Peaceful Religion of Islam? Not.

[falconfan]

Thanks babe. But with you, I always "hit it."

Damn straight that's why you keep getting chances to go again

 

[TX-Beau]

As you wish. I'd rather ogle Nik's body than devote more time to a debate that will go round and round:

PROOF I'M GOD, I speak and so shall it be!!!

If I was god, every gay man would be that easy on the eyes.

 

[falconfan]

Also I'd like to take a moment of aside here. While I enjoy discussing with most of you very much I've come to notice there's been a lot of talk of Nik's abs right now and I just want to say-

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_1QO-xOwOk[/ame]




They're mine bitches. Back off.

 

[smelter]

Can we agree that the Bible and the Qu'ran are enigmatic at best and probably that way by design. I doubt that God, by whatever name you call Him, is very happy with the multiple translations of His word.

 

[falconfan]

That's a false description. it results from the same sort of thing that makes people think that police are all violent guys just waiting to beat someone up: negative things stick in the mind more than positive.

In Genesis, Exodus, and Deuteronomy, God is a God of love. In Samuel, He's a God of love. The constant theme is His love; the rest is subsidiary.

But He's never a God of no-judgment, come-as-you-are, hippy-type love.

As I told someone else earlier, it would help if you knew what you were talking about.

What about in Job? Is he a god of love there?

Also if he didn't want us to 'come as you are' why did he make us this way?

 

[falconfan]

I learned how to do all the textual criticism stuff, and it's circular reasoning. It starts entirely with presuppositions, like, "Jesus couldn't have said things like this", and then works around to the conclusion that gee, He didn't -- as I said, using the rules of that "discipline", it can be shown that the book of Judges was a guidebook for ancient tourists of the Holy Land (and there are "scholars" who believe that).

I'm sorry didn't you A) Use your knowledge of textual criticism to try and claim you were qualified to talk about when the bible was made early and B) call it "a science"

What has changed in the last 24-48 hours that has transformed it from a "science" into "circular reasoning?"

 

[TX-Beau]

They're mine bitches. Back off.

Yes, well since I'm the master of creation...

...you owe me...

 

[TX-Beau]

It seems Niks hotness has killed all conversation in here.

 

[falconfan]

To defend yourself you introduce yet another false definition of faith!
Faith is believing beyond the evidence, not contrary to it, and not without it.

And you accuse me of using propaganda? The phrase "beyond the evidence" means absolutely nothing. There's absolutely nothign wrong with believing things without evidence. I believe that there's an after life and have no evidence to support that believe and have no qualms saying so with no evidence. It just feels right to me. I have faith there must be something. But I'm not going to pretend that that belief is the result of a higher standard than science. It's just something entirely different.

B.S. in general science, OSU, 1993, magna cum laude... just short of enough credits to have had separate degrees on geology, physics, and education.

There are degrees in "general science?" Really?

Now you're close -- we have faith because of evidence, not without it or contrary to it.

That's not true. I know many a person who acknowledges the existance of evidence for evolution yet denies the existance of the process on the grounds of faith. Faith can be reinforced by evidence, it can be contrary of evidence, or it can be the absence of evidence. It's simply a standard of proof that has NO requirements for evidence.

And yes, that means that not all the claimants can be true.

But the "higher standard" is that a Faith says it's all true, while science admits it's muddling around trying to figure things out.

That's not true on either account. Just because religion claims to be all knowing doesn't make it a "higher standard." And it should also be noted that faith isn't immutable either. The Catholic church did after all eventually (I want to say in teh late 80s) admit that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe. How than is it any difference than science in it's ability to ammend itself? It's not.

And science doesn't "admit it's muddling around" it distnguishes the claim to the best of it's ability and acknowledges there are some things that it's yet to compile the evidence to understand. That's not a "lower standard." That's a higher standard. That's the lack of a willingingess to except anything that can't be directly proven.

That means, as I've been saying about Islam, that you either take the package or you don't; if you have to start changing things to keep your package, you no longer have the package, you've negated it. NickCole was right: picking and choosing once you've chosen your package isn't allowed, because then you haven't chosen the package at all, only pretended to while you really do your own thing. It is no different, as I pointed out, than claiming to accept chemistry but refusing to concede that there are such things as electron orbitals -- i.e. it's inconsistent, and as Nik has refused to recognize, internal consistency has to be decided first; by imposing outside, alien standards, you'll never get at what a system of thought is saying, and never find out if there's anything true in it.

No.... just no. You can't pick and choose whether to believe in orbitals because there's a standard of proof which is laid down to prove their existance and science is determined by evidence. If there is evidence it must be acknowledged. It can't be cherry picked for convience, one of the reason science does admit there are things it's yet to understand.

Religion as you've pointed out is sustained by faith. Faith has no standard of evidence other than what feels right, what resonates emotionally, what one has a willingness to believe. this is bound to varry from person to person and as such each person will add emphasis in different places, believe different parts, discount certain areas.

The main contention here though seems to be you holding people to a standard you don't hold yourself to. You demand that Muslums take teh Qu'ran as a whole and that Islam is defined by each and every tennant. Yet you make excuses for dismissing parts of scripture. And it goes beyond simply taking two passages that contradict each other and choosing the later of the two. You also reject parts that aren't directly revoked later, like those on slavery, homosexuality and presumably divorce... it's not fair for you to do that and then claim that any passage is a representation of Islam as a whole.

Yes, he is: he's insisting, along with Molten, that his worldview be imposed on others as a test of their truth. His remarks show that he's not interested in understanding anything except in his own predetermined way, insisting that his standards of empiricism have to apply to everything.

His encounters must not have educated him much, given the way he doesn't seem capable of even acknowledging anything as possibly true that can't be shown empirically. That's a faith as much as one in magic -- and I accept neither of those, because they're both false. Demanding that the Bible conform to his standards is just a way of saying "I'm not listening!" in fancier language.

Since he speaks more than one language, I would expect him to be aware that to approach another system of thought you have to abandon all existing axia and learn the new ones. He shows no evidence of that at all -- which gives good cause to make me think that he hadn't studied other languages.

Not to be rude but you might want to look at what side of the argument you took. I'm not a Muslum and neither is Nik. I don't want to speak for other because I don't know. But I really don't think the narrow world view is on this side of the aisle. We're the ones defending teh rights of other people to have their faith without being defilied and labeled by people who take no time to undersrand them.

You are the one who in this thread tried to make derogatorry claims about a faith which you later admitted to being uninformed about. How could you possibly continue to tell other people that they have a narrow mindsets? Does that not soudn ridiculous to you? That someone who tries to make claims about an entire religon without ever having read their holy book attempts to preach about having an open mindset?

 

[falconfan]

Aww thanks MoltenRock. And you are VERY cute btw.

And thanks falconfan for your robust defense. Always appreciated.

Awww well dear you don't need to thank me. I assure you that it was all a selfish tactic to score points to exchange for sexual favors later.

 

[falconfan]

Oh haven't you heard? Old Testamant doesn't count anymore. It's yet another way he can get around criticism by applying a different standard. Just like how "we can't apply reason to faith" applies a different standard. That is to say, no standard.

Hmmm I guess that means in the next edition they'll just lop off those parts.

 

[falconfan]

Falconfan, the clip you provided reminds me that the magic elements in Pushing Daisies makes more sense than the attempts to explain religion, and why a Creator would create the world this way, in this thread.

Feistfan, I was definitely nailing someone that night. But it wasn't Jesus.

God PUD was amazing... truly imaginative. One could even say it had religious undertones in some clips...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv0klnEAZmM[/ame]

Ok so maybe there weren't religious undertones in that clip per se but "Morning Has Broken" ....anyone? anyone? NO. OK you got me. I just wanted to post it.

 

[falconfan]

Tell me about it. This one's my favorite though

I'm pretty sure Nik is on his way to kill infidels or nail Jesus to a cross in this picture. One of those two.

And here I assumed he was off to learn Swahili. Guess the subway ads have effected my conscious mind more than I realized.

 

[opinterph]

Moderator Notice

[STRIKE]In a preliminary review of this On-Topic thread, I have moved 82 off-topic posts to a separate thread ... Off-Topic posts SPLIT from Peaceful Religion[/URL].” Considering that the topic of this thread involves a discussion and debate of whether Islam is a peaceful religion, there are a number of additional posts that may also be off-topic in some measure or otherwise distracting from the discussion. Those posts may also be moved, if additional review becomes necessary.

Please recognize that posts of the general form “quote of another member’s post” followed by “I agree” do not add to the discussion. That sentiment can be shared via post comment or PM to the respective member with whom you agree. Stating your agreement within the thread may lend public support to the sentiment previously expressed; however, the fact of your personal agreement (without further commentary) results in a post relating solely to your agreement with a point already made – rather than adding to the content of the “On-Topic” discussion.

If one or more of your posts have been moved and you think they should remain in this thread, you are welcome to quote the post (within the split thread) and put forth a claim as to why it should be returned to this thread. Please note that any “unclaimed” posts may eventually be deleted.[/STRIKE]

 

[falconfan]

^^ I understand moving posts that were completely off-topic, but you also moved a bunch of posts where others expressed their agreement or disagreement with things that were ON TOPIC. Which doesn't make any sense at all. I know you said above that these people can just PM each other but why should they have to? That's ridiculous! This is a message board! Expressing your agreement or disagreement is par for the course. Some of the posts by Tx Beau and Molten Rock actually had their own additions in the body of the post after their initial agreement/disagreement which is very much ON TOPIC. And interestingly, it was all posts that were disagreeing with Kulindahr, or posts agreeing with the people who disagreed with Kulindahr.

Sheesh. Did he run and complain to you and you just tripped over yourself to do his bidding? Censorship much?

I don't know why you bothered even saying this Nikki. It'll just be banished to off-topic land.... much like this post I'm sure.

 

[opinterph]

^^ I understand moving posts that were off-topic, but you also moved a bunch of posts where others expressed their agreement or disagreement with things that were ON TOPIC. Which doesn't make any sense at all.

Please recognize that posts of the general form “quote of another member’s post” followed by “I agree” do not add to the discussion. That sentiment can be shared via post comment or PM to the respective member with whom you agree. Stating your agreement within the thread may lend public support to the sentiment previously expressed; however, the fact of your personal agreement (without further commentary) results in a post relating solely to your agreement with a point already made – rather than adding to the content of the “On-Topic” discussion.

And interestingly it was all posts that were disagreeing with Kulindahr, or posts agreeing with the people who disagreed with Kulindahr.

Sheesh. Did he run and complain to you and you just tripped over yourself to do his bidding? Censorship much?

I have been monitoring this thread from its inception. My actions are in consideration of its “On-Topic” designation and are not the result of anyone “running and complaining.”

If one or more of your posts have been moved and you think they should remain in this thread, you are welcome to quote the post (within the split thread) and put forth a claim as to why it should be returned to this thread. Please note that any “unclaimed” posts may eventually be deleted.

 

[falconfan]

Re: Moderator Notice

In a preliminary review of this On-Topic thread, I have moved 82 off-topic posts to a separate thread titled “Off-Topic posts SPLIT from Peaceful Religion.” Considering that the topic of this thread involves a discussion and debate of whether Islam is a peaceful religion, there are a number of additional posts that may also be off-topic in some measure or otherwise distracting from the discussion. Those posts may also be moved, if additional review becomes necessary.

Please recognize that posts of the general form “quote of another member’s post” followed by “I agree” do not add to the discussion. That sentiment can be shared via post comment or PM to the respective member with whom you agree. Stating your agreement within the thread may lend public support to the sentiment previously expressed; however, the fact of your personal agreement (without further commentary) results in a post relating solely to your agreement with a point already made – rather than adding to the content of the “On-Topic” discussion.

If one or more of your posts have been moved and you think they should remain in this thread, you are welcome to quote the post (within the split thread) and put forth a claim as to why it should be returned to this thread. Please note that any “unclaimed” posts may eventually be deleted.

Doesn't this seem a bit silly though? Especially since we were already pages and pages after a lot of the stuff you removed? I mean admittedly there was some stuff, the pictures of Nik the video from PUD that I posted, that I can understand you removing. But this isn't the McLaughlin Group. Are we not allowed to pass pleasantries, flirt a bit, laugh a bit, basically lighten up the mood of something that could be a very tense and contentious topic when it doesn't derail the train of argument, which it clearly didn't because the thread would continue for pages after most those posts still on topic.

I mean if you remove agreement than you're just breeding contention by only allowing posts that attack that of others. Not to mention there have been numerous posts in here where people have made ungrounded personal insults, calling other people narrow minded is the one that first comes to mind, and what gets the moderators attention is me telling J-Man 'thanks for defending me' WTF???

In conclusion, in the names of John Stewart and Steven Colbert I don't comprehend why politics must be absent of humor, fun or pleasantries.

 

[TX-Beau]

Hey guys, and I’m only posting this because I think it’ll be a shame if y’all took off. Not that I want to side with the man, but it’s mod’s discretion on what remains, and what goes. Don't sweat it.

That said I do agree that having some fun, with a seriously divisive topic helps keep things a little more civil. Don’t run out on us, this discussion was the most fun I’ve had in here so far – well exempting the porn of course.

 

[opinterph]

… decided to remove posts from certain people …

The only affected posts were those that were blatantly off-topic [hijacks], those that violate the Posting Guidelines (e.g. personal insults that could realistically result in infractions), and those lacking original content. If that only involved certain people, I suggest that it is a matter of the content of their posts, rather than an effort to censor any particular viewpoint.

… It's absurd to remove posts where people agree or disagree and say they should do that in private. That's the freaking point of a message board! And as a JUB Supporter I find that intolerable. I've never had a problem in a thread where saying "I agree" was considered a no-no or where humor was off-topic. Thanks for telling me. …

Well, I respect your opinion and request that you be patient. I have presented your complaint to the other moderators and administrators for discussion. I will be happy to return the “acclamation posts” to this thread, if they concur with your assessment.

 

[falconfan]

Don't be naive. Moderators are supposed to moderate, not show obvious bias. There were "acclamation" posts and the like when the thread was mostly about Islam-bashing and those against Islam-bashing, and the moderators never said boo. The moment Christianity was put on the defensive, a ton of posts were removed. That's not a coincidence.

I totally understand why off-topic posts (like where my picture was posted by feistfan etc) were removed -- even if I think it's unnecessary because a little playfulness never hurt anybody -- but it made NO SENSE to remove other posts from me, falconfan, feistfan, Molten Rock, and yourself (and others) where we commented on each other's comments. That happens ALL THE TIME ON THIS BOARD and it's never an issue. And I don't believe for one moment that this moderator suddenly acted on his own with no nudging from a certain poster here.

Leave the posts in another thread or put them back here. I don't care. But I don't wanna be part of a forum that allows this kind of administrative bias. So moderators, I ask you again: please restrict my access from the Current Events and Politics Section. I know I can just chose not to post here, but I want even the option of posting to be unavailable to me. If only as a protest to this action. I firmly believe that principles only mean something if you stick by them when they're inconvenient, and I don't think then I should be allowed to see or post in a section of this board where posts can be removed.

Thank you.

That's a shame there some real gems of new threads out there.