General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: If you don't think these people represent all Christians.... [View all]Burf-_-
(205 posts)Here's one Im sure you've all seen before, or maybe not. It asks to one "explain the difference".
These two are examples of RADICALS within their respective religion. The sad truth is that there is absoultely no difference between them, right down to that disgusting smug arrogant little smirk on both their faces. Each one of them is SURE that their religion is the only true one, and that their "GOD" is the Only one. Both of them hold their holy books proudly, and imply by their automatic weapons that they have the means to fight for and die for their religious beliefs.
Here we have two photos that seem rather serene and innocuous of two religious moderates. They both have that look of spiritual conviction and sincerity in their eyes. They look harmless and peaceful and they probably are. They don't look like the two in the example above. No threat is perceived from them.
Of the four people pictured anyone can see who is a radical and who is not. You may also notice the ONE similarity in all four pictures, that they are all holding their "holy books". It's obvious then to understand that their religious beliefs come from these books, whether or not they practice it literally. In Both books, if you like admit to it or not, have the same verses printed in them. No one anywhere can deny that both have, at some point their history, or still have allowances for murder, rape, slavery, torture, and even genocide in the name of "GOD". How many examples in the last 2014 years can you think of ? How many in the past 15 years ?
The two above may be more inclined to act literally on the violent acts advocated by the "gods" in these books, the two below would probably not; However, the problem is the violent verses are still in there and there are people acting on them. The two moderates may then politely make excuses for it. They'll claim it's not meant literally , or "it's just metaphor", or "that's just the way it was back then" in the attempt to conveniently dismiss it all as harmless to close any further discussion. Many will only speak up in times of great turmoil when the religion is being ridiculed for the violence perpetrated by it's extremists. Though some are speaking out against these recent events (which is GOOD), the odds are a great majority are probably hoping for it to blow over so they can once again ignore it. The truth is there are no meaningful unilateral actions being taken to stop further destruction, and most likely never will be.
So in the end it comes down the dogma in the books themselves, and the people who cling to them despite all the harm they continue to bring the world at large with no end, or real solution in sight. It can only be ended when we wake up from our primitive theological infant fantasies, and start pursuing more relevant and important real world goals in order to evolve as a species.