Islam is a religion of peace?

 The Religion Of Peace.

Who am I kidding, I am not going to do that blog, the liberal apologetic blog in which the excuses are on display. 

Islam is a religion of peace much like Onision the famous Youtube sh!thead is a banana, we are not dealing with a religion of peace, we have a religion with many divides and the fact your doctor is Muslim means almost nothing. 

The whining liberal who claims Islam is peace claims because his dentist is peaceful that Islam in all forms is peace, and IS must not be Muslim.  This is a sickening delusion, and a kind of not true Scotsman fallacy against IS.  IS are an evil group by any modern standard, but they follow the Koran and Hadith teachings to the letter, they kill Muslims but many Muslim groups kill rivals, you may as well say Shiites aren't Muslim if IS is not Islamic. 

The liberals who are fooled by extremism are also those who get fooled by people who set up sharia gangs and demand extra protection and rights, people who at best represent a tiny number of western Muslims, but mobilise like they speak for a whole region of London.  The liberals think they are just like their doctor or dentist or local shop keeper, while the noisy extremist in the west is radicalising young men who may even go as far as carrying out acts of terror or joining IS in Syria. 

We see Muslims with differing views who are either peaceful or they are not, and the violent ones are supported by a wide number of Muslims on a global level.  My recent points on Pakistani violence says only part of the story[see the earlier blog].  

I want to touch on this from time to time to remind you that the trouble world is troubled by many factors, not least Muslim Extremism. 

Is Teal Swan the worst kind of new ager?

Is Teal Swan the worst kind of new ager?


She has promoted bad medical health, anti-medication and anti-vaccine beliefs, big pharma conspiracies, and claims we create diseases and cancers and say sun lotion is just a scam, so yes, she is the kind of new ager that you should not follow blindly.  

Fundamentalism in Pakistan, Government Censorship, and Murder.

Pakistani government is blacking out the trouble with its blasphemy laws again, news stories pulled, etc. a story about the way the law is being used to oppress the Hindus and Christians, surprise surprise the Pakistani government it at it again, censoring the stories, not least that of attacks by angry mobs against those who say simple things like 'Islam isn't correct' or 'Muhammad isn't a prophet'.  Needless to say, Pakistani Freethinkers are as endangered if not more so than other opinions on god and religion.

 This image shows the kind of anti-Christian hatred that the government effectively enforces with the blasphemy law, but the average citizen is willing to take up arms himself to kill the infidel.
Murder cases may not be solved, angry mobs that can number hundreds or event thousands of people have attacked average Pakistanis and destroyed livelihoods and places of worship.


We have seen over the years a large number of attacks in the press, although, much of the media doesn't care or fears offending people. indeed, a Shiite Muslim protest a few years ago was turned into a blood bath by young Sunni Muslim Pakistanis who followed the orders of the religious leader, since much of Muslim violence is internalised, between types of Islam. I could add to this concerning censorship the troubles with honour killings, in which, young women are killed for the crime of caring for the wrong person or fleeing arranged marriages. 

This image is of Pakistanis burning flags after the Charlie Hebdo
attacks, and I could literally find thousands of such cases, and often violence is expressed to local Christians for the crime of having the most populous western religion.  The ignorant masses that are controlled by religious leaders who refuse to let Pakistan develop beyond it's dangerous devotion to fundamental views of Islam.  
  
Sadly, this trend of Pakistani violence isn't a question of the odd attack, it's a matter of a nation that is torn between extremism and civilisation, and sadly the homeland of the Taliban has more than it's fair share of dangerous extremists. 

Brainwashing Group Warning Signs

Hillary Clinton's fail? [Ramble without much thought]

ramble, take offence.

if you like conspiracy theories and US politics then lets imagine that the fear was a left winger would lose the democrats the popular vote and if the republicans had Jeb Bush as a middle of the road type the republicans would get in. so as a reaction it was agreed that Hillary should use her influences to lean it in her favour, as a result, she established a lead meaning she has way more than 50% of her party on side. the trouble was a right wing nut got the republic candidacy, and the Hillary camp rigging and deceptive political methods caused a backlash which ensured a close run thing. So Bernie was powered by Hillary Clinton's camp's activities that they thought at first was the best way to beat Bush, sounds sexy, or beat Cruz, and now is a lame duck to face trump? the conspiring to ensure democrats win has meant the democrats are losing the left which is swelling the greens and trump as a right winger is far more likely to win the presidential race.

So if Hillary played fair to win democrats rather than trying to warm up the general population ready for November then she'd not have made her Frankenstein(Sanders) and he's monstrous following(Bernie fans, soon to be greens?).  She created her worst nightmare, someone who wasn't trying to be all things at once, just as in previous cases where a candidate was about being middle of the road, progressive, and anything that gets me ahead.  

Lets just call this a fool's opinion, I'm sure better authorities know better on this issue than I. 

On working in a Religious workplace.

In my experience, while working in a supermarket, the Muslim employees were happy to discuss Islam, although, as soon as they lost a friendly discussion some would complain to the manager, even though, I was on my lunch break at the same time they were.  No insults and fists, just words and doubt on the historicity of Mohammad, the truth of the Koran, and the existence of a God.  Once a piece of pork off a pizza fell on to a Halal pizza, and I had to throw away most of the food I cooked for the night staff as part of my job.  I could count many such events like this as worth telling you, or save for my memoirs.  Funny thing is I'd tell people something wasn't Halal and they'd still eat it if it wasn't pork or if no other Muslims were around.  So it's a mixed bag of people.  And, without proper training, I had no knowledge of fundamental facts that may have helped avoid the sensibilities of the faithful. 

At one point as a New Ager/spiritualist (pre-2010) I was looking at other religions, including Judaism and kabbalah(an esoteric Jewish method), it was presumed I must be Jewish, I had to make clear I wasn't Jewish, even though it doesn't bloody well matter to most people in any way.  I'm not Jewish, and that shouldn't be a thing that keeps a steaming anger from boiling over, no matter what religion you belong to. 

I had good times too, over four years I had good pay while working nights, but the attitude of some is very unrealistic.  The only time I had a Christian act like an ass at that job was when she thought I was Christian and she was bitching about Muslims following the devil.  She herself was a member of a noisy church that focused the black community, whereas, I was a collector of books on spirit guides, so slight difference.  I put her in her place a bit, some talk of not wanting her faith or theirs telling me what is true. 

Sadly, many people there were very two faced.  And, over the course of that job, I had various cases of annoyed people telling me they were offended that I thought god didn't exist, 2010+.  Since it was these people who helped me see the religions I thought I knew a little of were really not the peaceful parts that spiritualist said they were.  Spiritualists and New Agers say Muhammad was an Arabic Jesus, so Jesus?  no, more like a guru or teacher, BUT these dumb fucks never read the koran or knew the history of the wars of Islam and Muhammad.  They were always trying to say he was an Arabic buddha.

Learning the real history was key to me dropping the religious mysticism that the mediums and psychics said was true, I have spoken in detail about the main things that changed my mind, but the fact that the great religions were born in blood was a factor that helped me to see the spiritualists and new agers just repeated positive memes about what they wanted to believe Jesus, Muhammad, Moses and others were like.

Seeing through the progressive deception of what religious leaders helps you to see that it is cherry picking to see Muhammad as a buddha like-person instead of a warlord. 

What is a Terrorist? - Politically incorrect

What is terrorism? 

 

The definition of terrorism, 'The unofficial or unauthorised use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.'[Oxford dictionaries].

Any organisation that seeks to kill people based on personal conviction may as well be labelled a terrorist group, although it may be best to explain this in details. If a movement, org, group has as a mantra kill n#gg#rs, or kill the cops, or kill all of those who insult God/Allah, and they act on their dogmatic view that they'd be justified in this action, then they're a terrorist as far as I'm concerned. 

 

When we see attacks by lone gunmen in America, and they were convinced to act on murderous impulses by an extremist ideology, he is a kind of terrorist, one who is using violence and intimidation to try to create political change.  Fear is a tool of such people, kill one to scare one thousand, send a message to create change.  Often they're not the most mentally sound, after all, whether it's ISIS or Al Qaeda the idea of cutting off a head or blowing up a family isn't something that a rational and sane person can do, well not without brainwashing to shrink one's reason and limit sanity to an extreme ideology.  We shouldn't care what ideology is at work in labelling a terrorist, a white supremacist on an unofficial mission is still a terrorist like the Muslim extremist who has a whole organisation backing him from Syria or Iraq.  

 

We have had the call from many on the left to make clear that mentally ill killers get called 'terrorists', they have a point to a degree, a person, even if unstable, if affected profoundly by an ideology to act in an extreme manner is a terrorist.  However, the reason why the mainstream media doesn't call such a person a terrorist is often because they're known to be mentally ill, and the charges pressed against them are murder or gross bodily harm, not a law that relates to terrorism as such.  Thus, the term 'terrorist' is deemed unreasonable by the educated journalists and editors for most respectable outlets.  It's a distinction that doesn't prevent us from saying they are indeed terrorists.  In the eyes of the law a mentally ill man killing a Labour politician and he is influenced by far-right ideas, although those ideas didn't call for murder, he is not a terrorist as such.  The dictionary seems to disagree.  

We now have a story in the press that states a man who was closely linked to the hate group, Black Lives Matter, had killed law enforcement officers in the belief that he was justified to do so.  There is a large amount of footage of young, often middle-class and wealthy, black college students in the United States, chanting 'kill the police', while regularly blaming any and every white cop for violence that most of them have no part in.  They try to provoke violence in protests, yelling at cops, in a few minors cases even reaching for their guns, not a clever idea, and physically assaulting people.  Oh, and claiming that Black people cannot be racist.  

 

The conundrum you need to figure out is why lefties think BLM murderers, who are directly inspired to act by ideologies that demand violence, should not be called terrorists while they plead for the right-wing versions to have that label.  Surely, if a man from a right-wing neo-nazi belief is a terrorist, then so is a man from another extreme group that has actually chant for violence.  

If you can't see a double standard by arguing the point that white right-wing mental cases are terrorists and black ones who are meant to be on the left are not, then you may be confused.

Black Lives Matter are a group that wants to spread it's opinion that black people are oppressed, they bleed lies into the minds of newly political young people, and claim whenever a black man dies it's due to the police being full of racists.  They use selected data, much like any Klan would, to fool enough people, unlike the KKK and Neo-Nazi groups they focus on marxism and other selected views, because collectivist reasoning means a rich black student living on daddy's money can still claim his is a victim.  They play professional victimhood as their game, inciting violence and creating conflict, so they can share their clip of a cop fighting back after being punched and call it evidence of all they claim to be true, even though they edit out the ten minutes of getting toe to toe and hitting the police officer.  After all, how you can create good propaganda if you don't make things up.  

Real crimes against black people don't happen on camera so much, so to fill this gap they will create what they need to demand that society sees all black people as victims, that in any crime a person of pale skin must be wrong, and if it isn't done they get more recruits on many college campuses, mostly because from a slanted perspective it looks like oppression.  It's only when you don't look from an ideology, instead looking at the facts as objectively as you can, that you will see that major of BLM claims are nonsense or huge exaggerations.  And, I need not state the obvious trouble of real world racism to make clear that making up claims and exaggerating are not practical tools for a rational discussion.  

For anyone who thinks they know better than me, you may be right, 

but let us consider the facts before all things.

Ignorance and Argumentative

Ignorance and Argumentative

The most entertaining aspects of a discussion can be the bad arguments, on a little know video I found extreme stupidity from some supporters of an Indian guru who was a convicted child sex offender, who as it seems may have abused dozens of young girls, I made my response to the story in a very serious and well-sourced manner, due to the horrid nature of the news. The supporters of the guru, Asaram Bapu, who clearly had not checked what my opinions were, and only a few checks would give them a clear picture, not least my view of religion and what coverage Christianity has in the west. Kumar starts by stating “Go for doctor sick poor man, Pope had abused and raped many ones”, so he assumes that the west is Christian, the pope speaks for Christians, thus all in the westerners bend a knee to the chair. So he chose to argue from a point of great ignorance, and, as an atheist, I have little time for any religious authorities, in fact, more than half of the world's Christians do not follow the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, and, in a way, Kumar was ethnically profiling me. 

I agree that covering up child abuse is a crime, and the Roman Catholic church should be held to account, some reports suggest that up to five percent of catholic priests have engaged in child abuse, and yet, I have not heard of any evidence reporting that the pope or previous popes were raping children themselves. Obvious though it is, the reason why Kumar made this move was because I pointed out the legal facts of Guru Bapu's sex crimes, so Kumar thought that the best way to rebuke me was to attack what he thought must be my cult of choice, this is in many ways to sidestep responsibility. He continues “This is the truth, I mean the truth of your religion. India was, is and will remain the best country and land of lords. Blind one cannot see Sun. Poor Guy”, so by not fact checking the power of the RC church, my view of religion, and by seemingly being an Indian/Hindu nationalist, Kumar fails utterly in his argument and fails to defend his own beliefs.

It's easy to dismiss a belief when you find such poor critics, and in every religion, there are those who think they defend their faith by insulting you, but you defend nothing by the means of deflecting attention and ad hominem attacks. Such comments are the lowest form of criticism, they rarely offer anything that makes you think, at least if they bothered to discuss this topic then we could share ideas and see what is actually correct, even if we disagree on what we accept as true. 

Nationalism, in my opinion, is one of the vilest forms of mental surrender,

you slave yourself to those who are a bit like you in ethnicity, nation, religion, 

and culture, due to blind servitude rather than a rational argument.

 Asaram Bapu and his son are facing Indian justice for their acts, even if I was in the RC church it would mean Bapu is good, he just means people with power shouldn't be sexually abusing people. 

My video on the cult leader/guru Asaram Bapu

 

10 crazy cult practices

Spiritual pebbles.

Spiritual pebbles.

Probably the oddest idea I know of, is how an ancient piece of coloured glass can improve your health, the experts used word salad, simply using long and overly complex terms to suggest they know how things work, and the believers who don’t yet have this the spiritual lexicon, will simply say ‘I don’t know how it works, but it does.’ In this kind of case, I don’t know what’s worst, the people saying they know because they can make poorly supported arguments sound clever, or the sad cases who accept the bad arguments and cannot explain why they get a kick out of crystals.  Interestingly, it doesn’t have to be old, natural, crystals, just fused glass with a nice colour works great on people who don’t know better, such as blue obsidian, commonly this is just a light blue glass, and is quite popular as a tumble-stone, which means many people are buying a machine smooth piece of glass mostly because it’s a nice colour.  Popular shapes for such items include pyramids and spheres, that pseudo-experts claim help energise an environment, channelling cosmic energy, etc.  However, there is nothing to the science-like claims, other than the placebo built up by a new age mystics, even if they refer to ancient cultures liking fancy looking pieces of old glass, such as the long historical use of jade in the Far-East, or ancient cultures having rituals which included them, such as the ancient Jewish high priest breastplate, which is said to of had twelve gems in it, to represent the twelve tribes of Israel.  

 

Pointing out where other cultures, including ancient ones, use or used gemstones, doesn’t confirm that since they had them they must have thought of them as you think of them now, and even if they did, how does that prove anything, since each culture varied, and modern new age mysticism goes to the extreme of crystal based healing and meditation. To a Buddhist a crystal may prove a helpful thing to focus on, just as, for decoration and superstition a gem encrusted crown, in 12^th century Europe, may convey a sense of power, but can we find anything near the magical ideas of the modern new age movement, apart from elements that often related to various primitive and ineffective practices, some continued through shamanism and esoteric beliefs. In essence, the practices of meditation and devotion with stones is a throwback belief, grounded more in thought reform than practicality, offering self-induced states of delusion, not genuine states that would be far more interesting, to critics it’s just collecting pebbles and carvings in the belief they have magical properties.  The best thing you can say about the properties of crystals and minerals is that the spiritual/psychic claims cannot be utterly refuted, like fairies and Santa Claus, and one day science may shine some light on such topics, although, modern psychology explains much of it, and other fields of study expose the ignorance and wishful thinking of new age spirituality.

Misconception

Misconception

Often I have discussed Atheism with internet Christians, and the misconceptions I will note, I selected a comment, for this response I have removed filler, as well as cheap insults. The content discussed was in regards to Islam, specifically the refutation of Islam and it's foundations, the audio placed on YouTube, edited from god is not great, by Christopher Hitchens, and many people added their points in the comments, often without reading the book or listening to the audiobook. It's worth noting, many pathetic tirades are common to internet comments, those with strong beliefs have a series of claims that are based more on bad philosophy than the facts, personally I value what is truly more than what is accepted on faith.

The comment begins, “Christ is the Word of the Living God. God is Good”, I would call that tame for the youtube, well until the usual claim comes up, “Bloodthirsty atheists can't see this because their eyes are blinded because they hate truth but love with all their heart lies”. The funniest thing about such claims, at least to me, is they are fighting the straw-man, what atheists must be to doubt the Christian faith, he may as well claim we worship Satan and eat babies, well, in for a penny, in for a pound. Many a devout Christian may well think Atheists worship Lucifer, or even because we have no moral guide in god, that we may eat babies if we wish, and if you're willing to make things up, you may as well go all out and tell some really amusing lines. And, in the knowledge, they will antagonise those who oppose you.

To show his poor contact with reality, Erik says, “Ironically enough the power of God claims once a man loves lies, he has sacrificed himself to Satan, the father of lies. For as Satan will use the fool aka atheist at his every whim will then turn and devour that which was faithful to him.” The best work of Christians isn't when they repeat hollow rhetoric, Such statements work on many, affecting those who are vulnerable to such beliefs, yet with most non-believers, you may as well be telling us about our lack of Jedi practice and meditation causes us to fall to the dark side of the force. Repeating over and over the word of the bible is as meaningless as repeating Harry Potter, going over bible verses like the Christian fictional hero, Bible-man, is ineffective except on those within that culture of belief, to us non-Christian it's as compelling as stories about Narnia, and I have let to find evidence against The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe that makes it's absolutely sure that it is impossible. Most things are improbable, even in a vast universe, and we don't get to absolutes as much as the point at much an idea is so improbable that it in effect impossible, making the biblical god with all its miracles as probable as Narnia.

My response was short and clear, “Bloodthirst isn't the point, if there was any, the point is religions often push their politics on everyone, secularists demand that we don't give any group a superior position, to best avoid a limitation of choice.” The thing that the devout don't often understand is that non-believers do not the religious claims about them, we are not out to smash freedom of religion, we are out to ensure that secular values protect the rights of all people regardless of background, including religious creed. However, some people want to utterly destroy religion, even if most atheists see that religion is already practising self-destruction, and at worst no special treatment should be given, no privilege.

These Bloodthirsty Atheists don't seem to exist to any great degree, even angry atheists are often making a point because they are affected by religious influence in a society, some are repressed in a fundamentalist region or town, maybe a local politician is getting the Christian vote by condemning non-Christians, doubters, secularist, and homosexuality, with such decisive politics in the mainstream in the United States, and elsewhere, it's little wonder that many people are antagonised. In highly religious communities it isn't always easy to be the outsider, and with fundamentalists calling atheists the fools for Satan, some people are bound to express their anger on the internet. Much like the disrespect towards many communities, religion says it knows what's best, if you're not following the rules then you have nothing worth saying, this is a major attitude problem, “If you're not with us, you must be against us.” is the belief of many churches, whereas most doubters and religious moderates can get on happily in society, even when they disagree.

We shared our thoughts over a series of comments, and in essence, the Christian judged Islam as false using the same logic that refutes Christianity, different specifics with the same reasoning to counter the poorly supported claims of the religion. Claims made about the lack of evidence and history for Islam, and no acceptance of the large gaps in Christian history, the lack of evidence for Christ's existence says as much as the fact we know little of Muhammad. Much of what we claim to know of Muhammad is from the Quran and others books after the time, just as we know of Jesus is from the Bible and the second-hand histories after the time, it is easy enough to say Muhammad is at least a historical Character, and Jesus may as well be largely fabricated. It's worth noting that the majority of historian consider it probable that the man, Jesus, existed, even though a fair number of people think that he may have been created by a few people, or utterly fabricated, others say there must have been some foundation for the stories. It may well be, the earliest stories could be based on the man, the passing through various cultures added to the legend, and, as is evident, the myths of others became weaved into the tapestry.

Erik stated, “I respect the argument that religious people can be pushy as tyrants in the radical Islamic belief, they(Muslims or radical Muslims) say do or die.”, I don't know what was being addressed, I didn't raise that point, pointing out bad beliefs doesn't make other ones good by default. I'm not sure of her meant Muslims in general or the militant forces within Islam, it seemed like a side step from Christian issues on to that of Islam, and the bandwagon that paints Muslims with the brush, rather than explaining what you truly mean, such as the difference between Wahhabi-Sunni Muslims and moderate groups such as the Pacifistic version of Islam as expressed by the Sufi.

The Problem with many Christians is they learn debate tricks from the same sources, the churches and ignorant communities that push an agenda, fleshing the belief out by agreeing with each other, although, sometimes they gets sketchy in a discussion and want to find something to agree upon, or a sidestep the lack of evidence that plagues all religions. Ignoring Christian problems by finding a more dangerous or aggressive ideology cures nothing, pointing out Muslim extremes doesn't cancel out Christian ones, they seem to think we'll forgive and forget the troubles of Christian politics, past and present, and will we accept the lesser of two evils. Evil in this context simply means harm done in the name of ideology, I only note this because a common trick is word games, such as responses like “And where does evil come from.”, so any claim of truth, love, or anything is said to be god's property, and the estate of evil is attributed to Lucifer.

An obvious point about Muslims, outside of the middle east and third world, they are, on average, far from the type of person to threaten you with death, well not more than most other communities, whereas, in the middle-east, including various capitalist democracies, we cannot fully judge a people group by the general view of the worst extremists, since where the freedom to think beyond the Imam or Mullah exists the people flock away from pure devotion. I think many Christians make a fair point about radical Islam, sadly, as long as nations like Saudi Arabia fund Sunni extremism, and the Iranian Government support Shia extremists, we have a mighty problem, and out of such extremes danger will emanate, using hard-line ideology to gain influence backfires, and creates groups like Islamic State. Think about how some American preachers have, by extension, supported the execution of homosexuals in Uganda, you see the tip of the iceberg, where pseudoscience and fanatical preaching pushes such agendas, if not in the western world, then such ideological views filter into less educated and liberal nations, empowering religious extremism, and laws that limit freedoms, and in this case lead to government mandated murder of those who don't follow the same lifestyle as the majority of the population. A preacher in the United States can say things that the US government will not pass into law, knowing this and rallying the church, the preacher can spread hate speech, and post this brand of extremism online as just an opinion, this can easily be picked up by a person in almost anywhere on the planet, from there this 'Science' can be passed off as official. And, if preacher should have an unaccredited doctorate, from a Christian college or diploma mill, then such a quack may be referred to as a doctor before audiences of ignorant fundamentalists or on a professional website.

A common error, the claim of how free and open Christianity is, they ignore the long social changes took and the philosophical development of our society, we're no longer treated badly for questioning the opinions of the church, yet, this is a moderation, not a fundamental view of the Christian faith. Another comment states, “Christianity and Judaism aren't pushy, and anyone who quotes the Holy Bible to testify otherwise is indeed misreading the book.”, this is ignorant of our shared history, how the moderation of religious power isn't due to the faith, as much as the cultural scenery in which religion can operate. Trying to get a modern Christians to agree on which laws and traditions of the old testament that should be used now is a battle they aren't prepared for, it isn't a clear series of ideas that works without interpretation, so how can a person twist Jesus's coming into changing a divine law, since he is said to claim to not break the law, most Christian values are based on modern morality, which is by definition moving beyond the bible. If we reject the old laws it becomes unclear, if you take it as non-literal then where is the line drawn, and if you cast off the bits that are no longer okay, you're believing in something that isn't biblical, even if inspired by aspects of it. Once you reach a wider philosophical view, you're almost ready to drop the Christianity altogether, accepting the books of old were inspired, not scripted by the creator of the universe, not the perfect word of god, nor a clear and factual history. Most Christians play a balancing act with ideas of what is moral, mostly based on background, most Christian don't know the bible well, so many accept what they think they know, and what a minister selects for a sermon.

The fact is many Christians are pushy, otherwise, there would be no debate over abortion, stem cell research, intelligent design, women's rights, LGBT rights, what politicians believe (or do not), and much more.  It's not as bad as Islam in the middle-east and third world, and who would expect the first world comforts to create a Christian State army as a mirror to Islam State, we have comforts and laws that have kept fanatics in line, so religion has become moderate and realistic where extremism isn't tolerated.

Beyond the Holy Word

Beyond the Holy Word 

The bible supports the idea that heathens are evil, or foolish, and passages differ, the trouble with Christianity, as well as Judaism and Islam, is verse selection, the act of quote mining their own religious texts, and in many cases the group or sect they belong to sets a view that condemns or condones a group of people by a very bias selection process. So selecting passages can be used to support nearly any position, especially with some cunning interpretation, this is the sad case of what religion is, in its fundamentalist and moderate forms, an expression of bias that claims divine warrant.

Philosophising the bible means you pretty much place the new perspective, as a modern ideology, above that of the bible, every church is interpretation above pure biblical acceptance, because the contradictions mean that you cannot come to a view without an interpretation of the bible. Even if you try die-hard literalism, the various contradictions mean you cannot accept all things as equal, the first motion is to say one set of ideas are divine and secondly others were man-created, or only laws and traditions of the time, the line between what we should accept now and what we need not, is not set out in scripture, so even literalists admit this problem. The trouble is that sects find excuses to picks a select various rules out of their books, some by bible study, some by modern tradition, others by claiming that Christ tells them what is right or wrong, this last one being more about conscience than anything divine, and based on a cultural background as the ethical foundation for what god may wish to you. Many read popular Christian books, as a result of modern apologists many think that a Christian belief is rational, depending on who's work they read, and the sect in question. Some are more honest and say that god is not testable, non-falsifiable, such reasoning isn't about confirming that their religion is true, as much as suggesting there's room for some kind of god, and Christianity fits the mould they have just created enough to suggest that their belief is possibility true. 

The modern Christianity we face is a reformed religion, even in cases of biblical literalism, this reformation hasn't fully taken place in regard to Islam, of which similar methods of interpretation are used, and, much like fundamentalist Christians, they claim not to be interpreting the holy works, even though there is no other way to take them perfectly literally, since texts that consist of great contradictions and imperfections.

rr

Ranting over something Left.

I’m not a fanatic for people who deceive their flock, often this means I am a part-time critic of religions, however, in this case, a want to confer with you concerns over the modern left. the role of the left by history, in its basic form, is to assist in helping the people towards greater equality, a noble idea, however beyond the templates of socialism and relating ideologies we find a diverse series of belief systems. They blur together in the modern era, after the failure of communism and relating projects, and the old left is a dead movement, not that we are free of the walking dead. Old men and young inspired people, ideologically speakers and passionate subordinates.
Blind faith is for such zombies, the certainty of one’s beliefs is a delusional way of thinking that often permeates the newly political, the student for all his or her study is a malleable person, credulous when faced by intelligent authorities. Sadly, most of the modern left is generated from the inspired middle-class student, not from the average working man or woman, since they have unions ad lives, whereas the student convert is driven like any fanatic to be an active part of the change they consider to be justified.
The troubling thing that I find to be more common than not is ignorance covered by knowledge, where the person believes they know something no great inquiry is seen as necessary. Simply, the person who is given enough reasonable answers need not imagine that the answers they have are imperfect, and they needn’t believe they need to look beyond their limited worldview.
What I have experience of the left is thus, the claims thick and fast, the sources selected and biassed, and to doubt the gospel of the devout lefty is to be as countered to him as the vilest ultra-conservative with fascistic tendencies. The facts they have are often good enough to state as fair, they fail because the claims upon the facts are the foundation they lay, and from any radical left or right view, the centre parties all look the same. As looking at two people far away you may not see clearly they are two and distinct, although they stand close to each other. Piling such points over each other while discussing can be very hard to debate, let alone rebuke, this is the plan, just like the street preacher who opens his mouth far more than he dares use his ears for fear of hearing that which is not godly. They may suggest you must read a book by Noam Chomsky or another great author, even if this Labour movement member before you is saying this not to truly inform you, but to bend you. When faced with a horrid wind even the strongest of trees may lean or break under its assault. And, if you don’t swallow the claims, if you have your own solid ground for discussion, nd you bring it to bear, you must be the enemy. In George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four it was the hatred towards Emmanuel Goldstein and his collaborators that got the blood flowing for loyal Oceanians as they chanted hatred, real world extreme socialists are often as full of bile. In fact, the anger they feel towards the outsiders, the moderates, the conservatives, libertarians, and anyone who isn’t a double plus duck speaking supporter of big brother is counter to the truth of IngSoc.
I am happy to say most socialist are not in those ranks, they do not cling to the roles that party lines would impose, they’d rather have a life while supporting social reform and protection of rights. As a result, the average socialist is not only none party-aligned, he or she is a liberal and to a great or lesser degree a centre ground voter. And given the correct politician is more than willing to vote conservative or for a party like UKIP. You can even find videos of the British Nationalist Party members saying they’re socialist, I think they fail to understand what brand of socialism they belong to, not that I need to explain their error to an informed reader.
The Orwellian element is not felt in the liberalism in the Labour Party, which has for a long time been liberal, or at its height a social democratic party, although, the Labour Movement in its many forms isn’t so unblemished. And, it is that movement that is infested by an irrational and unrealistic political philosophy, this perspective is the previously noted one that resonates with the youthful and newly politicised. Naturally, this type of person, pseudo-activist and all, is preached to by old masters, including professors and authors who love the idea of social so much that they promote Marxism while reaping every benefit of a wealthy capitalist society. It is easy enough once most of our troubles are removed to dream up new ones, woo the young women by claiming that feminism is needed now more than ever, to recruit non-conformists by focusing on the cracks in society, to suggest racism is still a vast issue by slanting the issues. Meanwhile, the first world issues of such people lead them towards imposing their politics, including abusing respectfulness, political correctness, to impose their own ideology.
Political correctness is often not to have a tolerance, as we look to the left or right we find rivals, and if we observe the authoritarian groups we find they are willing to impose their politics upon people in the name of ending hatred. A step to the left or right and we find methods of avoiding saying what is truly happening, hiding behind a barking or quacking of mindless terms, duckspeak. Duckspeak is what it is in the Nineteen Eight-Four world to be one who speaks without a use of the higher faculties, simply speaking. Many political conformists are duckspeakers, they use buzzwords and repeat points, they think in a limited way that means they selected data to fit their world view.
Why do smart people believe crazy things?
Because they’re smart enough to find ways of rationalising things.
When faced with selected data saying racism is as bad as ever, the first thing you do shouldn’t be stop looking at the facts, nor should it be fall in line and reading more of the highly biassed sources you may be in lockstep with. Black Lives Matter is an example, a political cult on a practical level, lying through their teeth, and they gather a flock who use their sources like it’s been given down from heaven. I could list off a bunch of groups that fit that kind of bill on the left, many are good by focusing on real issues, however when they take a minor first world problem or hypothetical issue and create a problem for serious activists. While you are busy draining feminist and anti-racist activism towards first world issues there’s a whole world with greater problems than some character types in some computer games, or, the catcalls a girl dressed like a whore gets in Harlem, NY.
With devout socialists in Britain, these people who speak as if we live in the height of the great depression in a mining town, with people on the poverty line and lucky to have steady work. However, in this era it’s not about having enough food or coal for the fire, it’s about people who are getting money and mismanage it, and so selecting sources is normal practice to say the reason why family X needed to go to the food bank is due to the corporate elite and the corporate influenced government, which isn’t utterly wrong. Family X may be a good example, but not representative, not that this matters, all that is required is convincing arguments to sway you, and it’s called evidence. Pseudo-news then? selecting surveys, picking bias stories in the press, and creating other such ways of swaying the under thinking person who should know better, but probably doesn’t.