CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Islam...

[jamil]

I suppose I can thank you for your intent, but if you can't make a reasonable case for the opinions you hold, I'm hardly going to accept them as real.

Feel free to give me something more than your feelings on this matter and I will examine that.

I think he did. Ben Shapiro likes to say facts don't care about your feelings, and while true, 1) you don't have to be a dick while expressing facts, and 2) it would kinda be benificial that what you are expressing are indeed, facts.

 

[ATM]

Will you examine your conscience and confirm whether you have an open mind to understanding Islam? Based on your deceptive statements in this thread, I'm not sure I'll be inclined to believe you, but it would be a start.

I've made no deceptive statements in this thread. I have learned from BBI's postings and understand now. I thanked him for this.

Further, as a Christian (supposedly), you take things as a matter faith for which there is no "reasonable case." Yet, you expect such a reasonable case from those of another religion? That's hypocrisy.

Perhaps you stop short of searching for or determining reasonable cases for claims whenever you are told something is simply a "mystery". Perhaps i don't.

 

[ATM]

I think he did. Ben Shapiro likes to say facts don't care about your feelings, and while true, 1) you don't have to be a dick while expressing facts, and 2) it would kinda be benificial that what you are expressing are indeed, facts.

If reasoning and being reasonable is seen as being a dick, the biggest problem facing us today is the fear of being seen as a dick.

Aint skeered.

 

[KLB]

I guess you think that you are the only one posting in this thread that BBI would reply to. Or are you just ignoring the post he obviously was referring to and being obnoxious?

I didn't do anything like that. You posted some claimed beliefs and I asked questions about them. You're the one who retreated to posting Quran verses in lieu of reasoning through your beliefs with me. It certainly didn't come from some anti-Islam propaganda site, it came from your postings in this thread, conversationally.



I didn't do anything like that. I haven't painted any Muslims as evil. Islam is the evil deception, Muslims are simply deceived.
The designer of Islam is my enemy, not those deceived by it.



Islam is just a deception. I expose deceptions. If you adopted indefensible claims as your own personal religion, that's on you. Probably should have done your homework. It's not too late, you know, I'm showing just how easily and reasonably it can be scrutinized and exposed for what it is.

Don't fill that hole with any old counterfeit faith, it's not even a faith-shaped hole. Leave it empty until you find the God that can withstand scrutiny and properly fill it.



I have learned and I understand, thank you. Islam is a clever ruse. I pray that you're only dabbling in it and scrutinize it much further before it becomes a belief system for you.

Send more Muslims.

Violence is Islam. If you are a non-violent Muslim, you are either not practicing the religion in earnest, or you are supporting violence as a third party. If you don't do either of those things, you are considered a hypocrite and/or an apostate.

 

[T.Lex]

I've made no deceptive statements in this thread. I have learned from BBI's postings and understand now. I thanked him for this.

And insulted him.

That's called passive-aggressive.

 

[ATM]

And insulted him.

That's called passive-aggressive.

Quote the insult.

If you can't, what's that called?

 

[ATM]

I guess you think that you are the only one posting in this thread that BBI would reply to. Or are you just ignoring the post he obviously was referring to and being obnoxious?

What?

I reply to whomever I please and they reply to whomever they please (within the forum rules, of course). This is a discussion forum, isn't it? Where's the obnoxious part?

 

[T.Lex]

Quote the insult.

If you can't, what's that called?

The fictional character known as Allah from this fictional and historically revisionist narrative known as Islam delights in all human suffering, not the least of which, "his" faithful.

Isn't this obvious from all that Mohammed wrote down?

Who really designed it and to what ends? Is there a Muslim courageous enough to reason with me?

Yes. When I ask if there is a reasonable way of rectifying what seem to be some serious conflicts and blatant history revision in these writings of Mohammed, it would be reasonable for a person who got past these serious conflicts and adopted those claims themselves as somehow believable to describe how they accomplished such a feat.

If it still doesn't make reasonable sense to them, how and why did they adopt them? Why do they believe such conflicted nonsense? How?

Why even state your beliefs if you can't or won't answer how and why they became your beliefs? That just makes me wonder if they really even qualify as beliefs.

It might be more so if we got more Muslims in here that actually believe what they cite.

You know, I have about a million more questions of people who believe in what you claim to if any would care to address the questions you skipped and go further.

I'll be here, available, reasonable, civil


...waiting.

Done.

Now, on to other things...

Clearly, fasting has made you cranky and I'll overlook this.

 

[ATM]

Done.

Now, on to other things...

If anyone can find where I insulted BBI in any of that, help T.Lex out here.

I obviously respect BBI even though I don't respect his beliefs. I don't respect any beliefs.

 

[ATM]

If anyone can find where I insulted BBI in any of that, help T.Lex out here.

I obviously respect BBI even though I don't respect his beliefs. I don't respect any beliefs.

Just in case you need me to quote that clearly established point from earlier:

...You're welcome. I respect you even though I have no respect for your beliefs.

 

[BugI02]

Perhaps you stop short of searching for or determining reasonable cases for claims whenever you are told something is simply a "mystery". Perhaps i don't.

My friend, I will make one sarcastic comment (because, after all, it's who I am) which you likely will accept as a badge of honour

Diogenes did not get invited to many parties or asked to join many discussion groups. There was a reasonable case why this was so

And I shall leave one serious comment, which will be suspect because my chops as a religious scholar are distinctly amateur

The Great Commission commands us as Christians to lead the unsaved and the unwitting to salvation, but I do not believe we are tasked to force them to accept it. When all is said and done; you can throw a man a lifeline, but if he would be saved he must reach out and grasp it.

The spirit works in concert with us to move those who can be moved, but it cannot and should not be forced or coerced or we begin to fall into the same trap that consumed the inquisition

 

[T.Lex]

@ATM
Tell you what. Since this thread is ostensibly about Islam, let's make it more about that and less about you.

Your lack of understanding is duly noted. Feel free to continue to emphasize it, but do not be surprised if fewer and fewer people choose to engage with you on it.

I am reminded of a joke, with a kernel of truth.

During the flood of hurricane Katrina, a believer was stranded on a rooftop. A canoe came by and offered to take the person to safety, but he said, "No thank you, God will save me!" And the person continued to pray.

Then a Coast Guard boat came by and offered to help. The person declined, saying, "No thank you, God will save me!" And the person continued to pray.

Then the National Guard helicopter came to save the person, but he said, "No thank you, God will save me!" And the person continued to pray.

The soul perished and was presented to God for judgement. The soul proclaimed frustration with God for not saving him. "I prayed and prayed and prayed for you to save me, but you let me die!"

And God replied, "I did try to save you. I sent the canoe, the boat, and even a helicopter!"

ATM, you have been presented the opportunities to educate yourself, but have declined. There isn't much more to do to help you.

 

[ATM]

My friend, I will make one sarcastic comment (because, after all, it's who I am) which you likely will accept as a badge of honour

Diogenes did not get invited to many parties or asked to join many discussion groups. There was a reasonable case why this was so

And I shall leave one serious comment, which will be suspect because my chops as a religious scholar are distinctly amateur

The Great Commission commands us as Christians to lead the unsaved and the unwitting to salvation, but I do not believe we are tasked to force them to accept it. When all is said and done; you can throw a man a lifeline, but if he would be saved he must reach out and grasp it.

The spirit works in concert with us to move those who can be moved, but it cannot and should not be forced or coerced or we begin to fall into the same trap that consumed the inquisition

You don't seem to understand the great commission, so you might not even recognize it playing out before you when you witness it.

Thanks, though.

 

[ATM]

... There isn't much more to do to help you.

You could pray, but if you pray against me it won't work.

 

[T.Lex]

You don't seem to understand the great commission, so you might not even recognize it playing out before you when you witness it.

Thanks, though.

Ah - now I get it - this thread is about proselytizing to you!

So I guess you're open to your own brand of taqqiya if a lie opens the door for you to try to evangelize.

You could pray, but if you pray against me it won't work.

I rarely pray against anything. In fact, I only say "rarely" because I can't guarantee "never." The Lord's will be done....

 

[ATM]

...The Lord's will be done....

Who wouldn't want that?

 

[T.Lex]

Who wouldn't want that?

I'm a bit worried about you, in that regard, but I'm not the one you should worry about.

But, in an effort to bring this thread back on topic, I'll offer 2 thoughts. First to you, specifically, and second to the more general question of "which Islam."

First, while I believe you are perfectly capable of your own reasonable case, in an effort to give you a(nother) direct answer so as to avoid coming back to the issue, the rationale for Islam's treatment of Jesus' "status" is independent of Christianity's view of His "status." Whether Islam is wrong about prophethood or Christianity is wrong about Trinitarianism, it is not for the one to correct the other. Not any more than it is right for Christians to fix Judaism's view of Christ.

Mohammed knew of Christianity and legitimized it for Islam by recognizing the shared Abrahamic roots. Now, whether he properly understood or accepted early Christian beliefs (which, if you look at the timing, didn't really have a consensus around many of them anyway) isn't really the issue to be resolved. If he had accepted Christianity exactly (whichever version), then there would be no Islam. That's just not how it played out. But, he did accept Christianity and the Gospel as well as several parts of the Old Testament, as the foundation texts for his belief system.

For the TL;DR, it should be ok for Muslims to think Christians have it wrong and Christians to think Muslims have it wrong regarding Jesus' status. Doctrinal holy wars don't work.

Second, more generally, the historical record tends to show that Islam wasn't really a problem for at least a few hundred years. At least not outside the aforementioned internecine holy wars between sects. It seems to me that the dormancy (for lack of a better word) was more than a little bit responsible for the "go along, get along" evolution of the vast majority of Islam. After the rise of the petrodollar, really starting in Iran IMHO, Islam became a tool to divide Muslims from "the west" for purposes of obtaining and keeping power.

In that time, peace DID become an active part of Islam. It was good for business and good for individuals - especially those who did interact with the west. The more traditional elements tended to be in areas with little western contact.

 

[spencer rifle]

Second, more generally, the historical record tends to show that Islam wasn't really a problem for at least a few hundred years. At least not outside the aforementioned internecine holy wars between sects. It seems to me that the dormancy (for lack of a better word) was more than a little bit responsible for the "go along, get along" evolution of the vast majority of Islam. After the rise of the petrodollar, really starting in Iran IMHO, Islam became a tool to divide Muslims from "the west" for purposes of obtaining and keeping power.

In that time, peace DID become an active part of Islam. It was good for business and good for individuals - especially those who did interact with the west. The more traditional elements tended to be in areas with little western contact.

I am afraid you are rather seriously in error. Islam turned eastward early on, and much time and treasure were consumed in killing of the idolaters (Hindus) in India and nearby countries. Whole regions were depopulated, by the reports of Islamic travelers themselves, some bemoaning the emptiness of the land. According to Islam, idolaters have only two choices (convert or die), as opposed to People of the Book, who have 3 (convert, die, or become a dhimmi). Many Hindus were not inclined to convert. When defeated, the older males were killed and everyone else was enslaved, often being deported westward. Millions died - many more than present religious conflicts - but the story has faded from history. You seem to be forgetting the long and bloody conflict between the Byzantine Empire and a succession of Muslim states which nearly led to the conquest of Europe.

 

[T.Lex]

I am afraid you are rather seriously in error. Islam turned eastward early on, and much time and treasure were consumed in killing of the idolaters (Hindus) in India and nearby countries. Whole regions were depopulated, by the reports of Islamic travelers themselves, some bemoaning the emptiness of the land. According to Islam, idolaters have only two choices (convert or die), as opposed to People of the Book, who have 3 (convert, die, or become a dhimmi). Many Hindus were not inclined to convert. When defeated, the older males were killed and everyone else was enslaved, often being deported westward. Millions died - many more than present religious conflicts - but the story has faded from history. You seem to be forgetting the long and bloody conflict between the Byzantine Empire and a succession of Muslim states which nearly led to the conquest of Europe.

Yes, I should have been more explicit. I was really referring to the period beginning roughly mid-18th Century. Maybe a bit earlier than that. By then, from the western perspective, the important boundaries had been set. There were fights among the empires, including the Ottoman, but the spheres of influence were pretty much set.

I am not aware of the Ottomans - other than the Armenian genocide arguably - using religion as the reason for expansion. Of course, I am open to other perspectives.

 

[foszoe]

It's a joke. I don't use purple.

Ok. i don't use purple either so I understand that and I admit when I read it, it didn't seem inline with your usual posting habits so I apologize for any offense. I was simply seeking clarity.