BF2S Forums Appeasement?

JahManRed wrote:

Im not a fan of religion. But it exists and the majority of the population prescribes to one or the other.
Compromise is rarely equal on both sides. One side usually has to compromise more than the other. That compromise should be reciprocated by the other side at some point. A previous compromise can be used to get said group to compromise on another issue themselves at some point in the future. Religion has compromised over the years. Look at the power the church wielded a couple of hundred years ago. That power has been diluted by compromise.

i don't agree. you do not bargain or compromise with somebody you don't need anything from - and religion is exactly that, there most probably won't be any opportunity in the future to collect a "favor". granted, a couple of hundred years ago religion played a different role in human civilization and, hence, held a lot of power, but it didn't lose all that because of any compromise: the world have simply moved on and reached the point when religion of old is no longer needed and is actually detrimental to further development of human race - it was the natural order of things that resulted in church loosing its power.

JahManRed wrote:

I remember being asked by a Jewish man to lift his child off the street and carry him into his house on the sabbath in Manchester. I'm an atheist, but compromised my views by helping him out even tho his request was totally ludicrous to me. Appeaser me.

you are human, mate, you are capable of feeling stuff like compassion and all, you can simply help you friend with his crazy religious bs because you don't give a fuck and it only takes you a minute, and, most importantly - your friend will not probably try to make a precedent out of it. he won't come later and demand you do similar stuff for him and his whole family every sabbath, right? but it doesn't work like that between the state and religious organizations: you give the fuckers a finger to shake and they'll tear your whole arm off. that's why when it comes to stuff like OP i'm against any and all indulgences. secularization-thing wasn't invented for lulz, you know - it's a necessity.

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

What complete drivel.

Appeasement does not inherently demand anyone be threatened. You've been quite selective in your choice of dictionary examples.

Dictionary.com also has down lots of other things, which are not compatible with your view that threats are required for it to be appeasement.

1.     to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment; pacify; soothe: to appease an angry king.
2.     to satisfy, allay, or relieve; assuage: The fruit appeased his hunger.
3.     to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.

To bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment - no threatening connotations there. You've just restricted the use of the word in your own head to imply making concessions to threats, but that's not what it means. Look at the "fruit appeased his hunger" example - where is the threat there?

Before you start challenging everyone on what words mean, you should be sure that you know. Otherwise you wind up looking rather silly.

OK smarty-pants...how's this?

"Appeasement" in terms of its historical use in this forum clearly falls under the Chamberlain-esque definition, which is why I limited it to the ones presented in my previous post. It has nothing to do with satiating hunger or inner peace. It has everything to do with compromising one's values/laws in order to placate a threat.

When talking about adjusting a set of policies to accommodate a given group (in the past, it has been Muslims in Europe where appeasement has been bandied about), there is an implied threat and accommodation of said threat. There was no threat here, thus no appeasement to the Jews, as implied by the OP.

I know what the the words mean, Bertster. And I also know the context in which they are used and the meaning implied by that context. If you can't keep up...why you just "wind up looking rather silly".

Pathetic.

The general concensus in this forum appears to be that it is appeasement. Maybe if you could be arsed to read the 1st 7 pages of this thread you'd have found that out. Which makes your "historical use in this forum" bit completely redundant.

If you know that the word is perfectly suitable for describing this situation and yet deny that it is appeasement, then that is down to your personal opinion or ignorance. This bullshit about historical usage on this forum, is retarded. If you'd actually read the thread you'd be able to see that quite clearly - since virtually everyone has classed it as appeasement. Then you turn up in the middle of the thread, don't read it (by your own admission), claim it's not appeasement - then when corrected, you claim that you're actually right (despite the fact that it is literally appeasement) because the concensus in the forum is that appeasement requires threats (despite the fact everyone in the thread is saying it is appeasement).

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

So if a Christian can disregard the old testament and only read and follow the teachings in the new one and still call himself a Christian why can't Muslims do the same with parts of the Quran?

Because if your assumption is true it really means all Muslims are viloent and intolerant if they don't disregard the entire Quran ... or am I missing something from your assumptions?

The old testamant does not even contain the word CHRIST in it to the best of my knowledge. So the OT is not the book followed by CHRISTians, they follow the TEACHINGS and words of Christ.

But if you wanna use the New Testament, we can go there. IF a person does not follow the teachings of Christ, or attempts to do so, recognizing and asking for forgiveness of his sins,  then he is not a Christian, ask any Christian.

No I am saying if Muslims do not follow the teachings of Muhammad, what exactly are they doing?, and what teachings are they following? Because it is not those of Muhammad, and if you are going to ignore these teachings, then call your newly found faith something else.

The Bible is followed by Christians. The Old Testament is a part of the Bible.

Your view is not the view taken by the major churches. The Catholic church being a prime example (they even include extra bits in the OT, the Apocrypha). At the council of Trent they confirmed the validity of the Old Testament to Catholics (amongst other things). They decided there that things like original sin, mosaic law and such like were applicable to Catholics and anyone who didn't agree with their interpretation was a heretic. There have been people burnt to death for suggesting the sort of things you're saying.

There is some validity to your argument though, since many churches do refer to a few parts of the Old Testament that can be ignored, but the bulk of it is considered canonical by the vast majority of Christians.

You have nailed him on this point Bertster, lowing loves to go on ad infinitum about how Musilms aren't "real Muslims" unless they follow only the violent interpretation of the Koran word for word whereas Christians are allowed to pick and choose what they find palatable from the old testament and mix that in with the new testament and still be "real Christians". Christ himself followed many of the old teachings...

Jesus Christ wrote:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

-Matthew 5:17-20.

Braddock wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

The old testament does not even contain the word CHRIST in it to the best of my knowledge. So the OT is not the book followed by CHRISTians, they follow the TEACHINGS and words of Christ.

But if you wanna use the New Testament, we can go there. IF a person does not follow the teachings of Christ, or attempts to do so, recognizing and asking for forgiveness of his sins,  then he is not a Christian, ask any Christian.

No I am saying if Muslims do not follow the teachings of Muhammad, what exactly are they doing?, and what teachings are they following? Because it is not those of Muhammad, and if you are going to ignore these teachings, then call your newly found faith something else.

The Bible is followed by Christians. The Old Testament is a part of the Bible.

Your view is not the view taken by the major churches. The Catholic church being a prime example (they even include extra bits in the OT, the Apocrypha). At the council of Trent they confirmed the validity of the Old Testament to Catholics (amongst other things). They decided there that things like original sin, mosaic law and such like were applicable to Catholics and anyone who didn't agree with their interpretation was a heretic. There have been people burnt to death for suggesting the sort of things you're saying.

There is some validity to your argument though, since many churches do refer to a few parts of the Old Testament that can be ignored, but the bulk of it is considered canonical by the vast majority of Christians.

You have nailed him on this point Bertster, lowing loves to go on ad infinitum about how Musilms aren't "real Muslims" unless they follow only the violent interpretation of the Koran word for word whereas Christians are allowed to pick and choose what they find palatable from the old testament and mix that in with the new testament and still be "real Christians". Christ himself followed many of the old teachings...

Jesus Christ wrote:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

-Matthew 5:17-20.

Braddock I haven't been nailed with anything, the OT and the NT are 2 separate and distinct books.The OT while recognized by Christians, is not the word of Jesus. The NT represents a new relationship between God and man, a NEW RELATIONSHIP between GOD and MAN. It is this relationship on which Christianity is based. Or did you ever wonder why they used the base word CHRIST for CHRISTian.

The 10 Commandments which is followed by Christians is done so, because Jesus taught it. This makes it relevant in the life of a Christian.
B

B?

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock I haven't been nailed with anything, the OT and the NT are 2 separate and distinct books.The OT while recognized by Christians, is not the word of Jesus. The NT represents a new relationship between God and man, a NEW RELATIONSHIP between GOD and MAN. It is this relationship on which Christianity is based. Or did you ever wonder why they used the base word CHRIST for CHRISTian.

The 10 Commandments which is followed by Christians is done so, because Jesus taught it. This makes it relevant in the life of a Christian.
B

Every chapter in the Bible is a distinct and separate book. They were all compiled together because they were all considered relevant by the founders of the organised Christian church under the Emperor Constantine. The inclusion of the Old Testament and the subsequent affirmation that the ideas and laws laid out in the Old Testament do apply to members of virtually all Christian churches, by the churches themselves, shows just how relevant the Old Testament is to Christians. The Old Testament is the story to which the New Testament is the climax.

Forgive me if I place less trust in your interpretation than in the interpretation reached almost unianimously by priests and theologians.

I never said it was dismissed, I said it was the NEW COVENANT with God, on which Christianity is formed. If not for this than Christians would be called MOSESians. Get over it.

You said:

lowing wrote:

So the OT is not the book followed by CHRISTians

The vast majority of Christian churches disagree. The Bible is the book followed by Christians, the OT is a part of it.

Some churches, usually fucked up weird ones, focus much more on the OT than the NT - the WBC for example, they're Christians, misguided muppets thought they may be.

Ty wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Every chapter in the Bible is a distinct and separate book. They were all compiled together because they were all considered relevant by the founders of the organised Christian church under the Emperor Constantine.

Constantine didn't do shit in regards to the Christian Church. There's the idea that Constantine was the first Christian emperor of Rome because of the "Donation of Constantine" - a document supposedly sent to the Pope giving authority over all the western empire to the Vatican. This document was discovered to be a forgery in 1439 by a bloke called Lorenzo Valla and even before him people had their suspicions. No the chapters of the Bible were put together by the Vatican alone and have been edited so much over time to suit the needs of the Vatican that we have no idea what they originally said.

Sorry, just boring you with historiography bullcrap. Interesting stuff in my opinion.

Constantine convened the council of Nicea and promoted Christanity across the Roman empire giving it universal legitimacy. The council of Nicea is where most of Bible was compiled, so I can't see how you can say Constantine didn't do shit in regards to the Christian church.

Bertster7 wrote:

Constantine convened the council of Nicea and promoted Christanity across the Roman empire giving it universal legitimacy. The council of Nicea is where most of Bible was compiled, so I can't see how you can say Constantine didn't do shit in regards to the Christian church.

Constantine's history has been rewritten so many times it's difficult to know where to stand to be honest. Some call him the strong patriarch of Christian legitimacy, others call him weak-willed and easily swayed by the Christian movement. The thing is that Constantine is the keystone from which the Vatican gained most of it's legitimacy and much of his history has been questioned because of this. With the Donation of Constantine being proven to be a forgery it called the entire recorded history of Constantine into question including his role in the first Council of Nicea.

What HISTORY did was to make Constantine into the aforementioned patriarch of Christian legitimacy but this history was written by the clergy after the Dark Ages when most historical documents from the time of Constantine had been destroyed. You can see how this is an issue of whether this history is true or not.

I'll stop being off-topic now.

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock I haven't been nailed with anything, the OT and the NT are 2 separate and distinct books.The OT while recognized by Christians, is not the word of Jesus. The NT represents a new relationship between God and man, a NEW RELATIONSHIP between GOD and MAN. It is this relationship on which Christianity is based. Or did you ever wonder why they used the base word CHRIST for CHRISTian.

The 10 Commandments which is followed by Christians is done so, because Jesus taught it. This makes it relevant in the life of a Christian.
B

So is a Muslim who follows the Osama Bin Laden interpretation of the Koran a "BinLadenite" and not a Muslim?

Christ followed much of the old testament and then went on to preach this to his followers, it's all very clean-cut and tidy to draw a nice clear line between the two but it's a very simplistic way to look at things. You like to think of things in nice generic, black and white, all or nothing terms, your posting over the years here has made that quite clear, and hence using this approach Christians get a pass on all the bad shit that is intrinsically wrapped up in their faith while all of the positive aspects of Islam get completely excluded in favour of the negative ones... all or nothing, no room for grey area.

Nope, the are Muslims, since Osama IS following the teachings of Muhammad and those that follow Osama are doing the same. If you ARE NOT following the teachings of your holy book, then you are not practicing that religion.

jesus followed and taught parts of the OT, anyone who follows Jesus is following those same parts of the OT. IT is however the NEW COVENANT that is being followed and lead by Christ.

FEOS wrote:

No. The general consensus in this THREAD appears to be that this is appeasement. Which is 180 out from the general consensus on other threads in this FORUM regarding Muslim appeasement in Europe. I guess when it's Jews, you Euros have a whole different view of things, eh?

Errr no...

...with all due respect I think you may have missed the whole point of this thread. Cam pointed out very early on that he didn't care about this act of appeasement involving Jewish leaving Cert pupils because it had little or no impact on the rest of society (the same opinion shared by most other "lefty, liberal Euros" on here). The raison d'etre of the thread was to highlight how mountains are made out of Islamic molehills while other religions pass freely under the radar. This story made virtually no impact on headlines over here, I wish the same could be said about equivalent stories involving Islam.

The biggest act of Appeasement in the past 60 years was to appease the Zionists. "We want our own country" Sure, carve off a piece of Germany............. "Na we want a piece over there, because a fictitious book says we own it".................emmmmm Ok then.

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

So is a Muslim who follows the Osama Bin Laden interpretation of the Koran a "BinLadenite" and not a Muslim?

Christ followed much of the old testament and then went on to preach this to his followers, it's all very clean-cut and tidy to draw a nice clear line between the two but it's a very simplistic way to look at things. You like to think of things in nice generic, black and white, all or nothing terms, your posting over the years here has made that quite clear, and hence using this approach Christians get a pass on all the bad shit that is intrinsically wrapped up in their faith while all of the positive aspects of Islam get completely excluded in favour of the negative ones... all or nothing, no room for grey area.

Nope, the are Muslims, since Osama IS following the teachings of Muhammad and those that follow Osama are doing the same. If you ARE NOT following the teachings of your holy book, then you are not practicing that religion.

jesus followed and taught parts of the OT, anyone who follows Jesus is following those same parts of the OT. IT is however the NEW COVENANT that is being followed and lead by Christ.

Jesus was following parts of the OT and leading people down his own particular line of thought from this starting point.

Bin Laden is following parts of the Koran and leading people down his own particular line of thought from this starting point.

You are forgetting all the references to peace, tolerance and non-violence in the Koran and focusing only on the violent segments, why is Christ allowed to pick and choose his favourite bits and Bin Laden not?

You do realize that Jesus is the messenger of God for Christians, and Muhammad, NOT Bin Laden is the messenger of God for Islam. Bin Laden is a follower of Islam, and so are all those that agree with him.

  The references for peace tolerance and non-violence in the Koran are mainly for those that succomb to Islam, or Islam's superiority. It does not include those that reject Islam.

Bertster7 wrote:

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

No. The general consensus in this THREAD appears to be that this is appeasement. Which is 180 out from the general consensus on other threads in this FORUM regarding Muslim appeasement in Europe. I guess when it's Jews, you Euros have a whole different view of things, eh?

Errr no...

...with all due respect I think you may have missed the whole point of this thread. Cam pointed out very early on that he didn't care about this act of appeasement involving Jewish leaving Cert pupils because it had little or no impact on the rest of society (the same opinion shared by most other "lefty, liberal Euros" on here). The raison d'etre of the thread was to highlight how mountains are made out of Islamic molehills while other religions pass freely under the radar. This story made virtually no impact on headlines over here, I wish the same could be said about equivalent stories involving Islam.

Exactly.

well maybe Islam appeasement makes headlines because if you do something they don't like, I dunno, maybe like draw a cartoon, some will rally around violence and kill whoever said they were violent