Very interesting piece.
HH…come on.Or could we at least have confirmation from the mods that Clip11 isn’t HH so we can stop clubbing him about it?Just sayin’…
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
HH…come on.Or could we at least have confirmation from the mods that Clip11 isn’t HH so we can stop clubbing him about it?Just sayin’… [/quote]
I’m not entirely sure, but I think the mods generally go on IP address to determine this, but the problem is that it’s very easy to change your IP address.
If Headhunter really was Clip11 (and a dedicated troll), he would just have to sign out of one of his accounts, change IP then sign in as the other, and do that every time he wants to switch.
And on the actual subject, arguing things like this is pointless, as the Bible’s been around long enough that I’m sure believers have come up with some way of explaining these things.
Non-believers may not buy these explanations, but I’m sure none of those things are ‘gotcha’ verses that no Christain ever has read and so would completely cause him to lose faith in the Bible.
[quote]alex789 wrote:
And on the actual subject, arguing things like this is pointless, as the Bible’s been around long enough that I’m sure believers have come up with some way of explaining these things.
Non-believers may not buy these explanations, but I’m sure none of those things are ‘gotcha’ verses that no Christain ever has read and so would completely cause him to lose faith in the Bible.[/quote]
Of course, most non-believers think they are gotcha verses, because they usually do not know anything about the Bible. However, I know several atheist religious studies professors and well, they understand what these books are for (how they are viewed) and they do not do this at all.
They actually take the time and learn what religion believes instead of cracking a Bible open and saying AH! Gotcha Christians, I’ve foiled the whole lop of you now.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]alex789 wrote:
And on the actual subject, arguing things like this is pointless, as the Bible’s been around long enough that I’m sure believers have come up with some way of explaining these things.
Non-believers may not buy these explanations, but I’m sure none of those things are ‘gotcha’ verses that no Christain ever has read and so would completely cause him to lose faith in the Bible.[/quote]
Of course, most non-believers think they are gotcha verses, because they usually do not know anything about the Bible. However, I know several atheist religious studies professors and well, they understand what these books are for (how they are viewed) and they do not do this at all.
They actually take the time and learn what religion believes instead of cracking a Bible open and saying AH! Gotcha Christians, I’ve foiled the whole lop of you now.[/quote]
Yeah well, some do it with the Qu ran, some with the Bible.
The Talmud has some interesting passages too.
There are plenty of articles like this floating around. Most of them are written by people that:
- Have no academic credential
- Have no formal education in the Bible
- Have no real evidence for their claims
Usually it’s just some guy saying, “This couldn’t have been true because I don’t think it could have been true.”
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]alex789 wrote:
And on the actual subject, arguing things like this is pointless, as the Bible’s been around long enough that I’m sure believers have come up with some way of explaining these things.
Non-believers may not buy these explanations, but I’m sure none of those things are ‘gotcha’ verses that no Christain ever has read and so would completely cause him to lose faith in the Bible.[/quote]
Of course, most non-believers think they are gotcha verses, because they usually do not know anything about the Bible. However, I know several atheist religious studies professors and well, they understand what these books are for (how they are viewed) and they do not do this at all.
They actually take the time and learn what religion believes instead of cracking a Bible open and saying AH! Gotcha Christians, I’ve foiled the whole lop of you now.[/quote]
Yeah well, some do it with the Qu ran, some with the Bible.
The Talmud has some interesting passages too.[/quote]
What does the Islamic apologists have anything to do with people not knowing how to look at the Bible? I call straw-man.
I blame it on the fact that some people say all you need to do is open the Bible. That is ridiculous, obvious if people just open the Bible and decide they are going to learn the Bible they will usually mess it up. Just as if you read Shakespeare, you would be a little lost and confused.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]alex789 wrote:
And on the actual subject, arguing things like this is pointless, as the Bible’s been around long enough that I’m sure believers have come up with some way of explaining these things.
Non-believers may not buy these explanations, but I’m sure none of those things are ‘gotcha’ verses that no Christain ever has read and so would completely cause him to lose faith in the Bible.[/quote]
Of course, most non-believers think they are gotcha verses, because they usually do not know anything about the Bible. However, I know several atheist religious studies professors and well, they understand what these books are for (how they are viewed) and they do not do this at all.
They actually take the time and learn what religion believes instead of cracking a Bible open and saying AH! Gotcha Christians, I’ve foiled the whole lop of you now.[/quote]
Yeah well, some do it with the Qu ran, some with the Bible.
The Talmud has some interesting passages too.[/quote]
What does the Islamic apologists have anything to do with people not knowing how to look at the Bible? I call straw-man.
I blame it on the fact that some people say all you need to do is open the Bible. That is ridiculous, obvious if people just open the Bible and decide they are going to learn the Bible they will usually mess it up. Just as if you read Shakespeare, you would be a little lost and confused.[/quote]
There are people on this site quoting the Qu ran all the time, allmost always out of context.
Now if you say that to understand the bible requires some serious study I would think that the same was true for the Qu ran.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]alex789 wrote:
And on the actual subject, arguing things like this is pointless, as the Bible’s been around long enough that I’m sure believers have come up with some way of explaining these things.
Non-believers may not buy these explanations, but I’m sure none of those things are ‘gotcha’ verses that no Christain ever has read and so would completely cause him to lose faith in the Bible.[/quote]
Of course, most non-believers think they are gotcha verses, because they usually do not know anything about the Bible. However, I know several atheist religious studies professors and well, they understand what these books are for (how they are viewed) and they do not do this at all.
They actually take the time and learn what religion believes instead of cracking a Bible open and saying AH! Gotcha Christians, I’ve foiled the whole lop of you now.[/quote]
Yeah well, some do it with the Qu ran, some with the Bible.
The Talmud has some interesting passages too.[/quote]
What does the Islamic apologists have anything to do with people not knowing how to look at the Bible? I call straw-man.
I blame it on the fact that some people say all you need to do is open the Bible. That is ridiculous, obvious if people just open the Bible and decide they are going to learn the Bible they will usually mess it up. Just as if you read Shakespeare, you would be a little lost and confused.[/quote]
There are people on this site quoting the Qu ran all the time, allmost always out of context.
Now if you say that to understand the bible requires some serious study I would think that the same was true for the Qu ran.
[/quote]
No doubt.
I didn’t say that it needed serious study, which it does, but it needs more formal environment than sitting down at your table and reading a passage and deciding what’s happening. Studying the Bible also requires more than picking up some random commentary or your choice of commentary and saying okay this is what that passage means. I know that writes off a lot of religions associated with Christianity and “non-denominational” Christians (that is an interesting topic of non-denominational Christians)
[quote]orion wrote:
There are people on this site quoting the Qu ran all the time, allmost always out of context.
[/quote]
They make it sound peaceful?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
There are people on this site quoting the Qu ran all the time, allmost always out of context.
[/quote]
They make it sound peaceful?[/quote]
It is to a large degree.
It was a herculaian effort to replace intertribal warfare with allegiances to a religion.
They became a little to succesful which became a problem for Europe but all in all it was a very civilizing force.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
There are people on this site quoting the Qu ran all the time, allmost always out of context.
[/quote]
They make it sound peaceful?[/quote]
It is to a large degree.
It was a herculaian effort to replace intertribal warfare with allegiances to a religion.
They became a little to succesful which became a problem for Europe but all in all it was a very civilizing force.
[/quote]
Do you know anything about about the later abrogating verses? Anything? The Mecca vs Medina Muhammad? Compare the later abrogating verses of the Quran with the New Testament and how Christians are instructed to conduct themselves and their prostelyzation. Don’t even try to compare the two religions and their texts until you have a clue. Faithful and accurate Islam is a military-political ideology. And your reply here makes me want to vomit considering your ‘non-aggression’ stance.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
There are people on this site quoting the Qu ran all the time, allmost always out of context.
[/quote]
They make it sound peaceful?[/quote]
It is to a large degree.
It was a herculaian effort to replace intertribal warfare with allegiances to a religion.
They became a little to succesful which became a problem for Europe but all in all it was a very civilizing force.
[/quote]
Do you know anything about about the later abrogating verses? Anything? The Mecca vs Medina Muhammad? Compare the later abrogating verses of the Quran with the New Testament and how Christians are instructed to conduct themselves and their prostelyzation. Don’t even try to compare the two religions and their texts until you have a clue. Faithful and accurate Islam is a military-political ideology. And your reply here makes me want to vomit considering your ‘non-aggression’ stance. [/quote]
* A white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action.
* Even as the fingers of the two hands are equal, so are human beings equal to one another. No one has any right, nor any preference to claim over another.
* Do not consider any act of kindness insignificant, even meeting your brother with a cheerful face.
* The strong man is not the good wrestler; the strong man is only the one who controls himself when he is angry.
* A man's true wealth here after is the good he does in this world to his fellow man.
* The ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr.
* One hour's meditation on the work of the Creator is better than seventy years of prayer.
* Do you love your creator? Love your fellow-beings first.
* Shall I not inform you of a better act than fasting, alms, and prayers? Making peace between one another: enmity and malice tear up heavenly rewards by the roots.
Muhammad
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
There are people on this site quoting the Qu ran all the time, allmost always out of context.
[/quote]
They make it sound peaceful?[/quote]
It is to a large degree.
It was a herculaian effort to replace intertribal warfare with allegiances to a religion.
They became a little to succesful which became a problem for Europe but all in all it was a very civilizing force.
[/quote]
Do you know anything about about the later abrogating verses? Anything? The Mecca vs Medina Muhammad? Compare the later abrogating verses of the Quran with the New Testament and how Christians are instructed to conduct themselves and their prostelyzation. Don’t even try to compare the two religions and their texts until you have a clue. Faithful and accurate Islam is a military-political ideology. And your reply here makes me want to vomit considering your ‘non-aggression’ stance. [/quote]
* A white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action.
* Even as the fingers of the two hands are equal, so are human beings equal to one another. No one has any right, nor any preference to claim over another.
* Do not consider any act of kindness insignificant, even meeting your brother with a cheerful face.
* The strong man is not the good wrestler; the strong man is only the one who controls himself when he is angry.
* A man's true wealth here after is the good he does in this world to his fellow man.
* The ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr.
* One hour's meditation on the work of the Creator is better than seventy years of prayer.
* Do you love your creator? Love your fellow-beings first.
* Shall I not inform you of a better act than fasting, alms, and prayers? Making peace between one another: enmity and malice tear up heavenly rewards by the roots.
Muhammad
[/quote]
8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.
8:67. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allah desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.
9:29. Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
9:33. It is He {Allah} Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) hate (it).
Once you’ve sorted out Mecca and Media Muhammad, and the role of abrogation, we’ll talk.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]
* A white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action. [/quote]
So by virtue of their religion giving them greater piety mohammads white followers could consider themselves to superior to blacks or as they called them “abid”. Thank you for providing clarity on that. I had wondered why they thought it was okay to slaughter millions of Africans in their slave trade.
[quote]
* Even as the fingers of the two hands are equal, so are human beings equal to one another. No one has any right, nor any preference to claim over another.[/quote]
So if he thinks everyone is equal why did mohammad own slaves? How do you reconcile that with the quote before this that piety determines superiority between black and white?
Sloth, I always try to discuss peacefully but whoever taught you about Islam was a nincampoop because all he does is use a wrong interpretation for the Arabic words (whatever you mentioned above between brackets is WRONG, I know its my mother tongue. So please use a decent translator then think about it for a while and comeback for a decent rational discussion
SIFU prophet Mohamed PBUH owned no Slaves, he had a male servent whom he raised from being a youngster and always fed him at the same table as he did
[quote]egyptianBulk wrote:
Sloth, I always try to discuss peacefully but whoever taught you about Islam was a nincampoop because all he does is use a wrong interpretation for the Arabic words (whatever you mentioned above between brackets is WRONG, I know its my mother tongue. So please use a decent translator then think about it for a while and comeback for a decent rational discussion
SIFU prophet Mohamed PBUH owned no Slaves, he had a male servent whom he raised from being a youngster and always fed him at the same table as he did[/quote]
Can you recommend a good translation?
yes the issue is to get the words written to arabic first like Fitna is
Ù?تÙ?Ù?
then go to google translator and the result would be " Sedition"
Sedition is a term of law which refers to overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition.
Which refers in Islam to the strife that God told prophet Mohamed will happen in his life and death amongst Muslims, and that he should fight to make sure that the real islam prevailed, not whatever Sloth has written up there…