CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Islam...

[BugI02]

I made it clear in subsequent posts. Respecting one's right to believe in whatever god they wish is part of 1a.
Requiring someone to 'prove' their belief, is disrespecting their right IMO. You don't have to like it, or believe it, to respect their right to choose whatever god they wish.
1A gives one the right to question or say whatever they wish... but it doesn't make them any less of an ******* for doing so.

So, if I interpret this correctly, you would countenance Satanists setting up a coven (or whatever they call their congregations) in your community; and as long as they only advocated the torture and sacrifice of innocent children, you would not move against them.
You would wait until someone associated with their 'gathering' actually acted upon their tenets?

I don't welcome poisonous creatures into my house

 

[gregr]

We are on the same page, but we probably aren't going to make any progress with this approach, much as Paul preached eloquently at Mars Hill but didn't gain a single believer.

Yet, Paul still spoke the Truth...whether he gained one convert or not that day. I wonder why...

 

[gregr]

Muslims everywhere are condemning this over and over. However implying that someone is somehow responsible for something that he never liked/committed isn't helpful at all. Besides, what's obvious is obvious. Have a look here: 75 Reasons Why Muslims Must Stop With Their Terrorism Condemnation Ritual

Funny, I`ve never read of, or heard about a single instance of that group denouncing terror attacks. Interesting how thousands manage to band together to demand the death of a school teacher who had the audacity to allow her school children to name a teddy bear, Mohammad, yet, not manage to gather a number significant enough to get the attention of the media, in order to denounce terrorism done in the name of islam...

 

[gregr]

So, if I interpret this correctly, you would countenance Satanists setting up a coven (or whatever they call their congregations) in your community; and as long as they only advocated the torture and sacrifice of innocent children, you would not move against them.
You would wait until someone associated with their 'gathering' actually acted upon their tenets?

I don't welcome poisonous creatures into my house

 

[jamil]

I accept the logic from the perspective of God. But from man's perspective, which is the only perspective you or Jews, or muslims have, it is only your belief that any of this is so. What if, from God's perspective, you are the one who is wrong.

Well, in a nutshell, I deny your premise for it allows no room for Divine Revelation.

There are two types of knowledge, empirical and experiential. The secularist would have one believe that only empirical knowledge matters. I reject that. I place them both on a level playing field. If one can not design a scientific experiment to substantiate experiential knowledge and move it to the realm of empirical knowledge that does not mean the experiential knowledge is false.

I'll start with a minor nit. "empirical" and "experiential" are essentially the same thing. They are both derived from experience. But I think I know what you're saying.

HOWEVER it does mean that I would be unable to prove empirically to you that my experiential knowledge is true. Now when those with shared experiences form a society, lets say People who have seen ghosts, People who have seen UFOs, People who have had alien abductions, etc, you could call them a community of believers.

would you walk into their midst and tell them it never happened? It's only their belief that any of it is so?

I really don't enjoy these kinds of discussions. I don't enjoy logic to dispute matters of faith. I'm happy to discuss the logic of an argument, or just to discuss what people believe and why they believe it. But I really don't enjoy discussing the logic of faith, because if faith were based on logic, it would not be faith. People have reasons for believing what they believe. Case in point, my niece has some pretty interesting beliefs about spiritualism and its ties to the Earth. I like talking to her about her beliefs, but I'm not going to try to tear them apart just because I don't share them. But if she concludes that society must make policies around her beliefs, then it's time to argue against that.

I think your main thrust is when those who have experiential knowledge disagree that one perspective can not be proven empirically. That I agree with.

As to me being wrong, I have admitted it to be so just up a post or two that it can and does happen.

I was just saying that your logic is sound WRT God's perspective. But we were talking about man's perspective. That's all. Two people can disagree on the nature of God, but that doesn't mean the two are discussing two distinct "gods".

 

[jamil]

So, if I interpret this correctly, you would countenance Satanists setting up a coven (or whatever they call their congregations) in your community; and as long as they only advocated the torture and sacrifice of innocent children, you would not move against them.
You would wait until someone associated with their 'gathering' actually acted upon their tenets?

I don't welcome poisonous creatures into my house

You aren't guilty of a crime until you've committed a crime. Is thinking something bad a crime? I don't agree with preemptive laws in other circumstances, if I'm consistent, I'll pooh on them here too.

But that doesn't mean that such people shouldn't be scrutinized. It seems reasonable to suspect that people who advocate harm will likely try to act out on it. On a certain level, making sure crimes aren't being committed is a legitimate part of law enforcement as long as due process is followed.

Preemptive note: I'm not saying more than I'm saying.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Maybe THINK would be willing to publicly condemn ISIS as well as any other group of "radical" Muslim followers?

Kidding, right?

Since when did one INGO member represent the 'bad' parts of a religion?

The onus is not on Think... and I'd think such a line is dangerously playing with forum rules.

 

[Route 45]

Kidding, right?

Since when did one INGO member represent the 'bad' parts of a religion?

The onus is not on Think... and I'd think such a line is dangerously playing with forum rules.

This whole thread (and others like it) would have been against the rules not too long ago on INGO.
How about you let the mods/admin determine what is "playing with the rules."

In other words, stay in your lane.

 

[jamil]

Opinions posted that don't violate the rules IS within one's lane.

 

[Route 45]

Opinions posted that don't violate the rules IS within one's lane.

The constant chastisement of other INGO members for alleged rule violations and pathetic attempts to "control the conversation" are not.

Fake mod.

 

[gregr]

You aren't guilty of a crime until you've committed a crime. Is thinking something bad a crime? I don't agree with preemptive laws in other circumstances, if I'm consistent, I'll pooh on them here too.

But that doesn't mean that such people shouldn't be scrutinized. It seems reasonable to suspect that people who advocate harm will likely try to act out on it. On a certain level, making sure crimes aren't being committed is a legitimate part of law enforcement as long as due process is followed.

Preemptive note: I'm not saying more than I'm saying.

Too true, one is indeed not guilty of a crime until one commits a crime, well said. There is though the other side of that coin: unless one is sight deprived, one can see what an adversary is, and see as well, what they will do. A serpent can act only like a serpent, and expecting any other course of action, then acting surprised by what happens is pure folly.

 

[jamil]

The constant chastisement of other INGO members for alleged rule violations and pathetic attempts to "control the conversation" are not.

Fake mod.

Or. Could it be that you're saying he's saying things he didn't say? He didn't say anyone has violated the rules. He did say that the line was dangerously playing with forum rules. If you disagree you're free to make the case that it's not. But it seems you'd rather infer things not said. Or maybe I'm just missing his pathetic attempts to control the conversation. It's been my experience that controlling the conversation involves, you know. Control. But maybe he's just really, really sneaky about it.

 

[jamil]

Too true, one is indeed not guilty of a crime until one commits a crime, well said. There is though the other side of that coin: unless one is sight deprived, one can see what an adversary is, and see as well, what they will do. A serpent can act only like a serpent, and expecting any other course of action, then acting surprised by what happens is pure folly.

It's fine to suspect someone might be up to shenanigans. Like I said it seems reasonable to suspect that people who openly advocate harming people might try to act out on it.

 

[Route 45]

Or maybe I'm just missing his pathetic attempts to control the conversation.

Bingo.

 

[jamil]

Bingo.

So he's just being really, really sneaky about it. Okay then.

 

[hog slayer]

Kidding, right?

Since when did one INGO member represent the 'bad' parts of a religion?

The onus is not on Think... and I'd think such a line is dangerously playing with forum rules.

No doubt that's a possibility. Where might I be astray of good order and conduct?

Is asking one person of a group to say that the actions of others within that group are not within the boundaries of the beliefs of that group unethical?

I will quit if I understand myself to be outside the limits of the forum rules.

No. I was not kidding. Ask me if I condone the actions of white supremacists. I'm white. I'll accept that question. It's an easy rejection of their actions. Requires almost no thought. Simply because what they stand for is very much in opposition to what I stand for. Maybe you can spin it so they seem to be a Christian organization. Still, not a tough question. Not insulting. Nothing. Because they are so far removed from what I believe and what the Holy Bible teaches that there is no way I would be insulted by the question. How is my question so much different? Ask me where I stand. Use as much detail as possible. What have I to be upset about? I am not hiding.

Matter of fact, I'll use the bible, my text book for life, as the basis for my answers. You may even read it yourself and decide that you don't need to ask so many questions to know where I stand.

 

[Route 45]

So he's just being really, really sneaky about it. Okay then.

Pay attention.

 

[jamil]

No doubt that's a possibility. Where might I be astray of good order and conduct?

Is asking one person of a group to say that the actions of others within that group are not within the boundaries of the beliefs of that group unethical?

I will quit if I understand myself to be outside the limits of the forum rules.

No. I was not kidding. Ask me if I condone the actions of white supremacists. I'm white. I'll accept that question. It's an easy rejection of their actions. Requires almost no thought. Simply because what they stand for is very much in opposition to what I stand for. Maybe you can spin it so they seem to be a Christian organization. Still, not a tough question. Not insulting. Nothing. Because they are so far removed from what I believe and what the Holy Bible teaches that there is no way I would be insulted by the question. How is my question so much different? Ask me where I stand. Use as much detail as possible. What have I to be upset about? I am not hiding.

Matter of fact, I'll use the bible, my text book for life, as the basis for my answers. You may even read it yourself and decide that you don't need to ask so many questions to know where I stand.

I don't think asking for it is against the rules of the Forum. But then accusing Muslims of supporting it just because they haven't (at least to your knowledge or satisfaction) openly condemn it, is logically problematic. People have gone too far with that. It was not accurate to accuse Trump of racism when he has not said actually racist things (it does not matter if it was politically motivated), but did not immediately condemn it. He shouldn't have to. It's not accurate to accuse Muslims of supporting Terrorism when they have not said or done anything terrorist. They shouldn't have to. You get to accuse them of supporting terrorism when they do something to support it. Not condemning it is not the same thing as supporting it.

And if you want to establish that as a rule, you'll need to live by it too. So everything bad that happens, if hog slayer doesn't immediately condemn it, we should assume that hog slayer supports it.

 

[Route 45]

I don't think asking for it is against the rules of the Forum. But then accusing Muslims of supporting it just because they haven't (at least to your knowledge or satisfaction) openly condemn it, is logically problematic. People have gone too far with that. It was not accurate to accuse Trump of racism when he has not said actually racist things (it does not matter if it was politically motivated), but did not immediately condemn it. He shouldn't have to. It's not accurate to accuse Muslims of supporting Terrorism when they have not said or done anything terrorist. They shouldn't have to. You get to accuse them of supporting terrorism when they do something to support it. Not condemning it is not the same thing as supporting it.

And if you want to establish that as a rule, you'll need to live by it too. So everything bad that happens, if hog slayer doesn't immediately condemn it, we should assume that hog slayer supports it.

If Trump was a card-carrying member of the Aryan Nation, it would safe to assume that he approves of racist activity, if he does not openly condemn it.
If Hog Slayer belonged to a cult with a "holy" book that calls for the slaying of infidels, it would be safe to assume that he condones the activity, unless he openly condemns it.

The book says what it says. No amount of obfuscation will ever change that.

 

[jamil]

If Trump was a card-carrying member of the Aryan Nation, it would safe to assume that he approves of racist activity, if he does not openly condemn it.
If Hog Slayer belonged to a cult with a "holy" book that calls for the slaying of infidels, it would be safe to assume that he condones the activity, unless he openly condemns it.

The book says what it says. No amount of obfuscation will ever change that.

Not equivalents. The Aryan Nation--all of them--are openly racist. Muslims--not all but some of them--are openly terrorists. So do you think they're secretly terrorists because not all of them have spoken in open forums denouncing terrorism? What is sufficient condemnatory action which would satisfy you? Should they all sign a pledge and submit it to you for your approval?