you for turning people over
to my cause.
"Its political power now extends to the highest political levels"
RIGHT!
It has to stop that even when I want to watch helmut schmidt drink
himself to stupor, there is nothing more important then the mechanical
indoctrination of some higher level hippie preaching about his cause
"And its twisted view of the world elevates nature above the needs of people, even the poorest and the most helpless. "
Well,
a bit harsh, but I feel you. I meanh, I get that only under capitalism,
people are allowed to farm and plant tobacco, which can then be rolled,
shipped and brought to germany where I can buy it off of little
vietnamese men named mister Lu.
I mean, I am paying taxes on
tobacco, I fund an entire supply chain of people, I spend money so that
thousands of people have a job, some of them in the poorest areas of the
world.
"With millions falling prey to its spiritual decception..."
Well,
again, I would not call it spiritual. It is more a physical decception.
They drone on and on about how smoking is bad for you, how you can't
buy deo because it has greenhouse gasses, how you should nopt wear
polyester, untill you simply comply with them to stop the nagging. And
before you know it, you have your hopes up that a nice woman you met at
one of their camps would be a good girlfriend, and to impress her, you
drone and nagg extra hard, just to please her.
I would not call it spiritual, I would call it physical decception.
"In what has become one of the greatest decceptions of our day"
Debatable.
I would go with "Apple products are cool" and "It really looks bigger
that way ", but ok, hippieism IS a decception. I) just love it how
allmost none of them think it trough, just chanting what their leaders
tell them,. without any mind of their own. Disgusting!
"The time is now to stand and resist"
Could not agree more, good narrator-chap. Tomorrow, I will rise, and kick the first Hippie I meet.
"Around the world, environmentalism has become a radical movement, something we call the green dragon."
OK, Now, I have to say something.
Hippies,
and environmentalists are not deadly. They are, in fact, very non
radical, and peacefull. The black block, the anarchists, the neo nazis,
the TEA party, these are radical organisations and movements, but I
hardly see the hippies as deadly as the rest of them. In fact, most
hippies are remarkably peacefull.
"And it is.... Deadly"
deadly... Does being a hippie kill more then my sense of smell when I am forced to sit next to you?
"Deadly to human prosperity"
Well,
Ok, I have to say, wrong. Hippies take the apples noone else wants, the
broken wood stuff, incense, for petes sake, and sell it at 15 bucks a
pound. I am telling you, there is money to be made in hippie behaviour,
but they don't show it.
"Deadly to human life!"
Well, again, no. I have never heard of hippies killing anybody, except for manson, but that was just a singular case.
"Deadly to human freedom"
hell
yea. I want to be free. I want to smoke whenever I want to smoke, drink
whenever I want to drink, pray tpo trolldin whenever I feel the need
and be disgustingly decadent and wastefull. And bugger of you hippies
whpo keep telling me what I need to do! I am paying more taxes on my
vices then you are! I am smoking, drinking and eating fast food toi
support OUR state. When was the last time you payed a dime of taxes on
"being high on life" or " free love"?
See, get lost, move to cuba or to russia, you damn beatnicked hippies with no shoes on!
"And deadly to the gospel of jesus christ"
Ok,
that kind of took me by surprise. I mean, to be fair and all, I do not
read the bible regularely, but I know that Jesus the man himself did not
write any gospel.
THAT IS A FACT!
It was written down by his followers.
I
mean, Honestly, I allways suspected that a LOT of jesus dudes were
secret hippies, ever since that blasted musical "Jesus christ superstar"
came out with its catchy tunes. I tell you, long haired, beat niuck,
meek inherit the earth? he did say to give the king what was the kings,
but he did also provoide free healthcare (Obamacare!), feed the hungry (
today he would probably issue foodstamps) and had a father who could
not be verified ( Yes, of virgin birth). I mean, honestly talking, jesus
was an unhealthy man who probably would be labeled clinically insane by
todays standarts, but whatever.
I mean, he was ga good teacher, and diud make a few wonderfull points, if you can believe his followers.
"Make no mistake about it: environmentalism is no longer your friend. It is your enemy"
Damn straight! They will take my cheezeburger and my cigarette out of my cold dead hands!
"And the battle is not priomarily political or material, it is spiritual"
Again,
what does environmentalism have to do with any spiritual reasoning? I
mean, hippies, with their filthy mother godesses, and their pan and
femininity, that is indecent and spiritual, but environmentalism....
"... I am allways on the alert to threats to the christian faith"
"And make no mistakes about it: environmentalism is exactly that: It is its own religion. "
With
that said, In my eyes, Environmentalism does have too little systematic
to qualify. It does get its lifestyle from its idea about the cosmos,
so I will give you that.
"And we need to be prepared, as christians, to rescue people from that cult"
LOL.
Ok, first of, christianity , sorry, but this is troll rules. I know
that there are some people, who have a sense of humor, who will let the
troll rage, and then wander off.
There will be others who will rage back.
nevertheless,
haters gotta hate, and trolls gotta troll, so, from this point on, if
you are easily offended, please, stop reading.
Because I just let the troll out.
"Environmentalists have a long history of believing and promoting exaggerations and myths"
True.
We all know how this retard in a suit used pictures of a reoccuring
phenomena in a slideshow and then claimed it was evidence of global
warming.
On the off side, I also know that christianity is based
on believing and promoting exaggerations and myths. So, why cry about
it?
Is someone better at your game, christianity? U mad?
"Environmental science simply does not have a good track record, not at all"
Well, considering the fact that the weatherman was wrong again today, I tend to agree.
But wait, do we have something called christian science in the back?
I
mean, I have to admit it, I tend to disbelieve environmental science on
the fact that I sometimes saw trhe opposite of what happened, but
christian science? At least the weatherman can correctly predict that it
will be cold in the winter.
"Their false assertions are based more on their own, morbid, pessimistic fears, not on any good science"
Ok, now it gets to the level of shooting fish in a barrel.
Yes, you are right, but christianity is still far ahead.
Christian
science? Based not on science, but on interpretation of the bible.
Bible? Interpretation of the teachings of the supposed son of god., who
did not write them down himself.
So, yes, environmentalist science is based on fears, but christianity is based on insanity.
"Exaggerations, myths and outright lies are commonplace in the environmental movement"
True, but once again, christianity isn't allowed to even complain.
Why?
"NO MEAT ON FRIDAY!"
"UNLESS YOU GIVE MONEY!"
I could easily continue the list, but lets put it together:
Both
environmentalists base their beliefs, if you can call it that, on their
favored interpretation of stuff they once heard an other guy talk
about. Chriustians have brought it to mastery / made4 it an art form,
but environmentalists catch up fast.
"When we think
about science, we think about the truth, yet in so called global warming
science, we all have gotten a lot less then the truth, many times. "
IN CHRISTIAN SCIENCE; WE NEVER HAD A SINGLE INSTANCE OF TRUTH!
"And
yet the policies that environmental groups and even these evangelical
groups got behind were ones that would consign the poorest of people nof
the world to grinding poverty, to disease, to premature death"
So, lets remember:
Hippies want to donate their filthy green struff to develloping countries, and thus get tax writeoffs?
EVUL!
Christians
want to deny develloping countries their bgvasic freedom of belief in
their native gods, want to just send help to those parts of the world
where there is a church of their faith, and want to prohibit everything
that does not fit within their worldview but would keep woman and men
safe from STD'S?
Good?
let me put it in more clearer terms....
FORCE
ALL PRIESTS AND NUNS TO WEAR CONDOMS AT ALL TIMES; HAND OUT FREE
CONDOMS FOR EVERYBODY; AND SELL YOUR MATERIAL WEALTH TO GIVE THE REVENUE
TO THE POOR;
THEN you are allowed to talk.
"Folks, this shouldn't happen, we need to stop the war on the poor"
I
agree. Funny thing, the black gent is trhe only one that only says one
sentence, keeps it short and precise, and makes sense. I allways knew
you could trust black people to make sense.
"And scaring little children to archieve your political ends is reprehensible"
Well, when I was ten, I was told that if I would not sign up for the church, I would go to hell.
So, choke on my magnificent E-penis, you hypochrisy filled scumbags.
"As christians, we must actively trust god, and obey his word."
"So,
when it comes to environmental stewardship, we must reject the false
worldview, the faulty science, and the counterfit gospel that threatens
to corrupt society, and the church"
"we must exorcise wise dominion over the magnificent planet God has entrusted to us"
eek. THAT is dangerous thinking.
I
mean, honestly, I would have nothing against a planet just for
christians, where everybody was brought that accepted jesus christ as
his personal lord and savior, to live under a christian theocracy.
BUT,
sadly, I am forced to share a planet with the rest of humanity. which,
even more sadly, includes extrementalist christians.
Now, a quick message here.
I
know most christians will have enough good humor to grin, or at least
not feed the troll, but some will fail and rage against me. so, decent
christians, stop reading, and enjoy your day.
Extremist hippies and christians, lets continue:
issue 1:
"Radical X is striving to put america and the world under its destructive controll. "
Hippies: Valid, because you are.
Christians: TEA Party, do I need to say more?
issue 2:
"The so called X is seducing your children in their classrooms and popular culture. "
Hippies: Valid. get them while they are young.
Christians: Valid, because you say in every other word how you want to include prayer in school and all of that good stuff.
Issue 3:
"Its political power now extends to the highest political levels"
Hippies and Christians are on equal footing on that one.
Issue 4: "And x's twisted view of the world elevates nature above the needs of Y, even the poorest and the most helpless. "
Christians win that one hands down. If I would have my right, as a
nonchristian, to leave your religious education, go outside in the
parking lot,. have a beer and smoke and relax heavily, I would not say a
beep against it. BUT, extremist christians want to push their agenda
even further.
issue 5:
"With millions falling prey to its spiritual decception..."
"Around the world, X has become a radical movement, something we call the Y."
Christians win that one hands down. I have yet to see the
actual works of god, or jesus christ. What I see is good people doing
things.
Issue 6:
"And it is.... Deadly"
"Deadly to human prosperity"
"Deadly to human life!"
"Deadly to human freedom"
"And deadly to the gospel of jesus christ"
Christians, why do I see you in front of that one?
First of all, lets recount how many deaths christianity did rack up, and lets only name a few instances:
- Crusades: Killing in the name of religion
- Witch Trials: Killing in the name of religion
- right to life'ers killing doctors: Killing in the name of religion.
let me reiterate that I do not think anything against jesus christ.
I just hate what the people that claim to follow him do.
I mean, seriuously, can you name one force of evil that caused more death, destruction and chaos in the world then christianity?
were it after me, I would enforce a strict policy that the biblke
itself would be NC-17, and every extremist christian would be put on a
terrorist watchlist.
because, and hear me out, these extremist christians seem to take a
book of perfectly good teachings, pick out the arguments that suit their
beliefs, and then use these to start shit like burning all infidels, or
preaching that all nonchristians go to hell. Please, as if we would
want to go where you are.
Issue 7:
"Make no mistake about it: environmentalism is no longer your friend. It is your enemy"
"And the battle is not priomarily political or material, it is spiritual"
"... I am allways on the alert to threats to the christian faith"
"And make no mistakes about it: environmentalism is exactly that: It is its own religion. "
Yes. See, that is just protecting their own turf.
So, you can't blame these supposed christians. After all, they amass
wealth, molt idols, and spread hate and ignorance, how are they supposed
to react if someone is better at the game that they invented?
Issue 8:
"And we need to be prepared, as christians, to rescue people from that cult"
"Environmentalists have a long history of believing and promoting exaggerations and myths"
"Environmental science simply does not have a good track record, not at all"
Yep. Christianity is winning, because it fullfills all the same
criteria it is supposed to dislike. After all, it is a religion based on
a crude mixture of mithras-cults, nature gods and godesses, and it
teaches people more about obedience then critical thinking.
Also, the bible is not the word of god, or the son of god, as it
supposedly was written after jesus was dead, by people who heard it from
the original apostles. So, yeah, blaming people because they use a
false basis is kind of hard when you have a false basis yourself.
Issue 9:
"Their false assertions are based more on their own, morbid, pessimistic fears, not on any good science"
"Exaggerations, myths and outright lies are commonplace in the environmental movement"
"When we think
about science, we think about the truth, yet in so called global warming
science, we all have gotten a lot less then the truth, many times. "
So, let me put it simple:
That coming froim a group where the vatican concil decides what the
core beliefs are, and where the only justification of that comes from
petrus, a shifty fisherman who was most likely forging his credentials,
whop said that jesus himself gave him the ok for that when no other guy
was looking to make up whatever the hell he pleases, that is just weak.
http://www.unzensuriert.at/content/008144-Spanien-Verfassungskommission-prueft-Koran-Verbot reports, in german, that Firasat Imran wants to censor the koran.
A bit more openly, he has entered a motion that is currently being discussed by the spanish congress.
His reasoning, according to http://www.minutodigital.com/2012/04/24/la-comision-constitucional-del-congreso-estudiara-la-peticion-de-imran-firasat-de-prohibir-el-coran-en-espana/ , is as follows:
And remember, we want to be reasonable trolls, so we will compare it to christianity, the de facto standart in religious things:
El Corán no es un libro sagrado y religioso sino un libro violento, lleno de odio y discriminación.
Translated:
"The Koran is no holy or religious book, but a book that preaches violence, hatred and discrimination. "
Well, the first argumend ends it. Lets take it piece by piece.
- The Koran is no holy or religious book.
WRONG!
Lets go to wikepedia, and look up what it says there.
Lets see:
with that simple piece alone, it is proven that it is a religious text.
Holy? According to muslims, yes. The verbatim word of god, remember? I mean, I tend to distrust the claim, but in my eyes, it is as valid as the christian claim that jesus lived, and the bible is the word of god.
Remember, I am but a very confused young man, so if you want to correct me, please do.
So, it is Holy and religious, but what about the rest?
Calls to violence, hatred and discrimination?
Lets see what we find in the bible (with a little help from our friends at NPR ( http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788 ) )...
" Defense Vs. Total Annihilation
"Much
to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far
less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible," Jenkins says.
Jenkins is a professor at Penn State University and author of two books dealing with the issue: the recently published Jesus Wars, and Dark Passages , which has not been published but is already drawing controversy.
Violence in the Quran, he and others say, is largely a defense against attack.
"By
the standards of the time, which is the 7th century A.D., the laws of
war that are laid down by the Quran are actually reasonably humane," he
says. "Then we turn to the Bible, and we actually find something that is
for many people a real surprise. There is a specific kind of warfare
laid down in the Bible which we can only call genocide."
It is called herem,
and it means total annihilation. Consider the Book of 1 Samuel, when
God instructs King Saul to attack the Amalekites: "And utterly destroy
all that they have, and do not spare them," God says through the prophet
Samuel. "But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and
sheep, camel and donkey."
When Saul failed to do that, God took away his kingdom.
"In
other words," Jenkins says, "Saul has committed a dreadful sin by
failing to complete genocide. And that passage echoes through Christian
history. It is often used, for example, in American stories of the
confrontation with Indians — not just is it legitimate to kill Indians,
but you are violating God's law if you do not."
"
Lets see.... To be brutally honest, I dislike both the same way, but I have to say that the bible is a bit more harsh. So, Violence is a given.
As for hatred, lets see what the bible says ( with help from http://www.openbible.info/topics/hatred ) :
Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality,
impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits
of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies,
and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those
who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
"
Well, it looks like I will not inherit the kingdom of God, but that is a ok with me.
But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the
darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has
blinded his eyes.
"
OK, now that is the best thing I have yet to read. That makes it truthfully peacefull, and is a good quote. You can trustr people named John to say such things, you know? If you know a person named John, give him a hug from me, because he made me just vomit rainbows.
But wait.... why is my troll sense tingling?
"
If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar;
for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God
whom he has not seen.
"
OK, ok, I get it.
Christianity is kind of peacefull, and not into the whole hatred stick.
Except that christians are.
Well, a final quote on that: ( http://kingjbible.com/exodus/22.htm )
" 16And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
17If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins. 18Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. 19Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death. 20He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed. 21Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
22Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child.
23If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry;
24And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless. 25If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.
26If thou at all take thy neighbour's raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver it unto him by that the sun goeth down:
27For that is his covering only, it is his raiment for his skin: wherein shall he sleep? and it shall come to pass, when he crieth unto me, that I will hear; for I am gracious. 28Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.
"
Have a coke on that one.
In total:
The qu'ran seems more open on hatred then the bible. But only becauise they have no John.
Also, christians need to remember the bits about loving your brother. Especially when they cuss out Obama!
2. El Corán es un libro horrible que provoca a una comunidad que se
llama musulmanes a hacer la yihad y matar a gente inocente y destruir
la paz del mundo.
The qu'ran is a horrible and violent book, that calls for the muslims to lead a djihad, kill innocent people, and disturb the world piece.
Well.....
To be brutally honest, yes, the qu'ran does call for that.
BUT
Does the bible do so as well?
Lets see a few quotes: ( http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/quotes.html )
"
Now
put this down in your notebook, because it will be on the test: The
crusades were in every way a defensive war. They were the West's belated
response to the Muslim conquest of fully two-thirds of the Christian
world.
"The first point to be made in defense of the
Crusades is that they were initially a response to Islamic aggression.
Islam, from its inception, had espoused the use of force. Where Jesus
had died for his beliefs, the Prophet Mohammed had wielded a sword.
Though Christianity was later to be exploited for political ends, the
Christian religion as such had, in the first three centuries of its
existence, spread peacefully--thriving, in fact, on the blood of its
martyrs. I say this not to score a point in favor of Christianity but to
emphasize an historical truth: The spread of Islam from the Arabian
peninsula to southwestern France in the eighth century; and to the gates
of Vienna in the seventeenth, came as a result of conquest by Islamic
armies. Piers Paul Read In Hooray for the Crusades! Woman's Quarterly, Spring 2002"
Not bad, not bad.... Told you, organmized religion is kind of freaky, and evil.
"Nine hundred years ago, our forefathers
carried the name of Jesus Christ in battle across the Middle East.
Fueled by fear, greed and hatred, they betrayed the name of Christ by
conducting themselves in a manner contrary to His wishes and character.
The Crusaders lifted the banner of the Cross above your people. By this
act they corrupted its true meaning of reconciliation, forgiveness and
selfless love.
On the anniversary of the First Crusade we also carry the name of
Christ. We wish to retrace the footsteps of the Crusaders in apology for
their deeds and in demonstration of the true meaning of the Cross. We
deeply regret the atrocities committed in the name of Christ by our
predecessors. We renounce greed, hatred and fear, and condemn all
violence done in the name of Jesus Christ.
Where they were motivated by hatred and prejudice, we offer love and
brotherhood. Jesus the Messiah came to give life. Forgive us for
allowing His name to be associated with death. Please accept again the
true meaning of the Messiah's words:
'The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He has anointed me to bring
good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the
captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go
free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.'
Text of an Apology for the Crusades- The Reconciliation Walk Movement, 1998-1999"
HRM......
"Pope John Paul II decided to return the bones
of the two most revered saints in the Orthodox Church, ‘St. John
Chrysostomos and St. Gregoriou of Nazianzus’, to Ecumenical Patriarch
Bartholomew I. This gesture of conciliation annoyed me. The theft was in
1204, when Constintinople was sacked by the crusaders. The crusaders
were ‘sent’ by the Holy Roman Emperors (neither holy, nor Roman, nor
emperors (Bryce’s words)), with the Vatican’s blessings, to ‘rescue’ the
holy places from the conquering Islamic hordes. In reality, the third
crusade was a front to sack and destroy Constantinople, the center of
Greek Orthodoxy, to weaken it, to guarantee the preeminence of the
Papacy. This ‘sacking’ was one of those events leading to the fall of
Constantinople in 1453.
""The word "Crusade" now has a noble
connotation. It is used to describe a brave struggle for a righteous
cause. The actual history of the great Crusades in the East belies that
interpretation. The Crusaders did indeed believe that they were carrying
out God's will; but they were characterized by ignorance, intolerance
and savagery. They set out to save Christendom; but to the Christians of
the East they brought nothing but disaster. It can be said that
Byzantium profited by the First Crusade, which did indeed help the
Emperor to recover much of Anatolia more quickly than he could have
managed alone. It is possible, too, to maintain that the existence of
the Crusader states in the East served to divert Muslim attention from
Constantinople. But the Second and Third Crusades did nothing for
Byzantium except to create embarrassment and ill-will; and the Fourth
Crusade dealt the Empire a wound from which full recovery was
impossible. It is true that there were in fact no further Crusades
specifically directed against the Greeks, the Sicilian Vespers having
prevented what was planned to be a replica of the Fourth Crusade. Even
though men from the West who fought against the Orthodox were promised
by their religious authorities the same spiritual benefits as were
ordained for those that fought against the infidel, in Greece itself
relations between the lords of the Francocratia and their Greek
neighbours were not always bad. There was social intercourse; there was
often intermarriage. But in the background there was always the
animosity created and encouraged by the religious authorities, an
animosity felt especially by newcomers from the West, an animosity that
was part of what the later Crusading spirit had become. All that is why,
to me, "Crusade" is a dirty word.
Steven Runciman, Greece and the Later Crusades
From the New Griffon, A Gennadius Library Publication, American School
of Classical Studies at Athens. Editor: Haris A. Kalligas, Director,
Gennadius Library. Produced & Distrbuted by Potamos Publishers &
Booksellers, Athens 2002."
YES!
"Many Muslims, for instance, still reckon that
the crusades initiated centuries of European aggression and
exploitation. Some Catholics want the pope to apologise to the world for
them. Liberals of all stripes see the crusades as examples of bigotry
and fanaticism. Almost all these opinions are, however, based on
fallacies. The denigrators of the crusades stress their brutality and
savagery, which cannot be denied; but they offer no explanation other
than the stupidity, barbarism and intolerance of the crusaders, on whom
it has become conventional to lay most blame. Yet the original
justification for crusading was Muslim aggression; and in terms of
atrocities, the two sides' scores were about even.
So, in total, christianity did have a long rapsheet of barbarism, religious wars, and intolerant behavior. The bible does not call for all heathens to be killed, but the people in the church often do so. Plus, there is a couple of lines, like "You shall not suffer a witch to live" that do not only promote the killing of infidels, but also the killing of your own people.
so, just as a short note, let me say the following:
If the Qu'ran gets banned, I want a BAN on the bible too, unless the christian right can come up with 10 reason why the qu'ran should be banned that can not be used on extremist christians who kill murder and maim in the name of GOD.
Posts
