Why debate with an idiot?

So if the average 'muslim' - whatever that is - is not, as you say, to blame why are you blaming them for not being more anti and vocal about something which they want no part of and don't relate to seeing
as those responsible belong to sects totally alien to them? Sects that want to kill them too by the way.

No one is shoving a microphone in your mug and asking you to condemn crimes committed by russian neo Nazis
are they? But you're white and come from a Christian country like them. You must be partly to blame for them too, surely? No, of course you are not.

There was a big anti-terror demonstration by Tunisian muslims soon after the attacks on Friday. I'm guessing you knew that but if not why not?

As was pointed out 30 other innocents were blown to bits too on Friday in Kuwait. Ordinary Muslims. Not the enemy. They would have hated IS too no doubt but if they didn't want to be vocal about it no one should have pressurised them to or expected them to be.

Edited by Kermit8 (28 Jun 2015 9.01pm)

The new testament is a new covenant.
Most Christians ignore Leviticus, just as they choose to ignore lots of aspects of the old testament.

What you say are violent bits in the Bible are also countered in other places.

It's the same for Islam......It's about interpretation.

The Islamic state is more about a perfect storm of sudden violent opportunity amidst societies of usually low opportunity and poverty.....Societies which often only have a religious book for their main education and only require a successful unifying force to direct....And more importantly pay them.

Edited by Stirlingsays (28 Jun 2015 2.44am)

We don't 'ignore' it. You are correct that there is a New Covenant, this was made between man and God with the coming and resurrection of Jesus.

With that all the law was fulfilled, and the new Covenant can be summed up in John 3:16

You seem to imply that its selective, it isn't. Christianity did not exist before Jesus, therefore whilst we take much from the OT, we base our lives on the teachings of Jesus.

YES! I remember in school, when I was about 12 or so, we discussed how the American government interned thousands of Japanese American citizens during the war for fear that they would remain loyal to Japan and leak information. Firstly, it is common knowledge that Japanese people are very loyal to their homeland (rightly so). Secondly, it had been suggested that there was a significant Japanese american involvement in the pearl harbor attack.
At the time of learning all of this, I was confused as to why this was frowned upon. This reaction wouldn't have seemed ridiculous if there was another massive attack on the American mainland because of some inside information.
I'm not likening this to today's situation, as interning people is too extreme a reaction in today's society, but sometimes political correctness and not offending people must take a back seat in order to protect the majority.
As for what is needed today I don't claim to know. I just know that our priority must no longer be preventing offense to the minority

Edited by Jamesrichards8 (28 Jun 2015 5.04pm)

Edited by Jamesrichards8 (28 Jun 2015 5.04pm)

Whilst I agree with you and Danny, Tom does have a point. Unless I'm mistaken, Muslims are Muslims first, nationality comes a distant second. Now obviously there are different branches of Islam but I do think that:

a) The press can do more to promote the initiatives that have taken place because there is an impression that nothing has happened.

b) The Muslim community can still do more and say "not in my name"

Maybe Muslims shouldn't feel pressurised but equally shouldn't they help marginalise IS. It's ok a white Christian saying IS is bad but if it comes from within the Muslim community it will carry far more weight.