Re: I thought Britain was under sharia law?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Malcolm Tucker
Are you reading the article in full or just looking at the charts? Firstly it says that the exceptional years are unlikely to be repeated because EU nations are legislating against accepting high numbers of migrants and secondly the high migration figures you're quoting for the 20-30% figure in Sweden is based upon if record levels of migrants continue to arrive like they did from 2014-16. Considering the figures
dropped significantly in 2018, the "high" scenario doesn't seem the most likely.
Wrong. Even in the medium migration scenario, which I'm basing it off of and which assumes little to no refugee intake, Muslims are still expected to make up 20% of all Swedes by 2050. The growth of the Muslim population is almost entirely due to native-born and legal immigrants, not recent "undocumented" refugee arrivals.
Quote:
A second, “medium” migration scenario assumes that all refugee flows will stop as of mid-2016 but that recent levels of “regular” migration to Europe will continue (i.e., migration of those who come for reasons other than seeking asylum; see note on terms below). Under these conditions, Muslims could reach 11.2% of Europe’s population in 2050.
Quote:
Sweden, which also has accepted a relatively high number of refugees, would experience even greater effects if the migration levels from 2014 to mid-2016 were to continue indefinitely: Sweden’s population (8% Muslim in 2016) could grow to 31% Muslim in the high scenario by 2050, compared with 21% in the medium scenario and 11% with no further Muslim migration.
By contrast, the countries projected to experience the biggest changes in the medium scenario (such as the UK) tend to have been destinations for the highest numbers of regular Muslim migrants. This scenario only models regular migration.
And countries with Muslim populations that are especially young, or have a relatively large number of children, would see the most significant change in the zero migration scenario; these include France, Italy and Belgium.
http://www.pewforum.org/wp-content/u...-update-20.png
http://www.pewforum.org/wp-content/u...-update-22.png
Are you seeing the pattern?
And that's by 2050, not 2100 or 2150.
Re: I thought Britain was under sharia law?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Prodromos
Are you seeing the pattern?
Yep. I'm seeing same old pattern of far-righters collectively wetting their beds at the prospect of "OMFG!!! Da Ebil Moslims are taking over!!!1one!!".
What I can't understand is why you all seem to care so much? Are you all going to be forcibly converted to Islam? No. Are your wives/girlfriends going to be forced to wear a Burka? No. Will the law of your land be scrapped and replaced by Sharia Law? No. Are you all going to be beheaded by ISIS? No. Are your children going to be groomed? No.
It will not affect you in any way. So grow up.
Re: I thought Britain was under sharia law?
Don't worry, I think you'll understand within a few years.
Re: I thought Britain was under sharia law?
Two deleted pages indicate that the thread is about to run its course. In the future, please remember to respect the subject of the discussion and to refrain from personal references, offensive orders and promoting illegal activities. ~Abdülmecid I
Re: I thought Britain was under sharia law?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Malcolm Tucker
You're not fixing it for me; you're pulling a figure out of thin air to dispute figures that ultimately come from Eurostat.
More than 1 million people went to Germany in 2015, that is undisputed fact. Your EU statistic only lists asylum seekers, but Germany also got 450.000 unregistered illegals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Malcolm Tucker
And it's already been pointed out to you that you don't need to be fleeing a warzone to claim refugee status. What do you think a homosexual man's life is like in some sub-Saharan countries, for example?
Unlike the UK, 9/10 of the world think homosexuality is immoral. That doesn't mean we have to take every man in the world, it would also make asylum open for abuse because noone can prove if someone is really a homosexual. Therefore I don't acknowledge "being homosexual" as entitlement for asylum, a refugee is someone who flees warfare or actual persecution, asylum is hospitality for those people who were actually in danger and has to expire when they can safely return to their home country, it's original purpose is not a tool for immigration. And countries with a functioning rule of law should definitely not be branded unsafe, just because they aren't liberal.
Re: I thought Britain was under sharia law?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mayer
More than 1 million people went to Germany in 2015, that is undisputed fact. Your EU statistic only lists asylum seekers, but Germany also got 450.000 unregistered illegals.
That's the number of immigrants that passed through Germany. It's not the number of immigrants that settled in. Some continued to UK, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, France, etc.
Re: I thought Britain was under sharia law?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PointOfViewGun
There is
a thread dedicated to that. It's better to have that discussion in that thread.
While that is a nice "sound" bite, Jesus, nor his disciples, never really demanded soldiers they encountered to lay down their arms. In fact, his disciples acknowledged use of force from time to time. There are, of course, interpretations that tells us how the verse you're referring to is about avoiding escalation, not necessarily a call against violence as a whole. We have seen him ordering people to buy swords (Luke 22:36) or making a whip and driving people out of the Temple (John 2:15). When he encounters the centurion, he does not tell him to lay down his weapons or turn away from a path of physical force. Jesus was no pacifist.
How does John 2:15 show Jesus not to be a pacifist?
Re: I thought Britain was under sharia law?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Infidel144
How does John 2:15 show Jesus not to be a pacifist?
From the post you quoted:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PointOfViewGun
While that is a nice "sound" bite, Jesus, nor his disciples, never really demanded soldiers they encountered to lay down their arms. In fact, his disciples acknowledged use of force from time to time. There are, of course, interpretations that tells us how the verse you're referring to is about avoiding escalation, not necessarily a call against violence as a whole. We have seen him ordering people to buy swords (Luke 22:36) or making a whip and driving people out of the Temple (John 2:15). When he encounters the centurion, he does not tell him to lay down his weapons or turn away from a path of physical force. Jesus was no pacifist.
Re: I thought Britain was under sharia law?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PointOfViewGun
From the post you quoted:
What Setekh bolded + ref:
"making a whip and driving people out of the Temple (John 2:15)":
Hmmm....
How about quoting your version of John 2:15...
Re: I thought Britain was under sharia law?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Infidel144
What Setekh bolded + ref:
"making a whip and driving people out of the Temple (John 2:15)":
Hmmm....
How about quoting your version of John 2:15...
My version? I have not published a Bible. I get the verses from Bible Gateway. Its readily available.
I gave three examples by the way. Any reason why you only focus on one?
Re: I thought Britain was under sharia law?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PointOfViewGun
My version? I have not published a Bible. I get the verses from
Bible Gateway. Its readily available.
I gave three examples by the way. Any reason why you only focus on one?
Hmmm 2:15 (noting Setekh's bold: "making a whip and driving people out of the Temple"):
"So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables."
How does driving sheep and cattle from the temple mean Jesus is not a pacifist?
Re: I thought Britain was under sharia law?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Infidel144
Hmmm 2:15 (noting Setekh's bold: "making a whip and driving people out of the Temple"):
"So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables."
How does driving sheep and cattle from the temple mean Jesus is not a pacifist?
OK, no comment on other examples then... How is driving them out of the temple with violence OK with pacifism? If you wanna argue that he only whipped animals that's the impression you get if you read the New International version, but not the King James version.
Re: I thought Britain was under sharia law?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PointOfViewGun
OK, no comment on other examples then... How is driving them out of the temple with violence OK with pacifism? If you wanna argue that he only whipped animals that's the impression you get if you read the New International version, but not the King James version.
With violence? Violence against tables...
Well, you did choose NIV when I requested that you quote your version...
However, I think you do not know what impression *I* get when reading the verses (which seems not particularly relevant as it is your claim that is being discussed), and thus should speak only to your impression.
Re: I thought Britain was under sharia law?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Infidel144
With violence? Violence against tables...
Well, you did choose NIV when I requested that you quote your version...
However, I think you do not know what impression *I* get when reading the verses (which seems not particularly relevant as it is your claim that is being discussed), and thus should speak only to your impression.
You mean Jesus was whipping tables?
Re: I thought Britain was under sharia law?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PointOfViewGun
You mean Jesus was whipping tables?
The verse you chose says he "overturned their tables". It does not say he whipped the tables any more than it says he whipped the men. He might have been violent against the coins too...
Still not sure how either means Jesus was not a pacifist.
Re: I thought Britain was under sharia law?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Infidel144
The verse you chose says he "overturned their tables". It does not say he whipped the tables any more than it says he whipped the men. He might have been violent against the coins too...
Still not sure how either means Jesus was not a pacifist.
But, you're sure how other two examples show he was no pacifist? Because you chose to ignore them for some reason...
The chapter talks about Jesus making a whip and driving everyone out. Are you suggesting that Jesus made the whip for fun of it?
Re: I thought Britain was under sharia law?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PointOfViewGun
But, you're sure how other two examples show he was no pacifist?
Am I? I don't recall expressing my opinion on whether I consider Jesus a pacifist or not.
Why do you insist on telling me what my views are, Setekh?
Quote:
Because you chose to ignore them for some reason...
You have mentioned this repeatedly. And...
Quote:
The chapter talks about Jesus making a whip and driving everyone out. Are you suggesting that Jesus made the whip for fun of it?
No.
Re: I thought Britain was under sharia law?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Infidel144
Am I? I don't recall expressing my opinion on whether I consider Jesus a pacifist or not.
Why do you insist on telling me what my views are, Setekh?
You have mentioned this repeatedly. And...
Correction: you did not express your opinion despite being explicitly asked about it.
Correctuon #2: I did not tell you what your views are. I asked about them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Infidel144
No.
Why did Jesus fashioned a whip in that story?
Re: I thought Britain was under sharia law?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PointOfViewGun
Correction: you did not express your opinion despite being explicitly asked about it.
I'm having some difficulty, finding where you "explicitly" asked me whether in my opinion Jesus was a pacifist or not.
Which post # is it in.
Quote:
Correctuon #2: I did not tell you what your views are. I asked about them.
No, Setekh. This:
"But, you're sure how other two examples show he was no pacifist?"
is a statement, in which you are telling me what I am sure of, and that you put a question mark at the end of.
If that were an actual question it should read more along the lines of:
"But, are you sure how other two examples show he was no pacifist?"
Quote:
Why did Jesus fashioned a whip in that story?
This is an actual question.
"This whip was made as an emblem of authority, and also for the purpose of driving from the temple the cattle which had been brought there for sale. There is no evidence that he used any violence to the men engaged in that unhallowed traffic. The original word implies that these “cords” were made of twisted “rushes” or “reeds” - probably the ancient material for making ropes."
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible
"And when he had made a scourge of small cords — εκσχοινιων, of rushes, rather, which he found strewed on the ground. This circumstance, seemingly slight, was inserted to show that the instrument could not be the cause of so wonderful an effect as is here mentioned. He drove them all out — Namely, out of the court of the temple; both the sheep and the oxen — Though it does not appear that he struck even them, much less any of the men. But a terror from God, it is evident, fell upon them."
Joseph Benson's Commentary of the Old and New Testaments
"Made a scourge of small cords. Rather as a symbol than for use. Drove them all out. He had the right to cleanse his Father's house and here first asserts his authority. The traffickers fled before his glance, awed by a superhuman majesty."
People's New Testament
"And when he had made a scourge , [ fragellion (Greek #5416) = flagellum] of small cords - likely some of the rushes spread for bedding, and when twisted used to tie up the cattle there collected. 'Not by this slender whip,' says Grotius admirably, 'but by divine majesty was the ejection accomplished, the whip being but a sign of the scourge of divine anger.'"
Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Unabridged
Re: I thought Britain was under sharia law?
Within a week of cleansing the temple of the moneyed Jews, Jesus Christ was dead. He was allowed and tolerated up till then by the powers that be, but as soon as he touched the moneyed Jews in the Temple or spoke about the corrupt and the wicked way of trading which preyed on the weak, he was ordered to be crucified.
LET THAT BE A LESSON TO ALL OF YOU WHO READ THIS. YOU CAN COMPLAIN ABOUT THE ISLAMS OR AFRICAN AMERICANS OR GAYS OR HIGH RANKED PAEDOES , THEY'LL LAUGH AT YOU FROM THEIR TOWERS. BUT YOU START TALKING ABOUT THE MONEYED FINANCIERS, AND THEIR CONTROL OF MONEY YOU GET CRUCIFIED.
In the UK we complain and mutter under our breaths about asylum seekers at the post office getting dole money, yet 90% of the wealth in this country is controlled by like 10 families. Those 10 fams want you to hate the brownies, not them. I used to like Tommy Robinson until i found out he was being moneyed by the same elite that our Lord Jesus drove out.