CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Islam...

[ATM]

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.

Personally, act like whatever you want. I'm not acting like anything.

 

[T.Lex]

Personally, act like whatever you want. I'm not acting like anything.

Yes you are. It may be typecasting, but you're still acting like one.

 

[ATM]

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.

Make your case. On what basis should I consider your interpretation of my actions informed or accurate? What specific actions revealed my deceit to you?

Evidence, man, do you speak it?

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

I do not respect beliefs. When and how were you conditioned to respect beliefs instead of people? It wasn't always that way, you know.

 

[hog slayer]

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 may be in a disagreement with how some of this thread is going, however, I cannot agree with this. Assuming ATM were to be quiet at this juncture, wouldn't he only credit your position that claiming Islam is evil is false? You have positioned him, and myself, and anyone else to stay in this all the more resolutely.

If Islam is, in fact evil, what would the favor be?

If Islam isn't, in fact, evil, then maybe the favor is to prove that.

 

[hog slayer]

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?

Beat me to it.

 

[jamil]

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.

These are opinions. They're not facts. I wouldn't say I discovered them. They are just the conclusions for how humans should best interact. It is ideologically based, however. It's based on individualism.

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.

I didn't say human social behavior isn't cyclical. If they devolved to what they were, they also evolved from what that was. There may be another time in the distant future where Christians again cleanse people by fire. My point remains.

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, you could say that I'm just further along on that evolution.

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.

Plenty of stuff I suspect without committing to belief. It has to pass the "is it true?" test. If it's "maybe" then it remains a suspicion. For example, I'm not an atheist because that doesn't pass the "is it true?" test.

 

[T.Lex]

I may be in a disagreement with how some of this thread is going, however, I cannot agree with this. Assuming ATM were to be quiet at this juncture, wouldn't he only credit your position that claiming Islam is evil is false? You have positioned him, and myself, and anyone else to stay in this all the more resolutely.

If Islam is, in fact evil, what would the favor be?

If Islam isn't, in fact, evil, then maybe the favor is to prove that.

I think you misunderstand.

ATM's hypocrisy in demanding "truth" while being deceptive is uncivil. I just wish he'd drop the pretense that he's in this for discussion. Granted, its the internet. He (or she) owes me nothing.

 

[hog slayer]

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

Often enough, this I could buy. I have questioned his intentions before. I fully understand that he does NOT always come across in an effective way as he creates distance between the desired audience and himself. I have slowed down on this thread for two reasons. One of them is accepting that distance, even though we seem to be in agreement on the main concepts here. The other is that I was coming across in such a way that I would also lose my audience, as well. I do not doubt his intention at it's basic level. No doubt pride creeps in, as it does with us all and reveals itself in our individual sin before it is rejected again, but the core is sound.

No doubt, by the time I get this posted several new posts will have been made that could have been addressed.
What did I tell you. Your post #547 is related. No significant change, though. I think we're nearly on the same page.

(yes, the following is cut and paste) 2 Peter 1:

Confirming One’s Calling and Election
3His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. 4Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.
5For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love. 8For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9But whoever does not have them is nearsighted and blind, forgetting that they have been cleansed from their past sins.
10Therefore, my brothers and sisters,[SUP]a[/SUP] make every effort to confirm your calling and election. For if you do these things, you will never stumble, 11and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

 

[jamil]

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?

Beat me to it.

Well, I was raised as a Christian and was a Christian for >40 years. I'm not going to say that many of those values didn't stay with me. However, the belief as stated was that without God I would just do as I pleased. Well, I'm not just doing as I please. My behavior is driven by principles.

In Christianity, people don't just follow God's law. They can't because of their fallen nature. But because they are saved, they live the law (New Testament) through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. To the extent that Christians allow the Holy Spirit to dwell within them, they may overcome their sinful nature. As self gives way to the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit's nature takes over self. To put it as ATM would, this is Christianity 303.

So what now prevents me from doing as I please? Is there a Holy Spirit dwelling in me? What prevents me from doing as I please now? The reason, is it would violate my individualist principles, that I do not have a right to infringe on other people's rights. But there are many areas where I do as I please. For example I say ****. Alot.

 

[foszoe]

Ok.

I would say ATM is being deliberate...but not deceptive. I think he wants discussion but wants to do it by his rules. My current situation is I am not sure what the ATM rules are and I don't tend to engage in playing a game unless I understand what the rules of engagement are

That being said, ATM's style (tending towards combative) and BBI's style (dialogue) are very different. ATM is more about winning than either BBI or myself, I am more about information gathering so I gravitate more to BBI's style and felt that when BBI wished to disengage, I would have had I been ATM, but ATM didn't. I didn't approve of ATM's actions in the sense that they were not my style and would have made me uncomfortable in a face to face interaction. I realize this is the internet, but I try to interact in the same way here as I would in person.

I take that all the way back to my first interaction with BBI here. After several pages of back and forth it ended with a virtual hug He did press me for some information I did not wish to give in that but once I made it clear through refusal, he accepted it. I don't know if we ever truly understood each other in that post through the written word but it was one of the few times I wasn't inclined to admit any wrong, a polite way of saying I was stubborn (outside of Orthodoxy discussions that is)

So what did I observe here?

Well, I saw the forum react in defense of a "friend", which was also my gut reaction, although I didn't post. As the thread evolved though, it seemed that the defense of BBI went through a reverse transference if you will. I was surprised by a more vigorous defense of Islam by Christians than I would normally expect. I have no qualms with intellectual curiosity and I would defend Muslims, in general, but I would not defend Islam, in general. I would do what I do with any other belief system, emphasize agreement, but I wouldn't hesitate to say Islam is heretical.

The thread post I made this morning with the 3 mirrored questions was an attempt to see exactly you believe and how it would differentiate from what you stated ATM was advocating.

Your reply seems to still be defending the honor of BBI against the ATM "onslaught". At the very least it seems that we are still engaging personalities and not concepts.

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.


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.

 

[T.Lex]

At the very least it seems that we are still engaging personalities and not concepts.

I believe that's ATM Rule #2. Notice the he changes tack depending on who he wants to draw out. Oh, ATM Rule #1 is to make every possible thread more about ATM.

I would (and probably do) defend Islam in the same way I would defend any other 1A issue: I may not agree with the belief, but would defend the right for the person to believe it.

In a religious sense, I have no motivation to defend Islam, as I am not Muslim. I do tend to look for shared principles, but that's different. I have no desire to wage a personal holy war against every heretic. In fact, that is antithetical to "civil discussion."

I do, also, tend to defend Muslims from hypocritical people, but again, that's more on a political level. Were it Buddhists, atheists, or cat people being targeted, I'd likely do the same.

 

[historian]

or cat people being targeted, I'd likely do the same.

Woah...let's not get too crazy here...

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Woah...let's not get too crazy here...

 

[foszoe]

She's HOT!!! Look at the ears on that!!!

 

[ArcadiaGP]

*replaced w/ dancing hanekawa, in case the peta one had too many curves :3 *

 

[Benp]

I would (and probably do) defend Islam in the same way I would defend any other 1A issue: I may not agree with the belief, but would defend the right for the person to believe it.

If they were to remove the "Kill non-believers" we wouldn't even be discussing this at all. I would not (and do not) defend anyone who believes that it's okay to murder anyone illegally. Denying someone the freedom of living just because they don't believe the same is wrong.

In a religious sense, I have no motivation to defend Islam, as I am not Muslim. I do tend to look for shared principles, but that's different. I have no desire to wage a personal holy war against every heretic. In fact, that is antithetical to "civil discussion."

I don't feel compelled to look for shared principles. If someone wants to discuss religion that's fine, but for the most part we all just live our lives, go to work, and want to come back home at the end of the workday. People have the freedom to believe how they want, but when their beliefs deny others the freedom of life, I find that a problem.

I do, also, tend to defend Muslims from hypocritical people, but again, that's more on a political level. Were it Buddhists, atheists, or cat people being targeted, I'd likely do the same.

Everyone to some degree or another is a hypocrite, that's life. We may want to strive to live a certain way of life, but we can make mistakes and fail just like everyone else. But just because someone is not perfect doesn't mean that they are only trying to look a certain way, they may be trying to be that way and just not succeeding yet.

 

[ATM]

These are opinions. They're not facts. I wouldn't say I discovered them. They are just the conclusions for how humans should best interact. It is ideologically based, however. It's based on individualism.

You did not create individualism, you discovered it.

I didn't say human social behavior isn't cyclical. If they devolved to what they were, they also evolved from what that was. There may be another time in the distant future where Christians again cleanse people by fire. My point remains.

Your point remains shredded, you're now just paraphrasing what I said in response.

Well, you could say that I'm just further along on that evolution.

Or, you could say that you're just further devolved into a period of deception and need to evolve back toward what Jesus said and did.

Plenty of stuff I suspect without committing to belief. It has to pass the "is it true?" test. If it's "maybe" then it remains a suspicion. For example, I'm not an atheist because that doesn't pass the "is it true?" test.

Your universal "test" still doesn't make sense to me, but it doesn't need to, since it doesn't impact me any way. It's just for you.

 

[ATM]

I think you misunderstand.

ATM's hypocrisy in demanding "truth" while being deceptive is uncivil. I just wish he'd drop the pretense that he's in this for discussion. Granted, its the internet. He (or she) owes me nothing.

Evidence, man, do you speak it? You owe me a case with evidence if you charge me, right? I can't wait to cross-examine, this should be fun!

 

[T.Lex]

If they were to remove the "Kill non-believers" we wouldn't even be discussing this at all.

Somewhere in the 99% range have already removed that from their daily lives. Yet, here we are.

I would not (and do not) defend anyone who believes that it's okay to murder anyone illegally. Denying someone the freedom of living just because they don't believe the same is wrong.

Congratulations, you are in accord with Muslims, Buddhists, and - dare I say it - most cat people. People who like cats. And, I suppose, people who are cats, but I don't know about that.

I don't feel compelled to look for shared principles. If someone wants to discuss religion that's fine, but for the most part we all just live our lives, go to work, and want to come back home at the end of the workday. People have the freedom to believe how they want, but when their beliefs deny others the freedom of life, I find that a problem.

Man, this is going to sound SO much like ATM it makes me cry. Beliefs, Islamic or otherwise, don't deny others the freedom of life. Actions do.

Let's punish people for actions.

Everyone to some degree or another is a hypocrite, that's life. We may want to strive to live a certain way of life, but we can make mistakes and fail just like everyone else. But just because someone is not perfect doesn't mean that they are only trying to look a certain way, they may be trying to be that way and just not succeeding yet.

Hmmmm... this conversation took an interesting turn.

 

[jamil]

You did not create individualism, you discovered it.

Well, I'm not the first person to ever espouse individualism. I never said I created it.

Your point remains shredded, you're now just paraphrasing what I said in response.

Your point required agreement with mine.

Or, you could say that you're just further devolved into a period of deception and need to evolve back toward what Jesus said and did.

No. I couldn't say that. You know Because of the "is it true?" test.

Your universal "test" still doesn't make sense to me, but it doesn't need to, since it doesn't impact me any way. It's just for you.

Oh, I have no doubt of that. I am amazed yet often amused at what you allow yourself to believe.