CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Islam...

[ATM]

Not only are you on a roll, you are mixing threads! Lol

Please tell me you haven't missed the whole deception theme, I'm in this for the long game.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I think I would have been burned as a warlock given the limitations of me being able to stop my mouth from running off at that stage in history...

You know Churchmouse burned a few back in the day......He said it was harder work than you thought and he used to wear his arms out getting the confession from them...He quit about 1620 or so IIRC.....Ended up marrying one of them gals he was torturing...She liked it, he liked it and she gave him a good thirty years of her life after they hooked up....I hated eating dinner over there with them..She would always put an eye of newt in my soup just so CM could watch me freak out...Good times...I miss those days...

So...poor Mr. Gingrich was blind after the second time you dropped in for dinner?

 

[RobbyMaQ]

Is this another [STRIKE]forced[/STRIKE] free thought exercise? One where we are bound by proof and theory in order to properly justify individual 1A rights?

 

[ATM]

Is this another [STRIKE]forced[/STRIKE] free thought exercise? One where we are bound by proof and theory in order to properly justify individual 1A rights?

What would this discussion have to do with the congressional restrictions of the 1A or justifying individual rights?

 

[RobbyMaQ]

What would this discussion have to do with the congressional restrictions of the 1A or justifying individual rights?

I'm not referring to congress. But you knew that already.

 

[ATM]

I'm not referring to congress. But you knew that already.

So the 1A is out of the picture. Please continue on with justifying individual rights, something you know very well I am passionate about.

 

[RobbyMaQ]

So the 1A is out of the picture. Please continue on with justifying individual rights, something you know very well I am passionate about.

Which is precisely why I chimed in...
Because when a member posts info about Islam, it is a bit unnerving to see someone such as you, question their legitimacy, and whether they are devout Islam worthy of replying, or just someone cutting and pasting. Reminding us as to whether one is to follow God vs Jesus,or Deception as part of the master plan of religions and/or views on religion, etc...

I get this whole exercise thing? But at what point do you suppose your thoughts and beliefs are forced upon others... all in an apparent 'greater good'?

 

[ATM]

I want to have a discussion, so I'm in a discussion forum. If I wanted to read information, I'd go elsewhere for it.

I'd also like to know if he is a Muslim or just posting information about Islam. I have questions for the former and no requests of the latter.

I will not initiate aggression, but I will initiate voluntary discussion. I respect people, but not beliefs. Where is the force? Exercise is healthy.

 

[RobbyMaQ]

I want to have a discussion, so I'm in a discussion forum. If I wanted to read information, I'd go elsewhere for it.

I'd also like to know if he is a Muslim or just posting information about Islam. I have questions for the former and no requests of the latter.

I will not initiate aggression, but I will initiate voluntary discussion. I respect people, but not beliefs. Where is the force? Exercise is healthy.

So you respect people's 1a rights, but not their beliefs?
And when one mentions following God, you remind them to follow Jesus instead...

Sure exercise is healthy... but to what extreme...

 

[ATM]

So you respect people's 1a rights, but not their beliefs?

Yes. I respect individuals and their individual rights, I agree that congress should be prohibited from enacting certain laws as detailed in the 1A, but I do not respect beliefs nor do I possess any such "right" to demand that others respect mine. I find the very notion absurd.

And when one mentions following God, you remind them to follow Jesus instead...

In the sense of emulating or becoming like, as individuals, of course. We're humans, so we need to become like the human expression of God. I consider that basic CHRISTIANITY 101 for any who might be otherwise confused by some of the contrasts and comparisons. I assume there are non-Christians reading this.

Sure exercise is healthy... but to what extreme...

However extreme each individual chooses to engage. Me? I'm an extremist.

 

[RobbyMaQ]

Yes. I respect individuals and their individual rights, I agree that congress should be prohibited from enacting certain laws as detailed in the 1A, but I do not respect beliefs nor do I possess any such "right" to demand that others respect mine. I find the very notion absurd.

We shall agree to disagree here. Respecting one's beliefs, to me, doesn't insinuate that I have to share those beliefs, anymore that it allows me to challenge them and prove their beliefs. It is, after all, their right to believe what they wish when it comes to religion, and not mine to determine which belief has credence and which does not.

In the sense of emulating or becoming like, as individuals, of course. We're humans, so we need to become like the human expression of God. I consider that basic CHRISTIANITY 101 for any who might be otherwise confused by some of the contrasts and comparisons. I assume there are non-Christians reading this.

We shall agree to disagree here. Respecting one's beliefs, to me, doesn't insinuate that I have to share those beliefs, anymore that it allows me to challenge them and prove their beliefs. It is, after all, their right to believe what they wish when it comes to religion, and not mine to determine which belief has credence and which does not. There is no 'christianity 101' with me.

However extreme each individual chooses to engage. Me? I'm an extremist.

Mayhap it's a good thing that I don't challenge you to prove you were around during the revolution, or dismiss you for not being there.

 

[ATM]

We shall agree to disagree here.

That would require my agreement to disagree. You haven't yet convinced me that you disagree with me.

Respecting one's beliefs, to me, doesn't insinuate that I have to share those beliefs, anymore that it allows me to challenge them and prove their beliefs. It is, after all, their right to believe what they wish when it comes to religion, and not mine to determine which belief has credence and which does not.

It doesn't matter what "respecting one's beliefs" doesn't insinuate to you nor what it allows you to do if I don't respect beliefs.
It remains their right, either way, to believe what they wish, but it is for anyone, including the holders of that belief, to determine for themselves which beliefs have credence and which do not.

No rights are infringed by scrutinizing any of those beliefs. Nobody is disrespected by concluding that some beliefs withstand scrutiny better than others. In fact, without scrutiny, any old nonsense belief could masquerade about as truth.

We see it happening more and more in society, nonsense beliefs posing as "truths", unscrutinized and even "respected".
That's a problem, a big one. Please, stop respecting beliefs, you're not doing the believers any service, and you're certainly not respecting them in the process.

...There is no 'christianity 101' with me.

I felt it was necessary for the non-Christian readers to be able to compare and contrast apples to apples since Islam claims to be an offshoot of Christianity, yet changes some very key components to obscure direct comparison.

Mayhap it's a good thing that I don't challenge you to prove you were around during the revolution, or dismiss you for not being there.

I AM the revolution.

 

[T.Lex]

I want to have a discussion, so I'm in a discussion forum.

Speaking of deception, advocating that Islam is evil, was created by evil, and constituted by evil, is not indicative of civil discussion.

Do us all a favor and drop that deception explicitly.

 

[ATM]

Speaking of deception, advocating that Islam is evil, was created by evil, and constituted by evil, is not indicative of civil discussion.

Do us all a favor and drop that deception explicitly.

I concluded it was a deception from this civil discussion. How could I "drop" that?

 

[foszoe]

Speaking of deception, advocating that Islam is evil, was created by evil, and constituted by evil, is not indicative of civil discussion.

Do us all a favor and drop that deception explicitly.

Are you advocating that Islam is good, was created by good, and constituted by good?

If not, what is it? What created it? What constituted it?

Considering those 3 aspects alone, how would you differentiate Islam and Christianity?

Not asking what you can prove but what do you believe? If you also wish to respond with what can be proven that would be educational too.

 

[jamil]

Of course it can. Apart from God, we'd justify anything we felt like doing, even with Bible verses. That's why I maintain that deception is the problem.

Not true. I live by a moral code. For example, I can't justify harming innocent people.

Nonsense. You don't even believe that.

Of course I do. Anyone who pays attention to history and is willing to learn its lessons believes that. It's evidenced throughout history. For example Christians have evolved from burning heretics at the stake. Now, whenever one decides that what's being taught about their religion is false, they just start another denomination, and then the leaders of the sundry denominations write scathing books about how the other denominations are heretics or cults, but not them. That's obviously more peaceful than cleansing heretics by fire.

Nonsense. Apart from God, the Bible would be just another deception. Jesus is the Way.

Well, don't be so hard on yourself. I don't think you're deceived, per se. I don't think the men who wrote what became The Holy Bible intended to deceive people. I suspect they believed what they wrote.

What would this discussion have to do with [STRIKE]the congressional restrictions of the 1A or justifying individual rights[/STRIKE] being bound by proof and theory?

Well, yeah. It's how you roll.

 

[jamil]

Yes. I respect individuals and their individual rights, I agree that congress should be prohibited from enacting certain laws as detailed in the 1A, but I do not respect beliefs nor do I possess any such "right" to demand that others respect mine. I find the very notion absurd.



In the sense of emulating or becoming like, as individuals, of course. We're humans, so we need to become like the human expression of God. I consider that basic CHRISTIANITY 101 for any who might be otherwise confused by some of the contrasts and comparisons. I assume there are non-Christians reading this.



However extreme each individual chooses to engage. Me? I'm an extremist.

There's another word for that which I used earlier. You can engage people without being that. Being that appears to be a choice. Personally, if I were acting like a dick, I'd want it to be accidental.

 

[foszoe]

I live by a moral code. For example, I can't justify harming innocent people.

How did you arrive at your moral code?

Can you think of any situation where you WOULD harm innocent people or at least think there is a possibility that you would?

 

[T.Lex]

Are you advocating that Islam is good, was created by good, and constituted by good?

No, I am advocating that ATM is deliberately deceptive. He states that he wants discussion, but then his actions (by way of posts) reveal otherwise.

If not, what is it? What created it? What constituted it?

Considering those 3 aspects alone, how would you differentiate Islam and Christianity?

Not asking what you can prove but what do you believe? If you also wish to respond with what can be proven that would be educational too.

I am not Muslim (as you know).

I know that Islam as an organized religion has born sweet (good) and bitter (bad) fruit, like every other organized religion I can think of. That applies at a macro/big-picture level, and a micro/individual level.

I believe that God is capable of doing that which Islam claims He did. There is enough overlap for me to accept that the principles involved could be more important than the labels we put on them. Of the 5 pillars, I think the hajj is superfluous, but the 4 remaining reflect the Beatitudes.

Mostly, I believe ATM has no intent on civil discussion. Anywhere on INGO.

 

[ATM]

Not true. I live by a moral code. For example, I can't justify harming innocent people.

1. You didn't create that moral code, no man did.
2. That moral code guides what you feel like doing, just as it was designed to do. That moral code existed before you discovered it.

Of course I do. Anyone who pays attention to history and is willing to learn its lessons believes that. It's evidenced throughout history. For example Christians have evolved from burning heretics at the stake. Now, whenever one decides that what's being taught about their religion is false, they just start another denomination, and then the leaders of the sundry denominations write scathing books about how the other denominations are heretics or cults, but not them. That's obviously more peaceful than cleansing heretics by fire.

Christians first had to devolve at some point into burning heretics at the stake before they evolved back toward what Christ did and said. They've had and will likely continue to have their own periods of deception where mayhem is achieved.

Well, don't be so hard on yourself. I don't think you're deceived, per se. I don't think the men who wrote what became The Holy Bible intended to deceive people. I suspect they believed what they wrote.

I have reason to believe what they wrote as well. If I ever find something more reasonable than believing it, I won't believe it any more.

Well, yeah. It's how you roll.

Proof only applies to that which can be proven, Many things can't be proven, but it would be folly to suspect that they don't exist or didn't happen for that reason alone.