It's time to reclaim Islam from the fanatics. Here's how
Can my religion be reconciled with free expression? The answer is yes.

I am not a moderate Muslim, I am a reformist. Rooting out corrupt practices can never be an act of mere moderation. Restoring integrity, or wholeness, is always a radical act. It transcends notions of left and right, emphasising the need to think independently. In Islam, independent thought has a strong history, not that you’d know it from the news about bombings, beheadings and bloodshed. ‘Jihad’ has become part of the West’s vocabulary and with good reason. But there is a lesser-known term in Islam — one that has the capacity to change the world for good.

The rest, including sound, here
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9169991/reclaiming-islam/

She identifies the problem: those who think Islam and freedom of expression - or just freedom - can be reconciled are not setting the agenda. Not even close.

NOT killing someone for a cartoon or other free expressions of ideas or beliefs doesn't balance out the killing of someone for a cartoon, for a book, for believing something, for not believing something, for expressing a view freely.

Potty time for the old boy.

What’s that in your mouth, old chap?

Miam miam.

Muslim "reformist" - that's a good one! The poor deluded soul obviously doesn't live in the Middle East cradle of Islam, where Muhammad's faithful fundamental followers - who do as Muhammad did and instructed his followers to do - would be more than happy cut their head off as a "renegade" or "infidel" for such apostate "hypocrisy".

http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jihad_islamic_terrorism.htm#muslim_hypocrites
"Summarized Sahih Al-Bukhari" - Maktba Dar-us-Salam's page 580
Chapter 2. The best among the people is that believer who strives his utmost in Allah's Cause with both his life and property.
footnotes:
[1] "Al-Jihad (the holy fighting) in Allah's Cause (with full force of number and weaponry) is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars (on which it stands). By Jihad Islam is established, Allah's Word is made superior, [His Word being La ilaha ill-Allah (which means: none has the right to be worshipped but Allah)] and His Religion (Islam) is propagated. By abandoning Jihad (may Allah protect us from that) Islam is destroyed and the Muslims fall into an inferior position; there honour is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim, and he who tries to escape from this duty, or does not in his innermost heart wish to fulfill this duty, dies with one of the qualities of a hypocrite.
[2] Of course, nobody can offer Salat (prayer) and observe Saum (fast) incessantly, and since the Muslim fighter is rewarded as if he was doing such good impossible deeds, no possible deed equals Jihad in reward.

Soren wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 10:44pm:

It's time to reclaim Islam from the fanatics. Here's how Can my religion be reconciled with free expression? The answer is yes. I am not a moderate Muslim, I am a reformist. Rooting out corrupt practices can never be an act of mere moderation. Restoring integrity, or wholeness, is always a radical act. It transcends notions of left and right, emphasising the need to think independently. In Islam, independent thought has a strong history, not that you’d know it from the news about bombings, beheadings and bloodshed. ‘Jihad’ has become part of the West’s vocabulary and with good reason. But there is a lesser-known term in Islam — one that has the capacity to change the world for good. The rest, including sound, here http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9169991/reclaiming-islam/ She identifies the problem: those who think Islam and freedom of expression - or just freedom - can be reconciled are not setting the agenda. Not even close. NOT killing someone for a cartoon or other free expressions of ideas or beliefs doesn't balance out the killing of someone for a cartoon, for a book, for believing something, for not believing something, for expressing a view freely.

Depends on the context.

Id have no quarrel with the people of afghnaistan, Iraq, Palestine, Chechnya etc to do anything to repel the enemy.

The Spectator article is paywalled and I can't find it reproduced anywhere :(

Is someone with a subscription able to post the article?

The old boy gets his news and views from Punch. Always, absolutely, etc.

Punch hasn’t been in circulation for about 30 years, but that doesn’t stop the old boy.

It is a jolly world, no?

wally1 wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 6:56am:

Soren wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:44pm: It's time to reclaim Islam from the fanatics. Here's how Can my religion be reconciled with free expression? The answer is yes. I am not a moderate Muslim, I am a reformist. Rooting out corrupt practices can never be an act of mere moderation. Restoring integrity, or wholeness, is always a radical act. It transcends notions of left and right, emphasising the need to think independently. In Islam, independent thought has a strong history, not that you’d know it from the news about bombings, beheadings and bloodshed. ‘Jihad’ has become part of the West’s vocabulary and with good reason. But there is a lesser-known term in Islam — one that has the capacity to change the world for good. The rest, including sound, here http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9169991/reclaiming-islam/ She identifies the problem: those who think Islam and freedom of expression - or just freedom - can be reconciled are not setting the agenda. Not even close. NOT killing someone for a cartoon or other free expressions of ideas or beliefs doesn't balance out the killing of someone for a cartoon, for a book, for believing something, for not believing something, for expressing a view freely. Depends on the context. Id have no quarrel with the people of afghnaistan, Iraq, Palestine, Chechnya etc to do anything to repel the enemy.

How is rioting and killing over cartoons, books, films is 'repelling the enemy'?

Soren wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 8:35am:

wally1 wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 6:56am: Soren wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:44pm: It's time to reclaim Islam from the fanatics. Here's how Can my religion be reconciled with free expression? The answer is yes. I am not a moderate Muslim, I am a reformist. Rooting out corrupt practices can never be an act of mere moderation. Restoring integrity, or wholeness, is always a radical act. It transcends notions of left and right, emphasising the need to think independently. In Islam, independent thought has a strong history, not that you’d know it from the news about bombings, beheadings and bloodshed. ‘Jihad’ has become part of the West’s vocabulary and with good reason. But there is a lesser-known term in Islam — one that has the capacity to change the world for good. The rest, including sound, here http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9169991/reclaiming-islam/ She identifies the problem: those who think Islam and freedom of expression - or just freedom - can be reconciled are not setting the agenda. Not even close. NOT killing someone for a cartoon or other free expressions of ideas or beliefs doesn't balance out the killing of someone for a cartoon, for a book, for believing something, for not believing something, for expressing a view freely. Depends on the context. Id have no quarrel with the people of afghnaistan, Iraq, Palestine, Chechnya etc to do anything to repel the enemy. How is rioting and killing over cartoons, books, films is 'repelling the enemy'?

How are articles about reforming Islam and "changing the world for good" about killing someone for a cartoon?

We can't tell. Your link has a paywall.

Unless - you're now selling subscriptions to the Spectator.

Jolly good, old chap. Extra, extra, read all about it.

Once a cheesedealer, always a cheesedealer. Always, absolutely, never ever - on stilts.

Irshad manji has little support in the Muslim community cause she is lesbian trying to make herself some female Islamic hero.

islam is an extremist movement.
It is for fanatics.

want soimething moderate, try drugs or footy.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 10:37am:

islam is an extremist movement. It is for fanatics. want soimething moderate, try drugs or footy.

Drink wine in moderation, Sprint. There's a few nice wines coming out of your good country, no?

Of course, for your Muselman, wine and cheese are haram. Can you believe it? What a bunch of killjoys.

The old boy's on a campaign to carpet bomb the lot of them - including any other tinted races who get in the way. No good for cheese sales, you see. They'll never open up to new markets.

Always, absolutely, never ever - on stilton.

I suppose if the muslims keep it up, eventually islam and muslims will be reformed the same way Hiroshima and Nagasaki were.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 8:01am:

The Spectator article is paywalled and I can't find it reproduced anywhere :( Is someone with a subscription able to post the article?

Quote:

It's time to reclaim Islam from the fanatics. Here's how Can my religion be reconciled with free expression? The answer is yes 351 Comments      Irshad Manji 29 March 2014 I am not a moderate Muslim, I am a reformist. Rooting out corrupt practices can never be an act of mere moderation. Restoring integrity, or wholeness, is always a radical act. It transcends notions of left and right, emphasising the need to think independently. In Islam, independent thought has a strong history, not that you’d know it from the news about bombings, beheadings and bloodshed. ‘Jihad’ has become part of the West’s vocabulary and with good reason. But there is a lesser-known term in Islam — one that has the capacity to change the world for good. The idea is ‘ijtihad’, Islam’s tradition of questioning and reinterpreting. And it is absolutely fundamental to the spirit of the Qur’an. Islam’s scripture contains three times as many passages urging Muslims to think and rethink than verses promoting blind worship. That’s nice in theory, but what about in fact? In the Islam of a millennium ago, ijtihad flourished. It was no coincidence that Islamic civilisation led the world in curiosity, creativity and ingenuity. But then the sun set on Islam’s golden age. Invaders from North Africa pillaged the pluralism of Muslim Spain. From Cordoba to Baghdad, much of the Islamic empire lapsed into defensiveness. Out of 135 schools of Sunni thought, just four survived. The gates of ijtihad narrowed and in some places closed, legitimising rigid readings of the Qur’an. To this day, Muslims still struggle with the idea of independent thought. But a new generation of Muslims are pushing the boundaries. In growing numbers, we are speaking our truths to self-appointed authorities, be they our parents or their imams. I can attest to this because young Muslims have been sharing their stories with me since I wrote my book, The Trouble with Islam Today. It was published ten years ago, with the predictable noise from offended Muslims drowning out the support from many others. Those others, often the children of conservatives, wrote to me about their desperation for a Muslim community that accepts their interfaith relationships. In 2007, I used my blog to publish a blessing of Muslim-Christian love, written in English by a scholarly imam who reinterpreted the Qur’an. It was downloaded so often that I had it translated into 20 more languages. Last year, Al Jazeera aired an intense debate about Muslim reform between me and the British commentator Mehdi Hasan. Hate mail followed. So did love bombs. But I did not receive any death threats. To be sure, the reality remains that those who shatter age-old taboos within Islam do have to fear for their lives. While it is true that every religion has its extremists, in no other religion do mainstream believers routinely shrug off the murder of dissenters. This is a life-and-death difference. All the more reason for ijtihad to be revived in the 21st century. Nowhere does the necessity of ijtihad seem more urgent than in the wars over freedom of expression. One might say that the UK led the way. More than 25 years ago, a puny hive of British Muslims demanded the death of novelist Salman Rushdie even before Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini issued his infamous fatwa. Inline sub2 Earlier this year, I watched the British brouhaha over my friend Maajid Nawaz, the prospective Liberal Democrat candidate for Kilburn and co-founder of the counter-extremism outfit Quilliam. Nawaz had tweeted a cartoon called Jesus and Mo. Jesus to Mo: ‘Hey!’ Mo: ‘How ya doing?’ The end. That was it. Two top-tier prophets swapping props. The problem for some Muslims is that, according to tradition, Muhammad cannot be depicted in image lest he become an object of worship. But by insisting that he cannot be drawn under any circumstances, these Muslims make the prophet off-limits to anyone who does not believe as they do. They thus turn Mo into, well, an object of worship. It leaves a lot of us wondering what, if anything, has been learned since the Danish cartoons fiasco eight years ago. Then, you will recall, a handful of journalists, politicians, diplomats and mullahs in Denmark engineered an epic cultural crisis. Months earlier, the newspaper Jyllands-Posten had published images that supposedly mocked the Prophet Muhammad. Even after the paper apologised, the controversy grew. In different parts of the world, Muslims who rioted against Danish insensitivity silenced the more reasonable voices within their faith. At the time, I received a lot of emails, mostly from young Muslims. ‘I am even more offended by the riots than by the cartoons!’ exclaimed Mahmood, a student whose reaction typified many others’. Fed up with one upheaval after another, the Muslims who contacted me channelled their frustration into an urgent sense that Muslims need to reform ourselves.

Continued ...

Continued ...
Quote:

The question is simple: can Islam be reconciled with free expression? The answer is yes. The Qur’an points out that there will always be nonbelievers and that it is for God, not for Muslims, to deal with them: ‘The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills — let him believe; and whoever wills — let him disbelieve.’ (18:29). Moreover, the Qur’an states that there should ‘no compulsion in religion’. (2:256). Nobody should be forced to treat tradition as untouchable, including traditions that result in the messed-up Muslim habit of equating our very human prophet with an inviolable idol. Monotheists are to revere one God, not one of God’s emissaries. That is why humility requires people of faith to lampoon themselves, and each other, once in a while. I can hear the reaction already: as a reformist, I am cherry-picking verses from the Qur’an. Given that the call for reflection suffuses the Qur’an, I am on terra firma in highlighting such little-known verses. It is my detractors who select on the shaky grounds of their own politics. After all, they ignore progressive Qur’anic passages, another one being about the liberty to choose one’s faith: ‘Unto you your religion, unto me my religion’ (109:6). While serving as grand mufti of Egypt, Sheikh Ali Gomaa quoted it to conclude that if a Muslim leaves Islam, no power in this earthly realm has the right to punish him or her. The verdict shocked Muslims in Egypt and beyond. Cultural conditioning dies hard. That raises a new question. When Islam’s beloved messenger is satirised, should Muslims sit there and take it? Our scripture recommends that we cordially walk away from those who ridicule the faith. It also advises that we remain open towards the offenders. Pack up in peace, then pick up the conversation once the dust settles. Granted, this is not Socrates’ approach to dialogue — relentless, remorseless cross-examination — but neither does there have to be the unctuous exchange of platitudes that so often passes for interfaith dialogue. During the Danish firestorm, the Muslims who contacted me demonstrated that we do not think uniformly. Some even challenged me to plaster the cartoons on my own website. After much consideration (as encouraged by the Qur’an), I posted links to all the caricatures. Among them were sketches depicting Muhammad as a paedophile and as a pig — images which had been fabricated by ultra-conservative Danish imams who falsely attributed them to Jyllands-Posten. Hours after I uploaded the links, several readers emailed me in trepidation. Lise, a woman from Quebec, captured the sense of fear. ‘I am very happy that Canada does not publish these caricatures,’ she said. ‘We do not need the Islamic reaction.’ I agree. We do not need the Islamic reaction. We need diverse Islamic reactions: applause, revulsion, dismissal, embarrassment, nonviolent protest and peals of laughter. The time has come for more of us, Muslim and non-Muslim, to hold the would-be censors to account by demonstrating moral courage. During my book tours, a pattern has emerged: on the campuses of western universities, good-hearted people whisper that they support my mission to reconcile Islam and freedom. Muslims fear community disapproval. Non-Muslims are terrified of being labelled bigots. Meanwhile, the Islam-supremacists who attend my lectures feel they have every right to champion their authoritarian interpretations of the Qur’an. The loathers of freedom appreciate their own freedom enough to deploy it to stifle the freedom of everyone else. My call for moral courage is not about confrontation, but conversation. Ed Husain, the former jihadist who co-founded Quilliam, says he became radicalised in part by British society’s low expectations of him as a young Muslim. ‘Nobody ever said: you’re equal to us, you’re one of us, we’ll hold you to the same standards,’ he explains. ‘Nobody had the courage to stand up for liberal democracy without qualms. When people like us were holding events against women and gay people, where were our college principals and teachers?’ Those educators would only have needed to cite chapter 3, verse 7 of the Qur’an. It states that God and God alone knows the full truth of how the Qur’an ought to be interpreted. (The genius of this verse soon dawns on those who try refuting it with their seemingly superior knowledge.) Suppose the defenders of liberal democracy took five seconds to scrawl ‘Qur’an 3:7’ on pieces of paper and calmly handed them to the Islamists in their midst? No doubt, any such gesture will be greeted with the cry of ‘Islamophobe!’ You can set your clock to it. The obvious response to that is: ‘Why does encouraging dialogue make me an Islamophobe? Would I not be keeping my distance — out of fear — if I were phobic?’ Conversations start with searching questions. This brings me to sound one cautionary note. Islamophobia does exist, and it infuriates me that some who wish to wipe Islam off the map actually believe that their agenda helps reformist Muslims. It does not. By defining Islam in the same dogmatic terms as Muslim extremists do, Islamophobes gift those extremists with the authority to decide what Islam must be. In which case, Islam-haters are the allies of Islam-supremacists — not of reformists.

Continued ...

Thank you Oktema  :)

Continued ...
Quote:

For me, embracing freedom is an act of faith. Recognising the Almighty’s infinite wisdom means acknowledging my limited human wisdom. As a monotheist, I am not God. Nor am I entitled to behave as God. Hence my duty to let a thousand nonviolent flowers bloom. In short, to devote myself to Allah is to love liberty. Irshad Manji is founder of the Moral Courage Project at New York University. She is the author most recently of Allah, Liberty and Love. This article first appeared in the print edition of The Spectator magazine, dated 29 March 2014 Tags: freedom of expression, Islam, Maajid Nawaz, Mehdi Hasan, Religion

I've often wondered what you are left with once you take away all the nasty bits. For some reason the Muslims here have only ever given vague platitudes, going little beyond "Muhammed said to be nice to people". For example - if you beat your wife, you are not the nicest person. Or, it is a good thing to free slaves. The difficulty I see with this is that there are so many specific examples of Muhammed going against the vague but good principles, and none of him standing up for them with any sort of consistency. Any noble principle can only be fully understood with examples of people carrying them out, not just when it is convenient to do so, but most importantly when the personal cost of sticking to your principles is high. To me this seems like an insurmountable barrier to a progressive reclamation of Islam.

freediver wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 7:50pm:

I've often wondered what you are left with once you take away all the nasty bits. For some reason the Muslims here have only ever given vague platitudes, going little beyond "Muhammed said to be nice to people". For example - if you beat your wife, you are not the nicest person. Or, it is a good thing to free slaves. The difficulty I see with this is that there are so many specific examples of Muhammed going against the vague but good principles, and none of him standing up for them with any sort of consistency. Any noble principle can only be fully understood with examples of people carrying them out, not just when it is convenient to do so, but most importantly when the personal cost of sticking to your principles is high. To me this seems like an insurmountable barrier to a progressive reclamation of Islam.

I think this is a good point.  There is submission in Islam, but no sacrifice.

Principles do not come into it, only conformity with prescribed/proscribed performance. What you think does not matter. What you perform - say, do - that's all that matters. That is why there is no freedom of conscience in a religion called Submission.

freediver wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 7:50pm:

I've often wondered what you are left with once you take away all the nasty bits. For some reason the Muslims here have only ever given vague platitudes, going little beyond "Muhammed said to be nice to people". For example - if you beat your wife, you are not the nicest person. Or, it is a good thing to free slaves. The difficulty I see with this is that there are so many specific examples of Muhammed going against the vague but good principles, and none of him standing up for them with any sort of consistency. .

There is some truth to this, FD, but I can’t think of one prophet in the Judeo-Christian tradition who was written as perfect.

Just as the Greco Roman gods were far from perfect. More accurately, they were flawed.

Islam is not about Muhammed, it’s about Allah. All those rules about prohibiting Muhammed’s image are to avoid deification - Islam’s charge against Christianity.

Prophets are flawed, as we all are. If they’re not, they should be.

Muhammed is not the only prophet of Allah, but Allah is the only God. God has many prophets - Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, Abraham, etc, etc, etc. This is the teaching of Islam.

If Muslims don’t understand this, it’s not Allah’s problem. There were prophets before, and there will be prophets again.

Many Muslims do understand this. These,are spiritual issues, not legal or political ones. Simplicity, humility and charity are not just political virtues. These values bring people closer to what lies within them - what some call God.

This is what Islam is. This is what Christianity is. This is what every spiritual tradition ultimately is.

If you don’t understand it, submit your intellect to a new way of seeing. Many spend lifetimes doing this, and some are Muslims.

There are many books, but Allah is only found in silence - this is the teaching of Islam.

All else is just a giggle.

Five pillars of Islam:
Shahadah: declaring there is no god except God, and Muhammad is God's Messenger
Salat: ritual prayer five times a day
Sawm: fasting and self-control during the blessed month of Ramadan
Zakat: giving 2.5% of one’s savings to the poor and needy
Hajj: pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in a lifetime if he/she is able to

I see nothing spiritual. It's all performance.



Christianity:
Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?
And He said to him, "'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.'…
The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOUR AS YOURSELF.'
All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.

Love. Hmm. Not a performance but something in the heart.


I see no overlap whatsoever.

Quote:

Islam is not about Muhammed, it’s about Allah.

Oh. Silly me. Silly Muslims.


Quote:

God has many prophets - Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, Abraham, etc, etc, etc. This is the teaching of Islam.

I think it leaves out the eastern religions.


Quote:

If Muslims don’t understand this, it’s not Allah’s problem. There were prophets before, and there will be prophets again.

I don't think Islam teaches that either.


Quote:

This is what Islam is. This is what Christianity is. This is what every spiritual tradition ultimately is.

Except that Islam is also a legal and political tradition. When Muhammed consulted Allah and withdrew his ban on wife beating, it was not a statement of spirituality. It was a statement of law, direct from Allah.

Quote:

Those educators would only have needed to cite chapter 3, verse 7 of the Qur’an. It states that God and God alone knows the full truth of how the Qur’an ought to be interpreted. (The genius of this verse soon dawns on those who try refuting it with their seemingly superior knowledge.) Suppose the defenders of liberal democracy took five seconds to scrawl ‘Qur’an 3:7’ on pieces of paper and calmly handed them to the Islamists in their midst? No doubt, any such gesture will be greeted with the cry of ‘Islamophobe!’ You can set your clock to it. The obvious response to that is: ‘Why does encouraging dialogue make me an Islamophobe? Would I not be keeping my distance — out of fear — if I were phobic?’ Conversations start with searching questions.

You can't have a conversation with people who want to kill you for thinking differently.

Otherwise lovely idea.

The bottom line - the reasonable Muslims have ceded the field to the murderous jihadist because they are, like everyone else, afraid of them. The reasonable Muslims ARE the weak horse, the cowards, the people who are ultimately responsible for Islam's reputation.

If these reasonable Muslims are indeed the majority of Muslims which is by no means assured.

How would anyone know??

freediver wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 9:36pm:

Quote: Islam is not about Muhammed, it’s about Allah. Oh. Silly me. Silly Muslims. [quote]God has many prophets - Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, Abraham, etc, etc, etc. This is the teaching of Islam.

I think it leaves out the eastern religions.


Quote:

If Muslims don’t understand this, it’s not Allah’s problem. There were prophets before, and there will be prophets again.

I don't think Islam teaches that either.


Quote:

This is what Islam is. This is what Christianity is. This is what every spiritual tradition ultimately is.

Except that Islam is also a legal and political tradition. When Muhammed consulted Allah and withdrew his ban on wife beating, it was not a statement of spirituality. It was a statement of law, direct from Allah. [/quote]

Islam teaches all those things I’ve mentioned. Read Persian poetry, hear Sufi singing, see the carvings, architecture and ceramics of the Moors.

The law from Allah, as in the Bible, comes from.disciplined self study and patience. These laws are only revealled through wisdom.

Islam is much less legalistic than other traditions, including Hinduism and Medieval Catholicism. Islam, like every other religious tradition we know, has changed from time to time and place to place.

You see? Always, absolutely, never ever. Times, people - and prophets - change. Islamic cosmology speaks of an ever-increasing complexity in the universe. Of course laws change.

According to Islam, only Allah doesn’t change.

Quote:

Islam teaches all those things I’ve mentioned. Read Persian poetry, hear Sufi singing, see the carvings, architecture and ceramics of the Moors.

Great. Pottery and wife beating. But the pottery is really nice.


Quote:

The law from Allah, as in the Bible, comes from.disciplined self study and patience. These laws are only revealled through wisdom.

No Karnal. Muhammed asked Allah. Allah said it is OK to beat your wife. That is how the law was revealed. No amount of studying can change that.


Quote:

Islam is much less legalistic than other traditions, including Hinduism and Medieval Catholicism. Islam, like every other religious tradition we know, has changed from time to time and place to place.

You might as well insist Islam does not exist.


Quote:

Times, people - and prophets - change.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Muslims are not going to reinvent Muhammed himself. The best they can do is "re-interpret" what they have, but this is always limited by the reality of Muhammed and the Koran. There is only so much you can polish a turd.

Soren wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 9:35pm:

Five pillars of Islam: Shahadah: declaring there is no god except God, and Muhammad is God's Messenger Salat: ritual prayer five times a day Sawm: fasting and self-control during the blessed month of Ramadan Zakat: giving 2.5% of one’s savings to the poor and needy Hajj: pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in a lifetime if he/she is able to I see nothing spiritual. It's all performance.

You don’t look for anything spiritual. What do you expect?

Mormor’s panties hanging on the line?

The aim of all that praying and submitting is spiritual awakening.

As a Freudian, of course, you won’t understand this. Where there was id, there shall Mormor’s skidmarks be.

freediver wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 10:00pm:

Quote: Islam teaches all those things I’ve mentioned. Read Persian poetry, hear Sufi singing, see the carvings, architecture and ceramics of the Moors. Great. Pottery and wife beating. But the pottery is really nice. [quote]The law from Allah, as in the Bible, comes from.disciplined self study and patience. These laws are only revealled through wisdom.

No Karnal. Muhammed asked Allah. Allah said it is OK to beat your wife. That is how the law was revealed. No amount of studying can change that.


Quote:

Islam is much less legalistic than other traditions, including Hinduism and Medieval Catholicism. Islam, like every other religious tradition we know, has changed from time to time and place to place.

You might as well insist Islam does not exist.


Quote:

Times, people - and prophets - change.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Muslims are not going to reinvent Muhammed himself. The best they can do is "re-interpret" what they have, but this is always limited by the reality of Muhammed and the Koran. There is only so much you can polish a turd.[/quote]

You’ve clearly done some reading on this, FD.

Abu and Falah, was it?

Karnal wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 9:54pm:

[quote author=freediver link=1396356294/20#20 date=1396438576] Islam is much less legalistic than other traditions, including Hinduism and Medieval Catholicism.

Funny. Who was speaking out of Hinduism or Medieval Christianity on any of these threads?

Islam is infinitely more legalistic than modern Christianity of secularism or humanism. It is even more legalistic than orthodox Judaism not to mention reformed Judaism. It is beaten only by ultra-orthodox Judaism.

Sufis are persecuted and killed in most Muslim countries, Mother Pakistan once again at the forefront. Spiritual Islam, innit.


PB, you are talking pap (when you are not talking gibberish, that is).

Karnal wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 10:02pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 9:35pm: Five pillars of Islam: Shahadah: declaring there is no god except God, and Muhammad is God's Messenger Salat: ritual prayer five times a day Sawm: fasting and self-control during the blessed month of Ramadan Zakat: giving 2.5% of one’s savings to the poor and needy Hajj: pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in a lifetime if he/she is able to I see nothing spiritual. It's all performance. You don’t look for anything spiritual. What do you expect? Mormor’s panties hanging on the line? The aim of all that praying and submitting is spiritual awakening. As a Freudian, of course, you won’t understand this. Where there was Mormor’s skidmarks, there shall ego be.

Point us to the spiritual passages (ahem) of the Koran, will ya?


I have pointed you to the core of Christianity, as spelled out by it's founder. Show us the spiritual core of Islam as spelled out by Mohammed.

Ta.

Soren wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 10:13pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 9:54pm: [quote author=freediver link=1396356294/20#20 date=1396438576] Islam is much less legalistic than other traditions, including Hinduism and Medieval Catholicism. Funny. Who was speaking out of Hinduism or Medieval Christianity on any of these threads? Islam is infinitely more legalistic than modern Christianity of secularism or humanism. It is even more legalistic than orthodox Judaism not to mention reformed Judaism. It is beaten only by ultra-orthodox Judaism. Sufis are persecuted and killed in most Muslim countries, Mother Pakistan once again at the forefront. Spiritual Islam, innit. PB, you are talking pap (when you are not talking gibberish, that is).

Plop.

Sufis have, in times past, been in the ascendant. Fundamentalist Islam is no better than fundamentalist Christianity or ultra-Orthodox Judaism.

I wouldn’t stick my neck out for Inquisitors, Zealots or the Taliban.

This doesn’t make one quarter of the world’s population intrinsically better than another quarter. Islam is about submission to the same God as the rest of humanity - not the deification of a prophet.

There is no way you can pretend anything otherwise. I have met a few fundamentalist Muslims, and even they stipulated the above. There is no God but God - that’s the faith.

Do with this what you will.

Soren wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 10:16pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 10:02pm: Soren wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 9:35pm: Five pillars of Islam: Shahadah: declaring there is no god except God, and Muhammad is God's Messenger Salat: ritual prayer five times a day Sawm: fasting and self-control during the blessed month of Ramadan Zakat: giving 2.5% of one’s savings to the poor and needy Hajj: pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in a lifetime if he/she is able to I see nothing spiritual. It's all performance. You don’t look for anything spiritual. What do you expect? Mormor’s panties hanging on the line? The aim of all that praying and submitting is spiritual awakening. As a Freudian, of course, you won’t understand this. Where there was Mormor’s skidmarks, there shall ego be. Point us to the spiritual passages (ahem) of the Koran, will ya?

Will you wank me off in return?

Personally, I haven’t read anything in the Koran that’s sung to me personally, so don’t ask me about the Koran.

Read it yourself.

Soren wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 9:35pm:

Christianity: Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law? And He said to him, "'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.'… The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOUR AS YOURSELF.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments. Love. Hmm. Not a performance but something in the heart. I see no overlap whatsoever.

It’s a good point. The question for Jesus, however, is how to cultivate and spread love. You need practice and discipline to do this. As a parent, you would understand this. Love requires a vessel.

Love requires wisdom.

People turn to different religions for different reasons. The Dali Lama says that doctors do not prescribe the same medicine for every illness, and nor does he tell people which religion - or not - to follow.  Each religion works differently, as it should.

Islam is not a political movement. Its social-political theory is there to support spiritual development.

People, however, forget this. Christians all too easily forget the law of love. People focus on the mundane laws. We struggle.

Spreading division and finding fault with others are a symptom of this struggle.

Allah Uakbar.

Karnal wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2014 at 7:41am:

Islam is not a political movement. Its social-political theory is there to support spiritual development.

I see no spiritual development here:
Shahadah: declaring there is no god except God, and Muhammad is God's Messenger
Salat: ritual prayer five times a day
Sawm: fasting and self-control during the blessed month of Ramadan
Zakat: giving 2.5% of one’s savings to the poor and needy
Hajj: pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in a lifetime if he/she is able to.

Nobody inquires after your 'spiritual development' as long as you can wear your spirituality on your sleeve. As long as you do the  Macarena, sorry, the ritual actys expected of you, you are fine.

Remember, there is no pleasing Allah. Your spiritual state is as important to Allah as it would be to Attila the Hun or Genghis Khan or any other oriental potentate/demigod/cheese mechant.

You are projecting wishful thinking with all this 'spiritual development' stuff. "Behead all who insult the prophet" - very Muslim, very demonstrative.  Never stuck in any imam's or sheikh's 'spiritual development craw: never heard any imam or sheik put a fatwah or declare spiritual jihad on those fellas.

But plenty of fatwahs and non-spiritual jihad against authors, cartoonists, critics of Islam and believers on a slightly different interpretation of Islam.



You are, once again, talking crap, PB.

Quote:

....Allah is only found in silence - this is the teaching of Islam.

You are lying Karnal.

You are trying to deceive, those who are naive, and those who are uninformed, ....about the nature of ISLAM.

You are misrepresenting the nature of ISLAM to us.





Why don't you declare yourself, K ?

You seem, and sound, like a moslem to me.

Dictionary;
dissimulate = = hide or disguise one’s thoughts or feelings.






Karnal wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 9:18pm:

Islam is not about Muhammed, it’s about Allah. All those rules about prohibiting Muhammed’s image are to avoid deification - Islam’s charge against Christianity. Prophets are flawed, as we all are. If they’re not, they should be. Muhammed is not the only prophet of Allah, but Allah is the only God. God has many prophets - Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, Abraham, etc, etc, etc. This is the teaching of Islam. If Muslims don’t understand this, it’s not Allah’s problem. There were prophets before, and there will be prophets again. Many Muslims do understand this. These,are spiritual issues, not legal or political ones. Simplicity, humility and charity are not just political virtues. These values bring people closer to what lies within them - what some call God. This is what Islam is. This is what Christianity is. This is what every spiritual tradition ultimately is. If you don’t understand it, submit your intellect to a new way of seeing. Many spend lifetimes doing this, and some are Muslims. There are many books, but Allah is only found in silence - this is the teaching of Islam. All else is just a giggle.

^^^^^
<-------

LIES, from K.




"I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "The example of a Mujahid [religious fighter] in Allah's Cause-- and Allah knows better who really strives in His Cause----is like a person who fasts and prays continuously. Allah guarantees that He will admit the Mujahid in His Cause into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty." "
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.046

i.e.
Muhammad is reported as saying that for a moslem, religious fighting, is the same as a religious devotion.
Jihad [religious fighting], is as if a muslim 'fasts and prays continuously'.

And Allah guarantees that a Mujahid [religious fighter] will enter Paradise, if he is killed.

AS PER THIS KORAN VERSE;

"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain:...."
Koran 9.111






+++


FIGHTING -

Allah's 'cause', is;

"To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause." "....

"O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger, and make not vain your deeds!
Those who reject Allah, and hinder (men) from the Path of Allah, then die rejecting Allah,- Allah will not forgive them.
Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost: for Allah is with you, and will never put you in loss for your (good) deeds."
Koran 47:33-35



HADITH....

"A man came to the Prophet and asked, "A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off; which of them fights in Allah's Cause?" The Prophet said, "He who fights that Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause." "
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.065
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.080i

n.b.
......"He who fights that Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause."



"Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause." "
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #001.002.026

Soren wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2014 at 4:17pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2014 at 7:41am: Islam is not a political movement. Its social-political theory is there to support spiritual development. I see no spiritual development here: Shahadah: declaring there is no god except God, and Muhammad is God's Messenger Salat: ritual prayer five times a day Sawm: fasting and self-control during the blessed month of Ramadan Zakat: giving 2.5% of one’s savings to the poor and needy Hajj: pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in a lifetime if he/she is able to. Nobody inquires after your 'spiritual development' as long as you can wear your spirituality on your sleeve. As long as you do the  Macarena, sorry, the ritual actys expected of you, you are fine. Remember, there is no pleasing Allah. Your spiritual state is as important to Allah as it would be to Attila the Hun or Genghis Khan or any other oriental potentate/demigod/cheese mechant. You are projecting wishful thinking with all this 'spiritual development' stuff. "Behead all who insult the prophet" - very Muslim, very demonstrative.  Never stuck in any imam's or sheikh's 'spiritual development craw: never heard any imam or sheik put a fatwah or declare spiritual jihad on those fellas. But plenty of fatwahs and non-spiritual jihad against authors, cartoonists, critics of Islam and believers on a slightly different interpretation of Islam. You are, once again, talking crap, PB.

This, dear boy, is what you get when you have no knowledge of the people and the community you’re discussing. This is what you get when all your knowledge on a subject comes solely from the Daily Tele and Punch magazine.

Muslims I have known refer to spirituality constantly - not obedience, not loyalty, not piousness. When they referred to this or that person as "spiritual", they meant he was a quiet, devotional and intelligent person. He was also selfless and considerate.

And a male - I never heard of a female being described by Muslims in spiritual terms.

This is your schtick - I get that. But you really need to get out more. You Freudians are rather chair-bound, no?

Lucky you cater more to the patient’s stool than his spiritual needs.

Miam miam.

Yadda wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2014 at 5:38pm:

Quote: ....Allah is only found in silence - this is the teaching of Islam. You are lying Karnal. You are trying to deceive, those who are naive, and those who are uninformed, ....about the nature of ISLAM. You are misrepresenting the nature of ISLAM to us. Why don't you declare yourself, K ? You seem, and sound, like a moslem to me. Dictionary; dissimulate = = hide or disguise one’s thoughts or feelings. Karnal wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 9:18pm: Islam is not about Muhammed, it’s about Allah. All those rules about prohibiting Muhammed’s image are to avoid deification - Islam’s charge against Christianity. Prophets are flawed, as we all are. If they’re not, they should be. Muhammed is not the only prophet of Allah, but Allah is the only God. God has many prophets - Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, Abraham, etc, etc, etc. This is the teaching of Islam. If Muslims don’t understand this, it’s not Allah’s problem. There were prophets before, and there will be prophets again. Many Muslims do understand this. These,are spiritual issues, not legal or political ones. Simplicity, humility and charity are not just political virtues. These values bring people closer to what lies within them - what some call God. This is what Islam is. This is what Christianity is. This is what every spiritual tradition ultimately is. If you don’t understand it, submit your intellect to a new way of seeing. Many spend lifetimes doing this, and some are Muslims. There are many books, but Allah is only found in silence - this is the teaching of Islam. All else is just a giggle. ^^^^^ <------- LIES, from K. "I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "The example of a Mujahid [religious fighter] in Allah's Cause-- and Allah knows better who really strives in His Cause----is like a person who fasts and prays continuously. Allah guarantees that He will admit the Mujahid in His Cause into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty." " hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.046 i.e. Muhammad is reported as saying that for a moslem, religious fighting, is the same as a religious devotion. Jihad [religious fighting], is as if a muslim 'fasts and prays continuously'. And Allah guarantees that a Mujahid [religious fighter] will enter Paradise, if he is killed. AS PER THIS KORAN VERSE; "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain:...." Koran 9.111 +++ FIGHTING - Allah's 'cause', is; "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause." ".... "O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger, and make not vain your deeds! Those who reject Allah, and hinder (men) from the Path of Allah, then die rejecting Allah,- Allah will not forgive them. Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost: for Allah is with you, and will never put you in loss for your (good) deeds." Koran 47:33-35 HADITH.... "A man came to the Prophet and asked, "A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off; which of them fights in Allah's Cause?" The Prophet said, "He who fights that Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause." " hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.065 hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.080i n.b. ......"He who fights that Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause." "Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause." " hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #001.002.026

Google Taqiyya.

Karnal.....

Quote:

....Allah is only found in silence - this is the teaching of Islam.

You are lying Karnal.


Allah is only found, in dying for Allah - this is the teaching of Islam.



"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain:...."
Koran 9.111

Karnal wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 10:33pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 10:16pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 10:02pm: Soren wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 9:35pm: Five pillars of Islam: Shahadah: declaring there is no god except God, and Muhammad is God's Messenger Salat: ritual prayer five times a day Sawm: fasting and self-control during the blessed month of Ramadan Zakat: giving 2.5% of one’s savings to the poor and needy Hajj: pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in a lifetime if he/she is able to I see nothing spiritual. It's all performance. You don’t look for anything spiritual. What do you expect? Mormor’s panties hanging on the line? The aim of all that praying and submitting is spiritual awakening. As a Freudian, of course, you won’t understand this. Where there was Mormor’s skidmarks, there shall ego be. Point us to the spiritual passages (ahem) of the Koran, will ya? Personally, I haven’t read anything in the Koran.....

Innit.

The following hadi'th and it's official islamic explanation clearly shows that islam is a cult of killers, and that those muslims who are committing atrocities (today 2014) are the true muslims according to muhammad


Quote:

10. Ibn Umar (رضي الله عنهما) narrates: I heard the Messenger of Allah (صلي الله عليه وسلم) saying, “If you trade in each, and follow the tails of cows, and became content with being farmers, and ignored jihad, Allah will impose on you a humiliation that would not be taken away until you go back to your religion.” (Abu Dawud - Authentic) The meaning of the hadith is that if people ignore jihad because of their involvement in agriculture and similar affairs, Allah (سبحانه وتعالى) will unleash upon them their enemies which would bring them humiliation which cannot be eliminated unless they go back to what is a duty upon them to start with and that is jihad against the non-believers, and being harsh and rough on them, and establishing religion to give Islam and its followers victory and to raise the word of Allah high and to humiliate disbelief and its followers. This hadith shows that leaving jihad is leaving Islam because the Messenger of Allah (صلي الله عليه وسلم) said: “until you go back to your religion.”

islam is a cult of killers that belongs solely to thieves, liars, pedophiles, rapists, torturers and mass murderers. muhammad said so

Karnal wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2014 at 5:44pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 3rd, 2014 at 4:17pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 3rd, 2014 at 7:41am: Islam is not a political movement. Its social-political theory is there to support spiritual development. I see no spiritual development here: Shahadah: declaring there is no god except God, and Muhammad is God's Messenger Salat: ritual prayer five times a day Sawm: fasting and self-control during the blessed month of Ramadan Zakat: giving 2.5% of one’s savings to the poor and needy Hajj: pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in a lifetime if he/she is able to. Nobody inquires after your 'spiritual development' as long as you can wear your spirituality on your sleeve. As long as you do the  Macarena, sorry, the ritual actys expected of you, you are fine. Remember, there is no pleasing Allah. Your spiritual state is as important to Allah as it would be to Attila the Hun or Genghis Khan or any other oriental potentate/demigod/cheese mechant. You are projecting wishful thinking with all this 'spiritual development' stuff. "Behead all who insult the prophet" - very Muslim, very demonstrative.  Never stuck in any imam's or sheikh's 'spiritual development craw: never heard any imam or sheik put a fatwah or declare spiritual jihad on those fellas. But plenty of fatwahs and non-spiritual jihad against authors, cartoonists, critics of Islam and believers on a slightly different interpretation of Islam. You are, once again, talking crap, PB. This, dear boy, is what you get when you have no knowledge of the people and the community you’re discussing.

Do you live in the Middle East cradle of Islam, where folks get the religion? If so, which countries have you lived in and when?


Karnal wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2014 at 5:44pm:

This is what you get when all your knowledge on a subject comes solely from the Daily Tele and Punch magazine. Muslims I have known refer to spirituality constantly - not obedience, not loyalty, not piousness. When they referred to this or that person as "spiritual", they meant he was a quiet, devotional and intelligent person. He was also selfless and considerate. And a male - I never heard of a female being described by Muslims in spiritual terms. This is your schtick - I get that. But you really need to get out more. You Freudians are rather chair-bound, no? Lucky you cater more to the patient’s stool than his spiritual needs. Miam miam.

So there's one important question you need to ask yourself. Who would the ultimate arbiters of Islam would be? Those who ignore what Muhammad commands of his followers through the Quran and Hadith?

Bukhari, V1 B2 #24 Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle.....
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jihad_islamic_terrorism.htm

Those peaceful "hypocrite" people that you describe decide? Or those fundamental followers of Muhammad armed with a beheading knife in one hand, while supported by the Quran and Hadith in their other hand (as you have been shown through the many verses they observe), that disagree with them?
The same ones that have been increasingly on the rise around the world? Or those that don't have the stomach for imperialistic conquest?

Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #216 fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.

"Summarized Sahih Al-Bukhari" - Maktba Dar-us-Salam's page 580
Chapter 2. The best among the people is that believer who strives his utmost in Allah's Cause with both his life and property.
footnotes:
[1] "Al-Jihad (the holy fighting) in Allah's Cause (with full force of number and weaponry) is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars (on which it stands). By Jihad Islam is established, Allah's Word is made superior, [His Word being La ilaha ill-Allah (which means: none has the right to be worshipped but Allah)] and His Religion (Islam) is propagated. By abandoning Jihad (may Allah protect us from that) Islam is destroyed and the Muslims fall into an inferior position; there honour is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim, and he who tries to escape from this duty, or does not in his innermost heart wish to fulfill this duty, dies with one of the qualities of a hypocrite.
[2] Of course, nobody can offer Salat (prayer) and observe Saum (fast) incessantly, and since the Muslim fighter is rewarded as if he was doing such good impossible deeds, no possible deed equals Jihad in reward.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jihad_islamic_terrorism.htm#muslim_hypocrites

The whole notion of the title of this thread is preposterous. "Reclaim Islam" from the faithful, true, fundamental followers of Muhammad, who do as Muhammad did and commanded his followers to do?

ON WHAT BASIS? Muhammad's early Mecca drivel like "no compulsion in religion" that was abrogated by his later suras that call for violence against non-Muslims? Ya right.

Yadda wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2014 at 6:03pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 10:33pm: Soren wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 10:16pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 10:02pm: Soren wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 9:35pm: Five pillars of Islam: Shahadah: declaring there is no god except God, and Muhammad is God's Messenger Salat: ritual prayer five times a day Sawm: fasting and self-control during the blessed month of Ramadan Zakat: giving 2.5% of one’s savings to the poor and needy Hajj: pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in a lifetime if he/she is able to I see nothing spiritual. It's all performance. You don’t look for anything spiritual. What do you expect? Mormor’s panties hanging on the line? The aim of all that praying and submitting is spiritual awakening. As a Freudian, of course, you won’t understand this. Where there was Mormor’s skidmarks, there shall ego be. Point us to the spiritual passages (ahem) of the Koran, will ya? Personally, I haven’t read anything in the Koran..... Innit.

Isn’t it.

Yadda wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2014 at 5:54pm:

Karnal..... Quote: ....Allah is only found in silence - this is the teaching of Islam. You are lying Karnal. Allah is only found, in dying for Allah - this is the teaching of Islam. "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain:...." Koran 9.111

Oh, Y. We’ve had this argument at least 5 times. You do your dying for Allah thing, and I retort with the being born again routine.

Rather ritualistic, wouldn’t you say? 

moses wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2014 at 6:07pm:

The following hadi'th and it's official islamic explanation clearly shows that islam is a cult of killers, and that those muslims who are committing atrocities (today 2014) are the true muslims according to muhammad Quote: 10. Ibn Umar (رضي الله عنهما) narrates: I heard the Messenger of Allah (صلي الله عليه وسلم) saying, “If you trade in each, and follow the tails of cows, and became content with being farmers, and ignored jihad, Allah will impose on you a humiliation that would not be taken away until you go back to your religion.” (Abu Dawud - Authentic) The meaning of the hadith is that if people ignore jihad because of their involvement in agriculture and similar affairs, Allah (سبحانه وتعالى) will unleash upon them their enemies which would bring them humiliation which cannot be eliminated unless they go back to what is a duty upon them to start with and that is jihad against the non-believers, and being harsh and rough on them, and establishing religion to give Islam and its followers victory and to raise the word of Allah high and to humiliate disbelief and its followers. This hadith shows that leaving jihad is leaving Islam because the Messenger of Allah (صلي الله عليه وسلم) said: “until you go back to your religion.” islam is a cult of killers that belongs solely to thieves, liars, pedophiles, rapists, torturers and mass murderers.

.....and Karnal's,   ....and anyone who hates truth.

Now now, Y. Old boy thinks Khristianity has something to do with "love".

Have you ever heard of anything so absurd?

Pete Waldo wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2014 at 6:19pm:

The whole notion of the title of this thread is preposterous.

Exactly so, Pete.


Mainstream ISLAM is an extremist philosophy.

e.g.
A principle doctrine of mainstream ISLAM, calls for the execution of those who leave the ISLAM camp.




FROM THE SUNNA OF MOHAMMED

"...If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him."
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.260i+++

ISLAM;

Any organisation which teaches its members that it is lawful for its own members to kill those outside of its group, should be banned [by an act of the Australian parliament].



Quote:

"....the death of those who are killed for the cause of God gives more impetus to the cause, which continues to thrive on their blood."

ISLAMIC scholar, Sayyid Qutb




A moslem = = is a person who is a member of a group/community of persons, and who embrace a violent political philosophy [which portrays itself as a justice-based 'religious' philosophy], but which encourages intimidation and extreme violence as 'acts of religious faith', against persons who do not believe as they believe.



Who is a moslem ?

Dictionary;
Muslim = = a follower of Islam.


ISLAM should have its 'religion' status stripped from it, and ISLAM, and its practise in Australia should be proscribed [banned] by law.

Why so ?

Because ISLAM is a violent political philosophy [which masquerades as, and portrays itself as, a justice-based 'religious' philosophy].

Because ISLAM is a political philosophy which legitimises [i.e. MAKES LAWFUL!!] political violence against anyone, who oppose the political aspirations of moslems!

Karnal wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 10:05pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 10:00pm: Quote: Islam teaches all those things I’ve mentioned. Read Persian poetry, hear Sufi singing, see the carvings, architecture and ceramics of the Moors. Great. Pottery and wife beating. But the pottery is really nice. [quote]The law from Allah, as in the Bible, comes from.disciplined self study and patience. These laws are only revealled through wisdom. No Karnal. Muhammed asked Allah. Allah said it is OK to beat your wife. That is how the law was revealed. No amount of studying can change that. [quote]Islam is much less legalistic than other traditions, including Hinduism and Medieval Catholicism. Islam, like every other religious tradition we know, has changed from time to time and place to place.

You might as well insist Islam does not exist.


Quote:

Times, people - and prophets - change.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Muslims are not going to reinvent Muhammed himself. The best they can do is "re-interpret" what they have, but this is always limited by the reality of Muhammed and the Koran. There is only so much you can polish a turd.[/quote]

You’ve clearly done some reading on this, FD.

Abu and Falah, was it?
[/quote]

If you think I am wrong on anything, please point it out. I realise you do your best to keep away from facts or anything specific, but you could at least point out what you disagree with.

Yadda wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2014 at 6:58pm:

Quote: "....the death of those who are killed for the cause of God gives more impetus to the cause, which continues to thrive on their blood." ISLAMIC scholar, Sayyid Qutb A moslem = = is a person who is a member of a group/community of persons, and who embrace a violent political philosophy [which portrays itself as a justice-based 'religious' philosophy], but which encourages intimidation and extreme violence as 'acts of religious faith', against persons who do not believe as they believe.

e.g.
In Egypt [in 2013]....

"...'see what they did to us [i.e. 'they', those disbelievers who oppose us]........'
'If you don't give your lives, if you don't become martyrs, then you are betraying your religion......'

They [i.e. MB cadres] are not fighting any more for their political party, they are fighting for their religion"


Cairo journalist describes Egypt's deadly cycle of love and hate                        goto 8m 05s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsKFGAtMXLE




e.g. #2,
AND AS PER;

Quote:

Mild mannered - "We will govern for all Egyptians" - Mohammed Morsi - Ex-President of Egypt "The Koran is our constitution" "The Prophet Muhammad is our leader" "Jihad is our path" "AND DEATH FOR THE SAKE OF ALLAH IS OUR MOST LOFTY ASPIRATION!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8NtiUMOFFg

freediver wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2014 at 6:58pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 10:05pm: freediver wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 10:00pm: Quote: Islam teaches all those things I’ve mentioned. Read Persian poetry, hear Sufi singing, see the carvings, architecture and ceramics of the Moors. Great. Pottery and wife beating. But the pottery is really nice. [quote]The law from Allah, as in the Bible, comes from.disciplined self study and patience. These laws are only revealled through wisdom. No Karnal. Muhammed asked Allah. Allah said it is OK to beat your wife. That is how the law was revealed. No amount of studying can change that. [quote]Islam is much less legalistic than other traditions, including Hinduism and Medieval Catholicism. Islam, like every other religious tradition we know, has changed from time to time and place to place. You might as well insist Islam does not exist. [quote]Times, people - and prophets - change.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Muslims are not going to reinvent Muhammed himself. The best they can do is "re-interpret" what they have, but this is always limited by the reality of Muhammed and the Koran. There is only so much you can polish a turd.[/quote]

You’ve clearly done some reading on this, FD.

Abu and Falah, was it?
[/quote]

If you think I am wrong on anything, please point it out. I realise you do your best to keep away from facts or anything specific[/quote]

Do I?

I’m sorry, FD. Please point out where I’ve avoided facts or anything specific.

Quote:

This doesn’t make one quarter of the world’s population intrinsically better than another quarter. Islam is about submission to the same God as the rest of humanity - not the deification of a prophet.

On what basis do you assert that it is the same God? The submission takes the form of actions, including a whole swathe of political and legal rulings. Waving your arms round and insisting there is a spiritual basis hidden in there somewhere is hardly a robust argument that Islam is less legalistic. Claiming that the rules and laws come from God, one God, with Muhammed as his prophet does not mean it isn't legalistic. It means that Islam places those rules and laws beyond question.


Quote:

It’s a good point. The question for Jesus, however, is how to cultivate and spread love. You need practice and discipline to do this. As a parent, you would understand this. Love requires a vessel. Love requires wisdom.

Not tapping your head on the ground 25 times a day?


Quote:

People turn to different religions for different reasons. The Dali Lama says that doctors do not prescribe the same medicine for every illness, and nor does he tell people which religion - or not - to follow.  Each religion works differently, as it should.

Is this where you get the thing about Islam being the same religion as all other religions? The Dalai Lama said so, therefor Islam is no different to other religions, therefor we must apologise profusely for it at every opportunity and use whatever mental gymnastics we can to equate Islam with other religions?


Quote:

Islam is not a political movement. Its social-political theory is there to support spiritual development.

Great. It's legalistic because Muhammed saw law as a way to impose religion on everyone (as opposed to say, using religion as a way to impose his law on everyone, which would be completely different....). Therefor Islam isn't legalistic. It just happens to rely on law and politics more than any other religion.


Quote:

People, however, forget this.

Forget what? That Muslims use religion as a cover for oppressive political ideologies?


Quote:

Spreading division and finding fault with others are a symptom of this struggle.

Criticising Islam is a symptom of the struggle to defend liberty, democracy and humanity from Islam. This is perfectly healthy, yet you seem desperate to twist it into some stupid Freudian malaise.


Quote:

This, dear boy, is what you get when you have no knowledge of the people and the community you’re discussing.

Perhaps he is talking about Islam. It is possible to talk about Islam, you know. It does exist.

wally1 wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 10:34am:

Irshad manji has little support in the Muslim community cause she is lesbian trying to make herself some female Islamic hero.

Ah.

All is explained.

Karnal wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 10:05pm:

If you think I am wrong on anything, please point it out. I realise you do your best to keep away from facts or anything specific, but you could at least point out what you disagree with.

Why don't you try taking a shot at a detailed reply to my post you ignored?
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1396356294/38#38

Soren wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 10:44pm:

It's time to reclaim Islam from the fanatics. Here's how Can my religion be reconciled with free expression? The answer is yes.

Guffaw, guffaw, guffaw, peals of laughter.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/blasphemy_laws.htm

The following lists the penalty for "blasphemy" in some OIC member States in the Middle East cradle of Muhammadanism, like discussing Muhammad as he is revealed thorough Islam's own books, or what we in the west used to know as free speech. A small sampling of Islamic countries' penalty for "blasphemy":

Afghanistan (member OIC) - death penalty
Algeria (member OIC) - 10 years of imprisonment and a fine
Bangladesh - so far, "Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina rejected calls for new laws.....demanding death penalty for people involved in blasphemy."
Egypt (member OIC) - death penalty
Kuwait (member OIC) - death penalty
Malaysia - up to 3 years in prison
Nigeria - "Nigeria prohibits blasphemy by section 204 of its Criminal Code and by permitting Sharia courts to operate in some states.[52][53] Vigilantism frequently usurps the jurisdiction of the courts.[54]"
Pakistan (member OIC) - death penalty
Saudi Arabia (member OIC) - death penalty
Sudan (member OIC) - imprisonment, a fine (up to 8 million Sudanese pounds for having sold a book), and a maximum of forty lashes
Turkey (member OIC) - 1-3 years
UAE (member OIC) - up to the judge, but based on what they do to tourists that are victims of rape.....
Yemen (member OIC) - death penalty

Muhammadanism has always been the very antitheses of freedom, liberty and the right to self-determination.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/islamic_slavery_dhimmitude.htm

freediver wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2014 at 7:18pm:

Quote: This doesn’t make one quarter of the world’s population intrinsically better than another quarter. Islam is about submission to the same God as the rest of humanity - not the deification of a prophet. On what basis do you assert that it is the same God? The submission takes the form of actions, including a whole swathe of political and legal rulings. Waving your arms round and insisting there is a spiritual basis hidden in there somewhere is hardly a robust argument that Islam is less legalistic. Claiming that the rules and laws come from God, one God, with Muhammed as his prophet does not mean it isn't legalistic. It means that Islam places those rules and laws beyond question. [quote]It’s a good point. The question for Jesus, however, is how to cultivate and spread love. You need practice and discipline to do this. As a parent, you would understand this. Love requires a vessel. Love requires wisdom.

Not tapping your head on the ground 25 times a day?


Quote:

People turn to different religions for different reasons. The Dali Lama says that doctors do not prescribe the same medicine for every illness, and nor does he tell people which religion - or not - to follow.  Each religion works differently, as it should.

Is this where you get the thing about Islam being the same religion as all other religions? The Dalai Lama said so, therefor Islam is no different to other religions, therefor we must apologise profusely for it at every opportunity and use whatever mental gymnastics we can to equate Islam with other religions?


Quote:

Islam is not a political movement. Its social-political theory is there to support spiritual development.

Great. It's legalistic because Muhammed saw law as a way to impose religion on everyone (as opposed to say, using religion as a way to impose his law on everyone, which would be completely different....). Therefor Islam isn't legalistic. It just happens to rely on law and politics more than any other religion.


Quote:

People, however, forget this.

Forget what? That Muslims use religion as a cover for oppressive political ideologies?


Quote:

Spreading division and finding fault with others are a symptom of this struggle.

Criticising Islam is a symptom of the struggle to defend liberty, democracy and humanity from Islam. This is perfectly healthy, yet you seem desperate to twist it into some stupid Freudian malaise.


Quote:

This, dear boy, is what you get when you have no knowledge of the people and the community you’re discussing.

Perhaps he is talking about Islam. It is possible to talk about Islam, you know. It does exist.[/quote]

Does it?

What do you know about it?

Pete Waldo wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2014 at 7:44pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 10:44pm: It's time to reclaim Islam from the fanatics. Here's how Can my religion be reconciled with free expression? The answer is yes. Guffaw, guffaw, guffaw, peals of laughter. http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/blasphemy_laws.htm The following lists the penalty for "blasphemy" in some OIC member States in the Middle East cradle of Muhammadanism, like discussing Muhammad as he is revealed thorough Islam's own books, or what we in the west used to know as free speech. A small sampling of Islamic countries' penalty for "blasphemy": Afghanistan (member OIC) - death penalty Algeria (member OIC) - 10 years of imprisonment and a fine Bangladesh - so far, "Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina rejected calls for new laws.....demanding death penalty for people involved in blasphemy." Egypt (member OIC) - death penalty Kuwait (member OIC) - death penalty Malaysia - up to 3 years in prison Nigeria - "Nigeria prohibits blasphemy by section 204 of its Criminal Code and by permitting Sharia courts to operate in some states.[52][53] Vigilantism frequently usurps the jurisdiction of the courts.[54]" Pakistan (member OIC) - death penalty Saudi Arabia (member OIC) - death penalty Sudan (member OIC) - imprisonment, a fine (up to 8 million Sudanese pounds for having sold a book), and a maximum of forty lashes Turkey (member OIC) - 1-3 years UAE (member OIC) - up to the judge, but based on what they do to tourists that are victims of rape..... Yemen (member OIC) - death penalty Muhammadanism has always been the very antitheses of freedom, liberty and the right to self-determination. http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/islamic_slavery_dhimmitude.htm

Firstly, it is very hurtful and insensitive of you to point out such things. (cuddly, emotional tack)

Secondly, as every schoolboy knows, Muslim countries have nuffin' to do wiv nuffin' relating to Islam or Mohammed. It's all Great Satan and Joooo propaganda to say otherwise. Not to mention Islamophobic. (scholarly, agit-prop tack)

Thirdly, you have been warned, infidel. (the all-too-well known and familiar seething/menacing tack)

Fanatical or not ?

Moh - "If someone changes their religion, kill them."

My vote - fanatic #1

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2014 at 8:46pm:

Fanatical or not ? Moh - "If someone changes their religion, kill them." My vote - fanatic #1

Who...... errrr ..... whose alter-ego "Allah" ...... was terrorist #1, who set the example for his followers:

Surah 8:12 I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them

Quran 3:21 Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers.....

Qur'an 33:26 "Allah took down the People of the Scripture Book. He cast terror into their hearts. Some you slew, and some you made prisoners. And He made you heirs of their lands, their houses, and their goods, giving you a land which you had not traversed before. And Allah has power over all things."

Muhammad's people cast terror into Yahweh's faithful, peaceful, literate, productive, prosperous people, stole the wealth of generations, and raped their women and little girls and pressed them into sexual slavery. Yet Wally and gand will, little doubt, continue to prostrate themselves toward the Quraish pagan's black stone idol in worship of Muhammad ...... er ..... the Arabian's deity "Allah".

It's time to reclaim Islam from the fanatics

Children at secondary school 'infiltrated by Muslim extremists' listened to assembly praising Al-Qaeda leader, say teachers

    Staff at Park View Academy accused colleagues of sympathy for Al-Qaeda
    Claimed former terror leader Anwar al-Awlaki was praised in an assembly
    Political views sympathetic to Al-Qaeda also said to have been promoted
    Park View believed to be subject a Department of Education investigation
    Probe relates to claims hard-line Muslims are running Birmingham schools
    Park View denies all allegations, claiming they are fueled by Islamophobia

link

Rats in the national silo.

It's almost like a virus.

Pete Waldo wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2014 at 7:35pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 10:05pm: If you think I am wrong on anything, please point it out. I realise you do your best to keep away from facts or anything specific, but you could at least point out what you disagree with. Why don't you try taking a shot at a detailed reply to my post you ignored? http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1396356294/38#38

Sorry, Pete, there's nothing to respond to.

If you'd like a response, it's best not to lecture and berate.

Salaam Aleikum, my dear brother kufffar.

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 6:54am:

It's time to reclaim Islam from the fanatics Children at secondary school 'infiltrated by Muslim extremists' listened to assembly praising Al-Qaeda leader, say teachers     Staff at Park View Academy accused colleagues of sympathy for Al-Qaeda     Claimed former terror leader Anwar al-Awlaki was praised in an assembly     Political views sympathetic to Al-Qaeda also said to have been promoted     Park View believed to be subject a Department of Education investigation     Probe relates to claims hard-line Muslims are running Birmingham schools     Park View denies all allegations, claiming they are fueled by Islamophobia link Rats in the national silo. It's almost like a virus.

Why bother with your local library, Herbie? You have the UK Daily Mail.

Christianity and Islam have there roots (and much of their law) based in scripture and/or practice developed in the times of the Old Testament.

Islamic reformists struggle to show/claim abrogation of many of the more violent and punitive laws and measures within Islam using ijtihad (independent reasoning). This view is seen as heretical by traditional Islamic scholars from the major schools of thought.

Many (so called) Islamic heretics have and still are being killed because of their views ... similarly many (so called) Christian heretics were put to death during the inquisitions etc.

The advantages Christianity has had in moving forward (beyond old testament times) are unfortunately not greatly shared by Islam.

Jesus (as the central focus of Christianity and exemplar of the epitome it's practice) was not greatly moved to violence beyond perhaps the up-turning of a few tables.

Muhammad on the other hand was not (at various times) avert to high levels of violence being used to achieve his goals. His life and practice as recorded in the Hadiths is largely used as the exemplar for Islamic practice. 

Many modern Islamic reformists would seem to come from the minor school of thought known as Quranism and they certainly have quite an uphill battle ahead of them.




Quote:

Liberal movements within Islam involve Muslims who have produced a considerable body of liberal thought[1][2] on the re-interpretation and reform of Islamic understanding and practice. Their work is sometimes characterised as "progressive Islam" (Arabic: الإسلام التقدمي‎ al-Islām at-taqaddumī ), although some consider progressive Islam and liberal Islam to be two distinct movements.[3] The methodologies of liberal or progressive Islam rest on the interpretation and re-interpretation of traditional Islamic scripture (the Qu'ran) and other texts (such as the Hadith), a process called ijtihad (see below).[4] This can vary from the slight to the most liberal, where only the meaning of the Qur'an is considered to be a revelation while its expression in words is the work of the prophet Muhammad at his particular time and context. As a consequence, verses from the Qur'an may then be interpreted allegorically or even set aside. The most liberal Muslim intellectuals who have focused on religious reform include Muhammad Ali, Sayyid al-Qimni, Nasr Abu Zayd, Khalil Abdel-Karim, Abdolkarim Soroush, Mohammed Arkoun, Mohammed Shahrour, Ahmed Subhy Mansour, Edip Yuksel, Gamal al-Banna, Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im, Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, Ahmed Al-Gubbanchi, Mahmoud Mohammed Taha, and Faraj Foda. The last two of these, Taha and Foda, were killed in the wake of claims of apostasy, while most of the others have been accused of apostasy by traditional Islamic scholars. Some liberal Muslims claim that they are returning to the principles of the early Ummah and to the ethical and pluralistic intent of their scripture, the Qur'an.[5] They distance themselves from some traditional and less liberal interpretations of Islamic law, as they consider these to be culturally based and without universal applicability. The reform movement uses monotheism (tawhid) "as an organizing principle for human society and the basis of religious knowledge, history, metaphysics, aesthetics, and ethics, as well as social, economic and world order."[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_movements_within_Islam



Quote:

Quranism (Arabic: قرآنيون‎ Qurʾāniyūn, Quraniyoon) is an Islamic movement that holds the Qur'an to be the only authentic source of Islamic faith. Quranists generally reject, therefore, the religious authority of hadith. This is in contrast to the Sunni, Shia and Ibadi doctrines, which consider hadith essential for Islamic faith.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quranism

0ktema wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 10:06am:

[Mohammed] His life and practice as recorded in the Hadiths is largely used as the exemplar for Islamic practice.

0ktema,

Yes.

And the facts of which [recorded within the ISLAMIC Hadith], moslems don't want non-moslems to scrutinise and examine.

And nor, to ponder the implications of those that 'reality'.



Because if many non-moslems did actually ponder the implications in what is revealed about the life and conduct, of the founder of ISLAM, they [well] many of them, their eyes would be 'opened' and they would recognise the evil that is being used to subvert their own responsibility, to truth and justice [within their own 'sphere of influence'].

And yes, we, individually, do have a responsibility, to truth and justice, in the world.

But sadly, very few of us recognise that responsibility [which we have], to truth and justice, in the world.

0ktema wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 10:06am:

Christianity and Islam have there roots (and much of their law) based in scripture and/or practice developed in the times of the Old Testament.

While no shortage of folks that don't bother to investigate the facts have been duped into parroting that, name dropping of Old Testament prophets by the real authors of the Quran (like Jabr, Waraqa bin Naufal and Tubba), and Islamic so-called "tradition" that was all created and put to the pen in the 7th-10th centuries AD, do not constitute "roots". Particularly when the result is the EXACT OPPOSITE of that revealed through the 1600 year record of the one true God to mankind.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1388407613
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/

Islamic "tradition" is in fact not rooted in Old Testament "law" but provably in Arabian pagan moon, sun, star and jinn-devil worship. Why on earth do you think they prostrate themselves toward the Quraish pagan's black stone idol five times a day? Where does the Old Testament do other than contain historical record of Yahweh's wrath and punishment for venerating idols?
http://www.brotherpete.com/hajj_umrah.htm

Islam is a preposterous fraud that fails epically when investigated through history, archaeology or physical geography. There is not a shred of historical or archaeological evidence that suggests that Mecca ever existed prior to the 4th century AD.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1388067196
http://www.historyofmecca.com

Pete Waldo wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 7:44pm:

0ktema wrote on Apr 4th, 2014 at 10:06am: Christianity and Islam have there roots (and much of their law) based in scripture and/or practice developed in the times of the Old Testament. While no shortage of folks that haven't bothered to investigate the facts have been duped into parroting that, name dropping of Old Testament prophets by the real authors of the Quran (like Jabr, Waraqa bin Naufal and Tubba), and Islamic so-called "tradition" that was all created and put to the pen in the 7th-10th centuries AD, do not constitute "roots". Particularly when the result is the EXACT OPPOSITE of that revealed through the 1600 year record of the one true God to mankind. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1388407613 http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/ Islam is ANTICHRIST http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1391788854 Islamic "tradition" is in fact specifically not rooted in Old Testament "law" but provably rooted in Arabian pagan moon, sun, star and jinn-devil worship. Why on earth do you think they prostrate themselves toward the Quraish pagan's black stone idol five times a day? Where does the Old Testament do other than contain historical record of instances of Yahweh's wrath and punishment for venerating idols? http://www.brotherpete.com/hajj_umrah.htm The geographical impossibility of Islamic so-called "tradition" is a preposterous fraud that fails epically when investigated through the lenses of scripture, history, archaeology or physical geography. There is not a shred of historical or archaeological evidence that suggests that Mecca ever existed prior to the 4th century AD. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1388067196 http://www.historyofmecca.com

Pete, please note the word "times" that I specifically included in the original post of mine that you have quoted ...    "Christianity and Islam have there roots (and much of their law) based in scripture and/or practice developed in the times of the Old Testament"
...    ::)

Anyway, it was a broad statement merely leading on to the real import of my post! ... ;)

0ktema wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 8:52pm:

Pete Waldo wrote on Apr 4th, 2014 at 7:44pm: 0ktema wrote on Apr 4th, 2014 at 10:06am: Christianity and Islam have there roots (and much of their law) based in scripture and/or practice developed in the times of the Old Testament. While no shortage of folks that haven't bothered to investigate the facts have been duped into parroting that, name dropping of Old Testament prophets by the real authors of the Quran (like Jabr, Waraqa bin Naufal and Tubba), and Islamic so-called "tradition" that was all created and put to the pen in the 7th-10th centuries AD, do not constitute "roots". Particularly when the result is the EXACT OPPOSITE of that revealed through the 1600 year record of the one true God to mankind. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1388407613 http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/ Islam is ANTICHRIST http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1391788854 Islamic "tradition" is in fact specifically not rooted in Old Testament "law" but provably rooted in Arabian pagan moon, sun, star and jinn-devil worship. Why on earth do you think they prostrate themselves toward the Quraish pagan's black stone idol five times a day? Where does the Old Testament do other than contain historical record of instances of Yahweh's wrath and punishment for venerating idols? http://www.brotherpete.com/hajj_umrah.htm The geographical impossibility of Islamic so-called "tradition" is a preposterous fraud that fails epically when investigated through the lenses of scripture, history, archaeology or physical geography. There is not a shred of historical or archaeological evidence that suggests that Mecca ever existed prior to the 4th century AD. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1388067196 http://www.historyofmecca.com Pete, please note the word "times" that I specifically included in the original post of mine that you have quoted ...    "Christianity and Islam have there roots (and much of their law based in scripture) and/or practice developed in the times of the Old Testament" ...    ::)

0k4now please note that I was responding to your false premise. You indicated that Islam has roots and "much of their law based in scripture" in the Old Testament. Which "practice developed in the times of the Old Testament" does Islam follow? Prostrating toward the Quraish pagans black stone idol in Mecca? Running back and forth between al-Safa and al-Marwah as the Arabian jinn-devil worshipers did? "Fasting" by day during the same month of Ramadan as the Sabian/Harranian moon god worshipers did?
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/origin_of_ramadan.htm

For pity's sake Muhammad even switched his "holy" day from the Sabbath to Friday, and the quibla his followers were to pray toward from Jerusalem to the Quraish pagan's kaaba in Mecca, after the Hijra.


0ktema wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 8:52pm:

Anyway, it was a broad statement merely leading on to the real import of my post! ... ;)

I was pointing out to you that you started off with a false premise. I'll address the rest of your post next.

0ktema wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 10:06am:

Christianity and Islam have there roots (and much of their law) based in scripture and/or practice developed in the times of the Old Testament. Islamic reformists struggle to show/claim abrogation of many of the more violent and punitive laws and measures within Islam using ijtihad (independent reasoning).

Gwaffaw! "independent reasoning" is the antithesis of Islam. What this suggests is exactly contrary to the rules of abrogation which are based on chronology. Muhammad's later suras that call for violence against non-Muslims abrogate his earlier Mecca drivel like "no compulsion in religion", that he obviously regretted reciting prior to the Hijra, which is obviously why he instituted the doctrine of abrogation. Does anybody really think God would be that confused?

Surah 2:106 (Asad) Any message which, We annul or consign to oblivion We replace with a better or a similar one. Dost thou not know that God has the power to will anything?

The abrogated obviously has to be earlier in order to "replace" it with the abrogator.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/abrogation_quran.htm


0ktema wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 10:06am:

This view is seen as heretical by traditional Islamic scholars from the major schools of thought.

Because it is.


0ktema wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 10:06am:

Many (so called) Islamic heretics have and still are being killed because of their views ... similarly many (so called) Christian heretics were put to death during the inquisitions etc.

Not at all similar. Nowhere does the Gospel sanction the historical Roman Church murder of Christians, or Jews or Muslims as the Roman Church did. Those unregenerate Godless murderers acted exactly contrary to what is commanded of Christians in the Gospel.

While Sunnis murder Shiites as "apostates", making their case through the quran and hadith.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/death_penalty_apostasy.htm

To be continued

0ktema wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 10:06am:

The advantages Christianity has had in moving forward (beyond old testament times) are unfortunately not greatly shared by Islam. Jesus (as the central focus of Christianity and exemplar of the epitome it's practice) was not greatly moved to violence beyond perhaps the up-turning of a few tables. Muhammad on the other hand was not (at various times) avert to high levels of violence being used to achieve his goals. His life and practice as recorded in the Hadiths is largely used as the exemplar for Islamic practice.

Not only through example, but through command.

Bukhari, V1 B2 #24 Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle....

And specifically against Yahweh's people:

Surah 9.29 Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. 30 The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jihad_islamic_terrorism.htm


0ktema wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 10:06am:

Many modern Islamic reformists would seem to come from the minor school of thought known as Quranism and they certainly have quite an uphill battle ahead of them.

Without wholesale editing of the Quran and Hadith it is an impossible battle. And for what? To continue to follow THE false prophet Muhammad alone thereby specifically DISBELIEVING the WHOLE SUBJECT of the Gospel, DENYING and blaspheming the Son of God, and REJECTING His shed blood as articles of faith in THE false prophet Muhammad alone.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/


0ktema wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 10:06am:

[quote]Liberal movements within Islam involve Muslims who have produced a considerable body of liberal thought[1][2] on the re-interpretation and reform of Islamic understanding and practice. Their work is sometimes characterised as "progressive Islam" (Arabic: الإسلام التقدمي‎ al-Islām at-taqaddumī ), although some consider progressive Islam and liberal Islam to be two distinct movements.[3] The methodologies of liberal or progressive Islam rest on the interpretation and re-interpretation of traditional Islamic scripture (the Qu'ran) and other texts (such as the Hadith), a process called ijtihad (see below).[4] This can vary from the slight to the most liberal, where only the meaning of the Qur'an is considered to be a revelation while its expression in words is the work of the prophet Muhammad at his particular time and context. As a consequence, verses from the Qur'an may then be interpreted allegorically or even set aside.

Ya right! Islamic scholars would really go for that. "Oh well, let's just set this part aside"! I think I can guess how even the liberal Muslims in this forum will weigh in on that.

0ktema wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 10:06am:

The most liberal Muslim intellectuals who have focused on religious reform include Muhammad Ali, Sayyid al-Qimni, Nasr Abu Zayd, Khalil Abdel-Karim, Abdolkarim Soroush, Mohammed Arkoun, Mohammed Shahrour, Ahmed Subhy Mansour, Edip Yuksel, Gamal al-Banna, Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im, Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, Ahmed Al-Gubbanchi, Mahmoud Mohammed Taha, and Faraj Foda. The last two of these, Taha and Foda, were killed in the wake of claims of apostasy, while most of the others have been accused of apostasy by traditional Islamic scholars.

Exactly. Because they are.


0ktema wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 10:06am:

Some liberal Muslims claim that they are returning to the principles of the early Ummah and to the ethical and pluralistic intent of their scripture,.....

Self deluded nonsense.

Qur'an 33:26 "Allah took down the People of the Scripture Book. He cast terror into their hearts. Some you slew, and some you made prisoners. And He made you heirs of their lands, their houses, and their goods, giving you a land which you had not traversed before. And Allah has power over all things."
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jihad_islamic_terrorism.htm

That was about Satan's band of mass murdering, cutthroat, prisoner raping, thieves, taking down Yahweh's people of the literate, moral, faithful, peaceful, productive Jewish tribe of the Banu Qurayza.
http://www.brotherpete.com/banu_qurayza_massacre.htm


0ktema wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 10:06am:

..... the Qur'an.[5] They distance themselves from some traditional and less liberal interpretations of Islamic law, as they consider these to be culturally based and without universal applicability. The reform movement uses monotheism ......

Muhammadans cite the term "monotheism" as if it were a religion in and of itself. Of course if it were, then the monotheistic sect of the Sabian moon god worshipers must have had it right all along!

They falsely accuse polytheism of Christians even as they believe Muhammad's "Allah" has a spirit, and Muhammad declared himself to be an intercessor.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/the_trinity.htm


0ktema wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 10:06am:

...... (tawhid) "as an organizing principle for human society and the basis of religious knowledge, history, metaphysics, aesthetics, and ethics, as well as social, economic and world order."[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_movements_within_Islam Quote: Quranism (Arabic: قرآنيون‎ Qurʾāniyūn, Quraniyoon) is an Islamic movement that holds the Qur'an to be the only authentic source of Islamic faith. Quranists generally reject, therefore, the religious authority of hadith. This is in contrast to the Sunni, Shia and Ibadi doctrines, which consider hadith essential for Islamic faith.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quranism

Message to offended Muslims

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhjvoJatKOY


Gist:
You are far more offensive than you think.


Note well: 4:35 to the end.

Pete Waldo wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 9:28pm:

I was pointing out to you that you started off with a false premise. I'll address the rest of your post next.

I will admit my first sentence in particular wasn't structured very well at all ... damn I wish they had taught better use of grammar and correct sentence structure in my school days ... lol

Never mind. My post at the very least has served as grist for your mill ...  ;)

You do make some very relevant points amidst the totality of your dissection and criticism of my post. However it's probably a pity ... but I think many of these points may be somewhat subsequently lost within the carnage and dismemberment and also by a certain amount of Christian self-righteousness that sneaks through in your lengthy replies.

0ktema wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 6:12am:

... and also by a certain amount of Christian self-righteousness that sneaks through in your lengthy replies.

;D ;D ;D

'sneaks through' ... luv it!

******

Good one, Soren.

0ktema wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 6:12am:

Pete Waldo wrote on Apr 4th, 2014 at 9:28pm: I was pointing out to you that you started off with a false premise. I'll address the rest of your post next. I will admit my first sentence in particular wasn't structured very well at all ... damn I wish they had taught better use of grammar and correct sentence structure in my school days ... lol Never mind. My post at the very least has served as grist for your mill ...  ;) You do make some very relevant points amidst the totality of your dissection and criticism of my post. However it's probably a pity ... but I think many of these points may be subsequently lost within the carnage and dismemberment and also by a certain amount of Christian self-righteousness that sneaks through in your lengthy replies.

Judaic monotheism is based on Egyptian, and possibly Babylonian, sources. Christianity, or "Paulinism", is based on Roman pagan sources - the deification of a human (the son of God) is a pagan application of monotheism - very Roman, and very pagan. All the Christian festivals are based on paganism - Spring equinox (Easter), Winter Solstice (Christmas). Christianity even developed its own fertility goddess in the Virgin Mary.

All religions have pagan sources, or at some point in their history, pagan audiences. Christianity in Africa and Latin America is superimposed onto animism, just like Islam in Indonesia and parts of Central Asia.

Pete’s central charge against Islam - his pagan black stone argument - is equally applicable to Christianity. The deification of Christ is the charge of paganism by Muslims against Christianity. Muslims see Jesus as a prophet.

Ultimately, none of this matters. In my opinion, reigion should be a spiritual point of focus, a set of personal spiritual practices. Any more than that, and religion becomes a self-justifying crusade against other religions. For Pete and Yadda, this crusade is a central part of their religious belief system. Both believe the propagation of "truth", and the admonishment of "wickedness" is what their religion is all about.

Forget becoming more Christ-like. For Pete and Yadda, their religion is about exposing the "lies" of others. Both believe they’re saved, and merely have to battle out the rest of their lives until they get to heaven. Who cares about the direction people pray in? The belief that you’re right and everybody else is wrong is far more dangerous than any object of prayer.

And this is, of course, exactly Pete and Yadda’s charge against the dastardly Muselman.

Quote:

The methodologies of liberal or progressive Islam rest on the interpretation and re-interpretation of traditional Islamic scripture (the Qu'ran) and other texts (such as the Hadith), a process called ijtihad (see below).[4] This can vary from the slight to the most liberal, where only the meaning of the Qur'an is considered to be a revelation while its expression in words is the work of the prophet Muhammad at his particular time and context. As a consequence, verses from the Qur'an may then be interpreted allegorically or even set aside.

Sounds just like Gandalf, yet he insists it is mainstream Islam.


Quote:

The reform movement uses monotheism (tawhid) "as an organizing principle for human society and the basis of religious knowledge, history, metaphysics, aesthetics, and ethics, as well as social, economic and world order."

Totally meaningless, with the exception of the basis for religious knowledge.


Quote:

0k4now please note that I was responding to your false premise. You indicated that Islam has roots and "much of their law based in scripture" in the Old Testament.

I don't think he meant old testament scripture, but a broader meaning of the word scripture.


Quote:

Ultimately, none of this matters. In my opinion, reigion should be a spiritual point of focus

Should be, or is? You have spent a lot of time lately telling people that this is what Islam is. Are you defending Islam by proclaiming it to be what you think it should be, regardless of what it actually is?


Quote:

For Pete and Yadda, this crusade is a central part of their religious belief system. Both believe the propagation of "truth", and the admonishment of "wickedness" is what their religion is all about.

Is this supposed to be sinister?


Quote:

The belief that you’re right and everybody else is wrong is far more dangerous than any object of prayer.

No Karnal. The belief that your religion permits you to execute people for being wrong is dangerous. Rejecting belief in yourself is just a convoluted version of spineless apologetics.


Quote:

And this is, of course, exactly Pete and Yadda’s charge against the dastardly Muselman.

Crap. No-one criticises Muslims for believing themselves to be right. We criticise them for what they actually believe - for their particular views.

freediver wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 9:19am:

Crap. No-one criticises Muslims for believing themselves to be right. We criticise them for what they actually believe - for their particular views.

In the case of this argument, that is is linked to Paganism.  Which Christianity also is.  Why is that argument "crap"?

"We?" When did you join the Karmic Khristian religion/army, FD? Is this a recent development, brother?

The only "we" worth bothering with is all of us. No Muslims are here on this board railing against Karmic Khristians like you, Y and Pete. No Muslims are shooting at you, marrying your daughters or stealing your library books. "We" are in this place together. If any Muslim propagated the bigoted, ignorant hate campaign you, Y and Pete sell, I’d be directing my words towards them.

G, a gen-u-wine Muslim, comes across as more reasonable and rational than all of you. You shoot yourself in the foot, time and time again. Your distortions make your case worse. My own replies are totally unnecessary - your own words do you in.

Which is such a pity, because from what I can tell, you’re intelligent, well educated and savvy about a lot of things, politics included.

But alas, you’ve allowed yourself to fall pray to that most pointless distraction of all time - the religious pogrom. In some ways, you remind me of those intellectuals in the Third Reich who were seduced by the more harmless aspects of Nazism and ended up as full-blown Jew hunters.

For me, "we" means everyone, not ethnic, religious or tribal loyalties. If anyone threatens our liberty, equality and fraternity, they deserve to be exposed.

Here on this board, FD, that’s not the Muselman.

That’s you.

Stratos wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 9:37am:

freediver wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 9:19am: Crap. No-one criticises Muslims for believing themselves to be right. We criticise them for what they actually believe - for their particular views. In the case of this argument, that is is linked to Paganism.  Which Christianity also is.  Why is that argument "crap"?

Pete’s argument is theological. He believes Muslims are inherently evil, based on their veneration of the Qabbah.

Mind you, Pete believes everyone who doesn’t follow his own brand of Christianity is suspect. Pete doesn’t name them (or want to kill them), but he has his own Kuffars.

I’m not sure FD really understands what he’s agreeing with.

Quote:

In the case of this argument, that is is linked to Paganism.  Which Christianity also is.  Why is that argument "crap"?

You could have at least checked for yourself what Karnal was on about:


Quote:

Forget becoming more Christ-like. For Pete and Yadda, their religion is about exposing the "lies" of others. Both believe they’re saved, and merely have to battle out the rest of their lives until they get to heaven. Who cares about the direction people pray in? The belief that you’re right and everybody else is wrong is far more dangerous than any object of prayer. And this is, of course, exactly Pete and Yadda’s charge against the dastardly Muselman.

Worshipping the clit rock is not a lie.


Quote:

The only "we" worth bothering with is all of us. No Muslims are here on this board railing against Karmic Khristians like you, Y and Pete.

Not even TC?


Quote:

No Muslims are shooting at you, marrying your daughters or stealing your library books.

They are trying to take something far more valuable.


Quote:

If any Muslim propagated the bigoted, ignorant hate campaign you, Y and Pete sell, I’d be directing my words towards them.

No you wouldn't. You have had plenty of opportunity. I don't think you criticised Abu for example until after he left, and even then it was reluctant.


Quote:

G, a gen-u-wine Muslim, comes across as more reasonable and rational than all of you.

Do you agree with him about discarding freedom of speech to placate those who would use violence to destryoy freedom of speech? Or is this really about what he eats for breakfast?


Quote:

My own replies are totally unnecessary - your own words do you in.

Perhaps you should seek your own advice more. It would be great if you actually had something to say.


Quote:

But alas, you’ve allowed yourself to fall pray to that most pointless distraction of all time - the religious pogrom.

Tell me Karnal, which single movement keeps more around the world people living without democracy and freedom? Answer this, then tell me why there is no point to this debate.


Quote:

In some ways, you remind me of those intellectuals in the Third Reich who were seduced by the more harmless aspects of Nazism and ended up as full-blown Jew hunters.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. You see a religion being criticised, and equate that with anti-semitism. You equate my views with Nazism, even when I make it perfectly clear that I am defending everyone's freedom - including the freedom of Muslims to practice their own religion. You can only see religious people as the victims, not as the perpetrators. You reject the clear parallels between Islam and Nazism, not because they are not there, but because they don't fit in with your poo jokes. You have been seduced by the lie that Islam is merely a religion. You have stated this clearly yourself, ruling out Islam as a political movement, despite Muhammed himself founding one of the most successful and brutal militant empires in world history - an empire whose collapse to this day influences global geo-politics. You have been duped.


Quote:

For me, "we" means everyone, not ethnic, religious or tribal loyalties. If anyone threatens our liberty, equality and fraternity, they deserve to be exposed.

Yet you do all you can to cover it up, to the extent of pretending that Islam does not exist.

freediver wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 1:04pm:

Worshipping the clit rock is not a lie.

Yes it is, as it is NOT worshipped.

Karnal wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 8:31am:

All religions have pagan sources, or at some point in their history, pagan audiences. Christianity in Africa and Latin America is superimposed onto animism, just like Islam in Indonesia and parts of Central Asia.

Yes, and there is also the interesting subject of psychedelics and how their use relates to the very beginnings/origins of religion.

Quote:

When we explore the early history of religion and examine the various holy scriptures of different faiths, then we find mentioned mysterious substances with divine connotations, which were either eaten or drunk ... So at the dawn of civilization, our primitive ancestors discovered a door into the divine, that seems almost purposefully set up by the Cosmic Intelligence, in order that we may enter it. That is certain plants and fungi acted as gateways to the transcendent. The visions and mystical insights obtained through using these substances certainly found their way into the primitive systems of religious thinking that would later evolve to become the great faith traditions of the World.

www.iawwai.com/Psychedelia.htm



Karnal wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 8:31am:

Ultimately, none of this matters. In my opinion, reigion should be a spiritual point of focus, a set of personal spiritual practices. Any more than that, and religion becomes a self-justifying crusade against other religions. For Pete and Yadda, this crusade is a central part of their religious belief system. Both believe the propagation of "truth", and the admonishment of "wickedness" is what their religion is all about.

I would agree that true religion should be more a personal relationship with the Divine. With regard to this, Christianity today and worldwide is relatively tame in it's various social crusades -  Islam on the other hand has yet to truly have it's teeth pulled!


Karnal wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 8:31am:

Forget becoming more Christ-like. For Pete and Yadda, their religion is about exposing the "lies" of others. Both believe they’re saved, and merely have to battle out the rest of their lives until they get to heaven.

Yeah, the whole (very convenient) vicarious salvation thing!


Karnal wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 8:31am:

Who cares about the direction people pray in? The belief that you’re right and everybody else is wrong is far more dangerous than any object of prayer.

I don't like the way the Christian lobby in many countries forces it's views on the general populace, regarding abortion for instance.
In respect to Islam -  (in my opinion) it's currently more of a worry for us all with it's far reaching doctrinal suppression of many various individual rights. 

When approaching the practice of Islam (even in this secular country of Australia) I think there is a necessary balance to be found between encouraging reformists and the criticism of the still widely held and (at many times) potentially very oppressive (traditional) beliefs.

Stratos wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 1:06pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 1:04pm: Worshipping the clit rock is not a lie. Yes it is, as it is NOT worshipped.

Good job at completely missing the point Stratos.

freediver wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 1:14pm:

Stratos wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 1:06pm: freediver wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 1:04pm: Worshipping the clit rock is not a lie. Yes it is, as it is NOT worshipped. Good job at completely missing the point Stratos.

My point was you are wrong.  Did I miss that point?

freediver wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 1:04pm:

Tell me Karnal, which single movement keeps more around the world people living without democracy and freedom? Answer this, then tell me why there is no point to this debate.

Probably the US government with its support of dictatorships.


The recent anti-democracy coup in Egypt was funded by the CIA:

Exclusive: US bankrolled anti-Morsi activists
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/07/2013710113522489801.html

The US funded the Mubarak dictatorship of Mubarak to the tune $1billion per year. In the 80's we saw the US funding the dictatorships in Iran and Iraq, the US also funded the warlords who would destroy Afghanistan. The dictatorship in Jordan gets $US500million per year. Yasser Arafat received funding from the US.

More recently, the US supported Gaddafi of all people.


Files Show American Aid For Gaddafi

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/31/al-jazeera-americans-gaddafi_n_943876.html

The US reinstalled the dictatorship in Kuwait after forcing out Iraqi forces in 1991.


The US also threw its weight behind dictatorships in Tunisia, Morocco, Yemen, Saudi, UAE, Algeria, and several central Asian countries.

The US supported the overthrow of the democratically-elected government in Ukraine.

We even have our experience of CIA-asset John Kerr overthrowing the democratically-elected Whitlam Government in 1975.

-
True Colours wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 2:32pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 1:04pm: Tell me Karnal, which single movement keeps more around the world people living without democracy and freedom? Answer this, then tell me why there is no point to this debate. Probably the US government with its support of dictatorships. The recent anti-democracy coup in Egypt was funded by the CIA: Exclusive: US bankrolled anti-Morsi activists http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/07/2013710113522489801.html The US funded the Mubarak dictatorship of Mubarak to the tune $1billion per year. In the 80's we saw the US funding the dictatorships in Iran and Iraq, the US also funded the warlords who would destroy Afghanistan. The dictatorship in Jordan gets $US500million per year. Yasser Arafat received funding from the US. More recently, the US supported Gaddafi of all people. Files Show American Aid For Gaddafi http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/31/al-jazeera-americans-gaddafi_n_943876.html The US reinstalled the dictatorship in Kuwait after forcing out Iraqi forces in 1991. The US also threw its weight behind dictatorships in Tunisia, Morocco, Yemen, Saudi, UAE, Algeria, and several central Asian countries. The US supported the overthrow of the democratically-elected government in Ukraine. We even have our experience of CIA-asset John Kerr overthrowing the democratically-elected Whitlam Government in 1975.

Yes, the USA has a long history of interference (to one degree or another) in other countries affairs.

* But beyond this relatively well know US activity ... I'm really interested in your thoughts and position regarding the topic of this thread. That being Islamic reform! I'm also interested in your view/opinion of Quranism! 

Would you care to share your take on this?

freediver wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 1:04pm:

Quote: In the case of this argument, that is is linked to Paganism.  Which Christianity also is.  Why is that argument "crap"? You could have at least checked for yourself what Karnal was on about: [quote]Forget becoming more Christ-like. For Pete and Yadda, their religion is about exposing the "lies" of others. Both believe they’re saved, and merely have to battle out the rest of their lives until they get to heaven. Who cares about the direction people pray in? The belief that you’re right and everybody else is wrong is far more dangerous than any object of prayer. And this is, of course, exactly Pete and Yadda’s charge against the dastardly Muselman.

Worshipping the clit rock is not a lie.


Quote:

The only "we" worth bothering with is all of us. No Muslims are here on this board railing against Karmic Khristians like you, Y and Pete.

Not even TC?


Quote:

No Muslims are shooting at you, marrying your daughters or stealing your library books.

They are trying to take something far more valuable.


Quote:

If any Muslim propagated the bigoted, ignorant hate campaign you, Y and Pete sell, I’d be directing my words towards them.

No you wouldn't. You have had plenty of opportunity. I don't think you criticised Abu for example until after he left, and even then it was reluctant.


Quote:

G, a gen-u-wine Muslim, comes across as more reasonable and rational than all of you.

Do you agree with him about discarding freedom of speech to placate those who would use violence to destryoy freedom of speech? Or is this really about what he eats for breakfast?


Quote:

My own replies are totally unnecessary - your own words do you in.

Perhaps you should seek your own advice more. It would be great if you actually had something to say.


Quote:

But alas, you’ve allowed yourself to fall pray to that most pointless distraction of all time - the religious pogrom.

Tell me Karnal, which single movement keeps more around the world people living without democracy and freedom? Answer this, then tell me why there is no point to this debate.


Quote:

In some ways, you remind me of those intellectuals in the Third Reich who were seduced by the more harmless aspects of Nazism and ended up as full-blown Jew hunters.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. You see a religion being criticised, and equate that with anti-semitism. You equate my views with Nazism, even when I make it perfectly clear that I am defending everyone's freedom - including the freedom of Muslims to practice their own religion. You can only see religious people as the victims, not as the perpetrators. You reject the clear parallels between Islam and Nazism, not because they are not there, but because they don't fit in with your poo jokes. You have been seduced by the lie that Islam is merely a religion. You have stated this clearly yourself, ruling out Islam as a political movement, despite Muhammed himself founding one of the most successful and brutal militant empires in world history - an empire whose collapse to this day influences global geo-politics. You have been duped.


Quote:

For me, "we" means everyone, not ethnic, religious or tribal loyalties. If anyone threatens our liberty, equality and fraternity, they deserve to be exposed.

Yet you do all you can to cover it up, to the extent of pretending that Islam does not exist.[/quote]

Cover what up? Most of what  you post about Muslims - the criminality, the terrorist risks, the child marriages, the so-called lies and deceit - turns out to be krap.

Everything else you post is ancient history, and you haven’t even read up on that.

I’d actually like to see you post a sensible, reasonable post about Islam. Why don’t you?

Do that, FD, and I’ll laud you for it. I’ll sing your name throughout the board.This isn’t a war - I want to see you post smart, informed posts. I’m one of the good guys. I’m on your side.

I just don’t think you should use lies and propaganda to present your case. After all, if your case is so strong, you shouldn’t need to.

0ktema wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 6:12am:

Pete Waldo wrote on Apr 4th, 2014 at 9:28pm: I was pointing out to you that you started off with a false premise. I'll address the rest of your post next. I will admit my first sentence in particular wasn't structured very well at all ... damn I wish they had taught better use of grammar and correct sentence structure in my school days ... lol Never mind. My post at the very least has served as grist for your mill ...  ;) You do make some very relevant points amidst the totality of your dissection and criticism of my post. However it's probably a pity ... but I think many of these points may be somewhat subsequently lost within the carnage and dismemberment and also by a certain amount of Christian self-righteousness .....

Self-righteousness, or self-confidence that comes through walking in truth?

Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

I'm just another lowly sinner sis, but one with a calling. Sometimes I do get concerned that my unvarnished matter of fact style of presentation of matters of fact and evidence, may give some the impression that you got. Perhaps I've been a bit hardened after spending a half dozen years or so, full-time in these trenches, of opposition to THE false prophet Muhammad.

However if you look at my posting history you will find that Muhammad's followers in here are unable to substantively respond to my threads and posts, and that's because they are specifically not walking in truth. I am desperate for them as I believe the end of the opportunity for repentance is truly at hand. When I posted on the history of Mecca for example they were left flat-footed - because there isn't any historical or archaeological evidence of Mecca prior to the 4th century AD, that can support the geographical impossibility of pre-5th century Islamic so-called "tradition" that was all created and put to the pen in 7th - 10th centuries AD.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1388067196

When I posted on the subject of antichrist, not a soul responded. Yet according to scripture there are 1.5 billion antichrists in the world today just in Islam. That count doesn't even include atheists and other antichrists.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1391788854

You might agree, that the only thing that matters is truth, since the Lord and Savior that I serve IS truth.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Nor is it a surprise that the pop-"church" has difficulty recognizing tradition as well, since the direction of, and apostasy of, the institutional "church" was prophesied.
http://www.christianeschatology.com/falling_away_apostasy.htm

2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4  And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
http://www.christianeschatology.com/historicism.htm


0ktema wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 6:12am:

..... that sneaks through in your lengthy replies.

They are lengthy because I am not a fan of one-line zingers, but rather presentation of evidence and reasoned brick by brick empirical arguments. I consider most every thread or post, an opportunity to present evidence that may cause that first spark of cognitive dissonance in perhaps even just one, of Muhammad's followers. Not so much forum members who, no matter how much evidence or how many matters of fact are presented will likely continue to simply ignore them, but more for those Muslim lurkers to the forum that are genuinely seeking the truth.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/

Karnal wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 5:53pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 1:04pm: Yet you do all you can to cover it up, to the extent of pretending that Islam does not exist. Cover what up? Most of what  you post about Muslims - the criminality, the terrorist risks, the child marriages, the so-called lies and deceit - turns out to be krap. Everything else you post is ancient history, and you haven’t even read up on that. I’d actually like to see you post a sensible, reasonable post about Islam. Why don’t you? Do that, FD, and I’ll laud you for it. I’ll sing your name throughout the board.

All doing as you suggest results in, is being ignored.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1391788854
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1388584924
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1388067196


Karnal wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 5:53pm:

This isn’t a war - I want to see you post smart, informed posts. I’m one of the good guys. I’m on your side. I just don’t think you should use lies and propaganda to present your case. After all, if your case is so strong, you shouldn’t need to.

Pete Waldo wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 8:42pm:

Self-righteousness, or self-confidence that comes through walking in truth? Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: I'm just another lowly sinner sis, but one with a calling. Sometimes I do get concerned that my unvarnished matter of fact style of presentation of matters of fact and evidence, may give some the impression that you got. Perhaps I've been a bit hardened after spending a half dozen years or so, full-time in these trenches, of opposition to THE false prophet Muhammad. However if you look at my posting history you will find that Muhammad's followers in here are unable to substantively respond to my threads and posts, and that's because they are specifically not walking in truth. I am desperate for them as I believe the end of the opportunity for repentance is truly at hand. When I posted on the history of Mecca for example they were left flat-footed - because there isn't any historical or archaeological evidence of Mecca prior to the 4th century AD, that can support the geographical impossibility of pre-5th century Islamic so-called "tradition" that was all created and put to the pen in 7th - 10th centuries AD. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1388067196 When I posted on the subject of antichrist, not a soul responded. Yet according to scripture there are 1.5 billion antichrists in the world today just in Islam. That count doesn't even include atheists and other antichrists. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1391788854 You might agree, that the only thing that matters is truth, since the Lord and Savior that I serve IS truth. John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. Nor is it a surprise that the pop-"church" has difficulty recognizing tradition as well, since the direction of, and apostasy of, the institutional "church" was prophesied. http://www.christianeschatology.com/falling_away_apostasy.htm 2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4  And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. http://www.christianeschatology.com/historicism.htm 0ktema wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 6:12am: ..... that sneaks through in your lengthy replies. They are lengthy because I am not a fan of one-line zingers, but rather presentation of evidence and reasoned brick by brick empirical arguments. I consider most every thread or post, an opportunity to present evidence that may cause that first spark of cognitive dissonance in perhaps even just one, of Muhammad's followers. Not so much forum members who, no matter how much evidence or how many matters of fact are presented will likely continue to simply ignore them, but more for those Muslim lurkers to the forum that are genuinely seeking the truth. http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/

I appreciate your response Pete, and indeed you do seem very dedicated I'll grant you that.
I'll also grant that you appear to have quite a strong working knowledge of scripture and also Islamic doctrine - well beyond my own.

I hope you don't take what I say next in the wrong light. As it is meant to be merely constructive criticism.
But I feel I must say that your posts somehow come across to me as being perhaps a bit too mechanically constructed and can they be a little off putting because of this (especially for the novice). Though you say you've been in the trenches for around 6 years so it is easily understandable that you have developed a certain method and style of approach.

.................................

I have my own views on the esoteric meaning behind John 14:6 and perhaps will share them with you in a more appropriate thread sometime.

Still I will say here - as far as Christianity goes I would lean more towards John Shelby Spong's views on Spirituality than that of any main stream church or basic/exoteric doctrine.




    

0ktema wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 9:50pm:

Pete Waldo wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 8:42pm: Self-righteousness, or self-confidence that comes through walking in truth? Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: I'm just another lowly sinner sis, but one with a calling. Sometimes I do get concerned that my unvarnished matter of fact style of presentation of matters of fact and evidence, may give some the impression that you got. Perhaps I've been a bit hardened after spending a half dozen years or so, full-time in these trenches, of opposition to THE false prophet Muhammad. However if you look at my posting history you will find that Muhammad's followers in here are unable to substantively respond to my threads and posts, and that's because they are specifically not walking in truth. I am desperate for them as I believe the end of the opportunity for repentance is truly at hand. When I posted on the history of Mecca for example they were left flat-footed - because there isn't any historical or archaeological evidence of Mecca prior to the 4th century AD, that can support the geographical impossibility of pre-5th century Islamic so-called "tradition" that was all created and put to the pen in 7th - 10th centuries AD. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1388067196 When I posted on the subject of antichrist, not a soul responded. Yet according to scripture there are 1.5 billion antichrists in the world today just in Islam. That count doesn't even include atheists and other antichrists. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1391788854 You might agree, that the only thing that matters is truth, since the Lord and Savior that I serve IS truth. John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. Nor is it a surprise that the pop-"church" has difficulty recognizing tradition as well, since the direction of, and apostasy of, the institutional "church" was prophesied. http://www.christianeschatology.com/falling_away_apostasy.htm 2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4  And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. http://www.christianeschatology.com/historicism.htm 0ktema wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 6:12am: ..... that sneaks through in your lengthy replies. They are lengthy because I am not a fan of one-line zingers, but rather presentation of evidence and reasoned brick by brick empirical arguments. I consider most every thread or post, an opportunity to present evidence that may cause that first spark of cognitive dissonance in perhaps even just one, of Muhammad's followers. Not so much forum members who, no matter how much evidence or how many matters of fact are presented will likely continue to simply ignore them, but more for those Muslim lurkers to the forum that are genuinely seeking the truth. http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/ I appreciate your response Pete, and indeed you do seem very dedicated I'll grant you that. I'll also grant that you appear to have quite a strong working knowledge of scripture and also Islamic doctrine - well beyond my own. I hope you don't take what I say next in the wrong light. As it is meant to be merely constructive criticism. But I feel I must say that your posts somehow come across to me as being perhaps a bit too mechanically constructed .......

Not exactly sure what you mean, but I have a hunch that it may be the result of my copy and pasting from several websites that I maintain, and continue to expand through learning experiences like chatting in this forum.


0ktema wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 9:50pm:

..... and can they be a little off putting because of this (especially for the novice). Though you say you've been in the trenches for around 6 years so it is easily understandable that you have developed a certain method and style of approach. ................................. I have my own views on the esoteric meaning behind John 14:6 and perhaps will share them with you in a more appropriate thread sometime. Still I will say here - as far as Christianity goes I would lean more towards John Shelby Spong's views on Spirituality.......

Opposite ends, thanks for the warning!:-) After some years, I overcame the counter-scriptural apostate Episcopal Church, though it didn't take much in my case. My wife was a bit slower in the process. Overcoming men like Spong and Robinson who work to conform the "church" to the world, rather than seeking to conform the world to the Gospel of Jesus Christ through regeneration.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=3&v=3&t=KJV#s=1000003

The anti-Zionism that results from theology driven punitive supersessionism, of such institutions, is a modern day tragedy in the institutional "church".
http://www.christianeschatology.com/supersessionism_replacement_theology.htm


0ktema wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 9:50pm:

...... than that of any main stream church or basic doctrine.

Pete Waldo wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 10:07pm:

0ktema wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 9:50pm: 0ktema wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 6:12am: ..... that sneaks through in your lengthy replies. They are lengthy because I am not a fan of one-line zingers, but rather presentation of evidence and reasoned brick by brick empirical arguments. I consider most every thread or post, an opportunity to present evidence that may cause that first spark of cognitive dissonance in perhaps even just one, of Muhammad's followers. Not so much forum members who, no matter how much evidence or how many matters of fact are presented will likely continue to simply ignore them, but more for those Muslim lurkers to the forum that are genuinely seeking the truth. http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/ I appreciate your response Pete, and indeed you do seem very dedicated I'll grant you that. I'll also grant that you appear to have quite a strong working knowledge of scripture and also Islamic doctrine - well beyond my own. I hope you don't take what I say next in the wrong light. As it is meant to be merely constructive criticism. But I feel I must say that your posts somehow come across to me as being perhaps a bit too mechanically constructed .......

Not exactly sure what you mean, but I have a hunch that it may be the result of my copy and pasting from several websites that I maintain, and continue to expand through learning experiences like chatting in this forum.


0ktema wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 9:50pm:

..... and can they be a little off putting because of this (especially for the novice). Though you say you've been in the trenches for around 6 years so it is easily understandable that you have developed a certain method and style of approach. ................................. I have my own views on the esoteric meaning behind John 14:6 and perhaps will share them with you in a more appropriate thread sometime. Still I will say here - as far as Christianity goes I would lean more towards John Shelby Spong's views on Spirituality.......

Thanks for the warning. I overcame the counter-scriptural apostate Episcopal Church, through it didn't take much. My wife was slower in the process. Overcoming men like Spong and Robinson who work to conform the "church" to the world, rather than seeking to conform the world to the Gospel of Jesus Christ through regeneration.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=3&v=3&t=KJV#s=1000003

One huge opportunity for discernment in the church" today is the anti-Zionism, that results from the punitive supersessionism, of such institutions.
http://www.christianeschatology.com/supersessionism_replacement_theology.htm


0ktema wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 9:50pm:

...... than that of any main stream church or basic doctrine.

Your hunch (highlighted above) is probably right.

From the rest of your post ... I take it you don't credit Jesus teachings with any deeper esoteric meanings and therefore tend merely to the literal/exoteric version of scripture.  Would this be a correct assumption? 

0ktema wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 10:32pm:

Pete Waldo wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 10:07pm: 0ktema wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 9:50pm: 0ktema wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 6:12am: ..... that sneaks through in your lengthy replies. They are lengthy because I am not a fan of one-line zingers, but rather presentation of evidence and reasoned brick by brick empirical arguments. I consider most every thread or post, an opportunity to present evidence that may cause that first spark of cognitive dissonance in perhaps even just one, of Muhammad's followers. Not so much forum members who, no matter how much evidence or how many matters of fact are presented will likely continue to simply ignore them, but more for those Muslim lurkers to the forum that are genuinely seeking the truth. http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/ I appreciate your response Pete, and indeed you do seem very dedicated I'll grant you that. I'll also grant that you appear to have quite a strong working knowledge of scripture and also Islamic doctrine - well beyond my own. I hope you don't take what I say next in the wrong light. As it is meant to be merely constructive criticism. But I feel I must say that your posts somehow come across to me as being perhaps a bit too mechanically constructed ....... Not exactly sure what you mean, but I have a hunch that it may be the result of my copy and pasting from several websites that I maintain, and continue to expand through learning experiences like chatting in this forum. 0ktema wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 9:50pm: ..... and can they be a little off putting because of this (especially for the novice). Though you say you've been in the trenches for around 6 years so it is easily understandable that you have developed a certain method and style of approach. ................................. I have my own views on the esoteric meaning behind John 14:6 and perhaps will share them with you in a more appropriate thread sometime. Still I will say here - as far as Christianity goes I would lean more towards John Shelby Spong's views on Spirituality....... Thanks for the warning. I overcame the counter-scriptural apostate Episcopal Church, through it didn't take much. My wife was slower in the process. Overcoming men like Spong and Robinson who work to conform the "church" to the world, rather than seeking to conform the world to the Gospel of Jesus Christ through regeneration. http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=3&v=3&t=KJV#s=1000003 One huge opportunity for discernment in the church" today is the anti-Zionism, that results from the punitive supersessionism, of such institutions. http://www.christianeschatology.com/supersessionism_replacement_theology.htm 0ktema wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 9:50pm: ...... than that of any main stream church or basic doctrine. Your hunch (highlighted above) is probably right. From the rest of your post ... I take it you don't credit Jesus teachings with any deeper esoteric meanings and therefore tend merely to the literal/exoteric version of scripture.  Would this be a correct assumption?

Since scripture includes the figurative language of dreams and visions in prophecy, for us to puzzle over until fulfilled and really see only after that fulfillment, the answer would have to be no.
http://www.christianeschatology.com/historicism.htm#reformers_time_of_end

Indeed my ministry to the remnant of the ecclesia specifically regards "deeper meanings", but as arrived at while letting scripture define the terms. As in the example of the "beast" of Revelation 13.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/the_beast.htm

And I am hostile to all notions or false doctrine that is extra-scriptural and even contrary to scripture. As in the example of Roman Church Marianism (and so much more) for example, as well as pop-church ordinance-contrary, ordination of women and homosexuals and the like.

Definition of esoteric (adj)
Bing Dictionary
es·o·ter·ic [ èssə térrik ]

1. restricted to initiates: intended for or understood by only an initiated few
2. abstruse: difficult to understand
3. secret: secret or highly confidential

As for item 1 regarding core Christian doctrine, though the Roman Church clergy and others who have usurped the headship of Jesus Christ in the ecclesia would like to fool folks into believing so, that would be a false notion.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

In regard to 2. and 3. I would agree that much of scripture is more difficult than simple, and thus requires due diligence and hermeneutic discipline.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/leopard_bear_lion_beast.htm

Though nobody has all the answers, nor a franchise on truth.

Pete Waldo wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 10:52pm:

Though nobody has all the answers, nor a franchise on truth.

Without much doubt ... you would seem to have set up a fairly secure world for yourself - backed up by all your chosen scripture and literal interpretation there of. 

Personally I started to overcome Christian exclusivity at the ripe old age of 9.

Pete Waldo wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 10:52pm:

Since scripture includes the figurative language of dreams and visions in prophecy, for us to puzzle over until fulfilled and really see only after that fulfillment, the answer would have to be no. http://www.christianeschatology.com/historicism.htm#reformers_time_of_end Indeed my ministry to the remnant of the ecclesia specifically regards "deeper meanings", but as arrived at while letting scripture define the terms. As in the example of the "beast" of Revelation 13. http://www.beholdthebeast.com/the_beast.htm And I am hostile to all notions or false doctrine that is extra-scriptural and even contrary to scripture. As in the example of Roman Church Marianism (and so much more) for example, as well as pop-church ordinance-contrary, ordination of women and homosexuals and the like. Definition of esoteric (adj) Bing Dictionary es·o·ter·ic [ èssə térrik ] 1. restricted to initiates: intended for or understood by only an initiated few 2. abstruse: difficult to understand 3. secret: secret or highly confidential As for item 1 regarding core Christian doctrine, though the Roman Church clergy and others who have usurped the headship of Jesus Christ in the ecclesia would like to fool folks into believing so, that would be a false notion. 2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: In regard to 2. and 3. I would agree that much of scripture is more difficult than simple, and thus requires due diligence and hermeneutic discipline. http://www.beholdthebeast.com/leopard_bear_lion_beast.htm Though nobody has all the answers, nor a franchise on truth.

Pete,

The 'walk' of those [of us!] who are seeking and waiting for God, it is a harsh 'wilderness' journey.

And it is a challenging journey, in the wilderness of this world.

And i for one, have no doubt that you are firmly on that path and journey back to God, our creator.





"Like as a woman with child...."
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231830268/0#0

Quote:

Dictionary, scapegoat = = 1 a person who is blamed for the wrongdoings or mistakes of others. 2 (in the Bible) a goat sent into the wilderness after the Jewish chief priest had symbolically laid the sins of the people upon it (Lev. 16). ".....On the day of atonement, two goats without blemish were taken by the priest, upon which lots were cast, one for the Lord, and the other for the scapegoat. The one upon which the Lord's lot fell, was then slain, and his blood carried into the sanctuary to make an atonement for the children of Israel. After which the sins of the people were confessed upon the head of the other, or scapegoat. And the scapegoat was set free, into the wilderness." In the levitical atonement sacrifice, an innocent [substitute] was sacrificed, as atonement for the sins of the people. Dictionary, atonement = = 1 reparation for a wrong or injury. 2 (the Atonement) Christian Theology the reconciliation of God and mankind through the death of Jesus Christ. In exchange for their sacrifice offering [symbolising their acceptance of their guilt], the guilty [of the children of Israel] were 'set free', but were [still, symbolically] separated from their God. In the context of this Biblical analogy, ....Jesus Christ is our sacrifice for sin, ....and the 'chosen people', Israel were/are the 'scapegoat'. ....the 'wilderness', is symbolically, this world. The guilty were set free, to wander in the world, until they found [their] redemption. ....or until they found their 'promised land'? The 'scapegoat' type of Israel, was supposed to be, was intended, as a spiritual lesson [a 'witness'] to us 'heathens'/gentiles [and to Israel], .....to do good, and no more evil! The fate, of the children of Israel was predicted...

0ktema wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 11:50pm:

Pete Waldo wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 10:52pm: Though nobody has all the answers, nor a franchise on truth. Without much doubt ... you would seem to have set up a fairly secure world for yourself - backed up by all your chosen scripture and literal interpretation there of.

0k4now,

Pete also said.....


Quote:

.....scripture includes the figurative language of dreams and visions in prophecy, for us to puzzle over until fulfilled and really see only after that fulfillment, the answer would have to be no. http://www.christianeschatology.com/historicism.htm#reformers_time_of_end Indeed my ministry to the remnant of the ecclesia specifically regards "deeper meanings",........ Definition of esoteric (adj) Bing Dictionary es·o·ter·ic [ èssə térrik ] 1. restricted to initiates: intended for or understood by only an initiated few 2. abstruse: difficult to understand 3. secret: secret or highly confidential

Isaiah 28:9
Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10  For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:








Quote:

Personally I started to overcome Christian exclusivity at the ripe old age of 9.

0k4now,

I don't like, 'the church'.     [...any of them]

'the church' [as was the ancient nation of Israel!] was intended to be a guardian of purity, among men.

Today, she ['the church'] is a whore, imo.



+++

A short meditation - on the spirit of God, and the dwelling place of God's spirit;





Exodus 25:8
And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.


Exodus 29:45
And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God.


Exodus 29:46
And they shall know that I am the LORD their God, that brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell among them: I am the LORD their God.


Leviticus 11:44
For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy:....


Leviticus 26:1
Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God.
2  Ye shall keep my sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: I am the LORD.
3  If ye walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them;
4  Then I will give you rain in due season, and the land shall yield her increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit.
5  And your threshing shall reach unto the vintage, and the vintage shall reach unto the sowing time: and ye shall eat your bread to the full, and dwell in your land safely.
6  And I will give peace in the land, and ye shall lie down, and none shall make you afraid: and I will rid evil beasts out of the land, neither shall the sword go through your land.
7  And ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword.
8  And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword.
9  For I will have respect unto you, and make you fruitful, and multiply you, and establish my covenant with you.
10  And ye shall eat old store, and bring forth the old because of the new.
11  And I will set my tabernacle among you: and my soul shall not abhor you.
12  And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people.
13  I am the LORD your God, which brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, that ye should not be their bondmen; and I have broken the bands of your yoke, and made you go upright.


Numbers 5:3
Both male and female shall ye put out, without the camp shall ye put them; that they defile not their camps, in the midst whereof I dwell.


Numbers 16:22
.....O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh,....


Numbers 35:34
Defile not therefore the land which ye shall inhabit, wherein I dwell: for I the LORD dwell among the children of Israel.


Deuteronomy 32:8
When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.
9  For the LORD'S portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.


1 Kings 6:13
And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will not forsake my people Israel.


Psalms 5:4
For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee.


and it goes on, and on, and on.....

Quote:

Cover what up? Most of what  you post about Muslims - the criminality, the terrorist risks, the child marriages, the so-called lies and deceit - turns out to be krap.

I think you'll find that it was Gandalf who started the whole child marriage epidemic debate. You spent 60 pages demanding I prove something that I never claimed. Gandalf is also the one pushing the "crime prone" Muslims of western Sydney narrative. I hope you are not suggesting that the risk of Islamic terrorism is crap.


Quote:

Everything else you post is ancient history, and you haven’t even read up on that.

Everything else I post is a religion and a political ideology, and I consider it little more than spineless apologetics for you to try to pass it off differently. Every week you come up with a different version of Islam does not exist, parrot it for a while, then quietly drop it then move onto the next version, all the while furiously maintaining the debate about whether we ought to have the debate, but never actually participating in it.


Quote:

I’d actually like to see you post a sensible, reasonable post about Islam. Why don’t you?

You mean one that you agree with? How about a post about what Gandalf had for breakfast?


Quote:

I just don’t think you should use lies and propaganda to present your case.

Would you mind pointing out one of these lies that does not come from Gandalf?

Oh, FD, you really are a one. Are you asking me to go through the threads here and pull out your words on the prevelence of Muslim child marriage, in Australia, telling everyone how it was a significant Muslim problem because Muhammed was a paedophile?

Would you like me to do the same with your rants on Muslim.criminality, pulling all sorts of statistics out of your hat?

Please don’t make me do that.

You have a nice lie down and enjoy the rest of your day.  I would never do the above because you’d tie yourself in knots trying to defend yourself. You’d go on for months. And your claims would escalate, reaching grotesque proportions. You’d out-Yadda Yadda, who I must say, you’re strangely starting to resemble.

No, FD, you didn’t start any of those claims. You just led the interrogation.

What G had for breakfast pretty much sums up your arguments, counter-claims and tittle-tattle sub-threads here. You should really do some reading on Islam or stop carrying on.

I think Gandalf had a cup of tea, but I’m not sure. Shall we ask him?

Quote:

Oh, FD, you really are a one. Are you asking me to go through the threads here and pull out your words on the prevelence of Muslim child marriage, in Australia, telling everyone how it was a significant Muslim problem because Muhammed was a paedophile?

The fact that Muhammed was a pedophile is itself a significant Muslim problem. We have had Muslims on here promoting the Islamic version of child marriage.


Quote:

Would you like me to do the same with your rants on Muslim.criminality, pulling all sorts of statistics out of your hat?

Sure. I think it would be great if you would try to criticise me based on what I actually say. We wouldn't go round in circles so much.


Quote:

Please don’t make me do that.

It is up to you whether you want to build a coherent argument. So far out of the three examples you have presented against me, two were Gandalf, not me, and the other is an undeniable problem.

You are not a details person Karnal. You barely notice them. You have a view of Islam that you cannot even pin down, something to do with not being a political movement, but a "purely" religious one, and all religions are somehow the same. All the little details about the pernicious political and legal aspects that are a core part of Islam simply pass you by. At best you comment how you disapprove then move on to telling people how they shouldn't disapprove. Or you turn it into a poo joke as a substitute for a rational counter-argument.

You have been here a few years now. Still no-one knows where you are coming from or what your views are. For the most part, no-one has even bothered to ask.

Don’t ask, don’t tell, FD. I’m.a bit surprised no one has bothered to tell you Islam is a religion. It really is. You know, people actually pray and try to be nice to each other, all that.

We have a little freedom in this country, FD. You might have heard of the right to follow the god of your choice. I know, Iknow, it’s a quaint old fashioned right that precedes the days of total Muslim war, rape and paedophilia we have now.

Can you believe it? Before talkback radio showed us what the score is, we respected other people’s rights to believe what they wanted, as long as it didn’t hurt anyone else.

Not anymore, eh?

No, my view of Islam where Muslims practice charity and hospitality and respect others and make good friends - where was I coming from? How could I have been so deceived?

Thanks for setting me straight, FD.

Just one thing - how did you turn me around?

Do you see me trying to deny anyone their rights? In fact Gandalf accused me of this very recently, but was unable to follow it up.

Do you see the irony in projecting such sinister motives onto myself at the same time as accusing me of doing this to Muslims?

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 3:31pm:

Do you see me trying to deny anyone their rights?

Oh, but of course. I've seen you scoffing here at people bowing down to pray, the god they pray to, people making dietary choices, people sending money to families overseas (funding terrorism), and people fleeing conflicts overseas (who don't become terrorists themselves). You scream about extremist Muslims, moderate Muslims, reformist Muslims, and Musims who don't even practice Islam (but put Muslim on their census forms). You rant about Muslims living, Muslims dying, and I've never seen you scoff at a Muslim grave, but I believe you would, given the opportunity.

Many of your posts could fit into the category of religious vilification, and I've seen you guffaw at those who dare to mention the protection of these laws. 

Whenever it's pointed out that there are laws for underage marriage and rape and terrorism and all the rest, you laugh at the audacity of Muslims being equally subject to the laws of the rest of us. How could that ever work?

Then, while you present your incriminating point-by-point evidence against some dodgy Muslim accountant or child marrier or drug dealer, thousands of non-Muslims are evading your ever-vigilant eye.

This board is about the Muslims!

Still, I've never seen you discuss your final solution for the Muselman problem, FD. You haven't put that one out there yet. The die-hard racists here want an end to Muslim immigration - well, just to be on the safe side, all "non-white" immigration.

The old boy wants the foreign ones carpet-bombed for talking back to Uncle.

Pete and Y want them all to convert to Karmic Khristianity and give up their lives in the coming Apocalypse.

And you want freedom, justice and equal rights for all.

Don't you?

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 3:31pm:

Do you see me trying to deny anyone their rights? In fact Gandalf accused me of this very recently, but was unable to follow it up.

Not exactly, I said you were attacking muslim's rights - a subtle but key difference.

Muslims, like anyone else, have a right to not be vilified. As Karnal said, your criticism goes far beyond merely standing up for freedom of speech and speaking out against muslim atrocities. You stereotype, make baseless accusations against muslims, make up baseless historical facts and pigeon-hole all muslims into the same basket. That is the very hallmark of prejudice leading to vilification. And to top it off, you regularly mock muslims for their practices (tapping their heads 25 times a day, har har har!). Most significantly, you have completely abandoned speaking out against even what you wouldn't deny as being blatant demonisation of muslims that is rampant on this forum. This is not the FD that started this forum - where you would pounce on anything even remotely prejudicial and vilifying against muslims - as any honest and objective contributor should. Now you are an apologist for the most heinous and offensive bigotry, and regularly chip in with your own ignorant trash. This, in case it still needs to be spelled out, is attacking muslim's right to not be demonized with ignorant bigotry.

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 3:31pm:

Do you see me trying to deny anyone their rights? In fact Gandalf accused me of this very recently, but was unable to follow it up.

Listen, don’t mention the war! I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it.

Karnal wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 3:27pm:

Don’t ask, don’t tell, FD. I’m.a bit surprised no one has bothered to tell you Islam is a religion. It really is. You know, people actually pray and try to be nice to each other, all that. We have a little freedom in this country, FD. You might have heard of the right to follow the god of your choice. I know, Iknow, it’s a quaint old fashioned right that precedes the days of total Muslim war, rape and paedophilia we have now. Can you believe it? Before talkback radio showed us what the score is, we respected other people’s rights to believe what they wanted, as long as it didn’t hurt anyone else. Not anymore, eh? No, my view of Islam where Muslims practice charity and hospitality and respect others and make good friends - where was I coming from? How could I have been so deceived? Thanks for setting me straight, FD. Just one thing - how did you turn me around?

islam is unlike 'any other religion.'
islam goals are totalitarian worldwide complete control.

islam is political, religious, legal and the armed forces rolled into one package.

islam is VERY hard to escape from once they have control.
It is totally against freedom of speech, it is oppressive and regressive.

Islamic countries always feature amongst countries of greatest abuse of human rights.
They also have the least ability to improve.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 6:34pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 6th, 2014 at 3:31pm: Do you see me trying to deny anyone their rights? In fact Gandalf accused me of this very recently, but was unable to follow it up. Not exactly, I said you were attacking muslim's rights - a subtle but key difference. Muslims, like anyone else, have a right to not be vilified. As Karnal said, your criticism goes far beyond merely standing up for freedom of speech and speaking out against muslim atrocities. You stereotype, make baseless accusations against muslims, make up baseless historical facts and pigeon-hole all muslims into the same basket. That is the very hallmark of prejudice leading to vilification. And to top it off, you regularly mock muslims for their practices (tapping their heads 25 times a day, har har har!). Most significantly, you have completely abandoned speaking out against even what you wouldn't deny as being blatant demonisation of muslims that is rampant on this forum. This is not the FD that started this forum - where you would pounce on anything even remotely prejudicial and vilifying against muslims - as any honest and objective contributor should. Now you are an apologist for the most heinous and offensive bigotry, and regularly chip in with your own ignorant trash. This, in case it still needs to be spelled out, is attacking muslim's right to not be demonized with ignorant bigotry.

Poor FD!


Quote:

.....not the FD that started this forum - where you would pounce on anything even remotely prejudicial and vilifying against muslims - as any honest and objective contributor should.

Dictionary;
vilify = = speak or write about in an abusively disparaging manner.


But gandalf,

What about the vilification of non-moslems and demonisation of non-moslems, that is entrenched and promoted within ISLAMIC doctrines and a vilification which is present for all to see, contained within ISLAMIC religious texts ???




FOR EXAMPLE....

Quote:

“Muslims are the vilest of animals…” “Show mercy to one another, but be ruthless to Muslims” “How perverse are Muslims!” “Strike off the heads of Muslims, as well as their fingertips” “Fight those Muslims who are near to you” “Muslim mischief makers should be murdered or crucified”

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Articles/Quran_Hate.htm

Hate Speech?
(Not According to CAIR)




Quote:

According to the Quran, non-believers... Eat like beasts 47:12 Are apes 7:166, 5:60, 2:65 Are swines 5:60 Are asses 74:50 The vilest of animals in Allah's sight 8:55 Losers 2:27, 2:121, 3:85 Have a disease in their hearts 2:10, 5:52, 24:50 Are hard-hearted 39:22, 57:16 Impure of hearts 5:41 Are deaf 2:171, 6:25 Are blind 2:171, 6:25 Are dumb 2:171, 6:35, 11:29 Are niggardly 4:37, 70:21 Works shall be rendered ineffective 2:217, 47:1, 47:8 Are impure 8:37 Are scum 13:17 Are inordinate 5:68, 78:22 Are transgressors 2:26, 9:8, 46:20 Are unjust 29:49 Make mischief 16:88 Are the worst of men 98:6 Are in a state of confusion 50:5 Are the lowest of the low 95:5 Focus only on outward appearance 19:73-74 Are guilty 30:12, 77:46 Sinful liar 45:7 Follow falsehood 47:3 Deeds are like the mirage in a desert 24:39 also... Allah does not love them 3:32, 22:38 Allah forsakes them 32:14, 45:34 Allah brought down destruction upon them 47:10 Allah has cursed them 2:88, 48:6 Allah despises them 17:18 Allah abases them 22:18

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Articles/Quran_Hate.htm




gandalf,

You speak about MOSLEMS being subjected to vilification and abuse !

But i would venture that this abuse of moslems criticism of moslems, is often related to the UN-'holy' conduct of many moslems?    



Rapes, murders, intimidation - crimes which are all sanctioned [MADE 'LAWFUL'!!] as Jihad against the enemies of the moslems and Allah.






The demonisation of non-moslems ???

"...And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of [i.e. for] those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?...Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan:.."
Koran 4.74-76


In Koran 4.74-76 those who reject 'Faith' are ipso facto, 'rightly' deemed, by ISLAM and by Allah, as being innately evil. Therefore those who reject 'Faith', are described as 'oppressors', and are the rightful targets of moslem enmity, violence, and warfare.
...'those who reject Faith' are described [Koran 4.74-76], as 'oppressors' and as, 'the friends of Satan'.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 7:10pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 6th, 2014 at 3:27pm: Don’t ask, don’t tell, FD. I’m.a bit surprised no one has bothered to tell you Islam is a religion. It really is. You know, people actually pray and try to be nice to each other, all that. We have a little freedom in this country, FD. You might have heard of the right to follow the god of your choice. I know, Iknow, it’s a quaint old fashioned right that precedes the days of total Muslim war, rape and paedophilia we have now. Can you believe it? Before talkback radio showed us what the score is, we respected other people’s rights to believe what they wanted, as long as it didn’t hurt anyone else. Not anymore, eh? No, my view of Islam where Muslims practice charity and hospitality and respect others and make good friends - where was I coming from? How could I have been so deceived? Thanks for setting me straight, FD. Just one thing - how did you turn me around? islam is unlike 'any other religion.' islam goals are totalitarian worldwide complete control. islam is political, religious, legal and the armed forces rolled into one package. islam is VERY hard to escape from once they have control. It is totally against freedom of speech, it is oppressive and regressive. Islamic countries always feature amongst countries of greatest abuse of human rights. They also have the least ability to improve.

Sprint, this is the longest post I’ve seen you write, and you raise some valid points in it. Islam is definitely against certain freedom of speech, and Islamicist  movements like the Taliban, the Wahabi Saudis, and a handful of others funded by the same, are fundamentally oppressive and regressive.

But Islam is not an army and a political movement and gunning for worldwide control. Even the Islamic groups that do want control can’t agree. Islamic (and non-Islamic) groups throughout the world are currently fighting it out for control of their own states.

Which, you would have to agree, is fair enpugh. It’s what we begged Iraqis to do when Saddam was in power.

And alas, most Muslims live in pro-Western, European political systems and are happy to do so. Indonesia is the biggest Muslim nation. India, a predominantly Hindu country, has the second largest Muslim.population. Militant Islamic groups in both these countries are rare - as they are through most of the Muslim world.

If I’m wrong, please show me where and how.

The exceptions to the rule - oil rich Saudi Arabia and bankrupt Pakistan, are both US allies.

But both states are the financial and geographic centre of extremist Islam.

How do we account for that?

Yadda wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 7:25pm:

But gandalf, What about the vilification of non-moslems and demonisation of non-moslems, that is entrenched and promoted within ISLAMIC doctrines and a vilification which is present for all to see, contained within ISLAMIC religious texts ???

The islamic text I follow doesn't vilify. It preaches tolerance and freedoms. You don't deny the existence of these particular texts - you just argue that they have been abbrogated. But I follow them nonetheless.

Though I do not deny that vilification and demonisation of non-muslims exists in muslim communities and countries. And I also do not deny that in many instances it is institutionalised and justified on doctrinal grounds. You ask me what I think about this - I answer by saying it is unacceptable and must be fought.

But is there any point in me explaining? Since anything I say can simply be dismissed as deliberate deception - in line with the muslim doctrine of deceit called taqqiya right?

Yes friends, Google Taqqiya.

I did. It sums up our sinister, limp-wristed spineless apologetic agenda to a tee.

We spineless apologists, you see, want to hold off the Karmic Khristian agenda of spreading the Word tof Jeesus throughout the world, and thus, bringing upon Armageddon.

Pete calls us anti-Christs and spoil sports. I think we’re a pack of complete bastards.

There are no right or wrong answers, friends. Google Taqqiya..

Quote:

Sprint, this is the longest post I’ve seen you write, and you raise some valid points in it. Islam is definitely against certain freedom of speech, and Islamicist  movements like the Taliban, the Wahabi Saudis, and a handful of others funded by the same, are fundamentally oppressive and regressive.

According to Abu, it is all four mainstream schools of Sunni jurisprudence. Also Shitism, but Abu opposed that.


Quote:

But Islam is not an army and a political movement and gunning for worldwide control.

It was for most of it's history, and that is exactly how Muhammed intended it. The only reason this is no longer the case is because people with more spine stood up to it. And to a large extent because Muslims have been shitting on their own plate for so long it is starting to smell. The absence of the Caliphate is not evidence that Islam is benign. Rather it is evidence that Islam is so deleterious that it destroyed itself from within, and is still doing so.


Quote:

Even the Islamic groups that do want control can’t agree.

They agree on a lot. They disagree on who should do the controlling.


Quote:

Islamic (and non-Islamic) groups throughout the world are currently fighting it out for control of their own states. Which, you would have to agree, is fair enpugh. It’s what we begged Iraqis to do when Saddam was in power.

We would like them to take a stand on the side of democracy and share power with other Muslims. But that is not what Islam is about.


Quote:

And alas, most Muslims live in pro-Western, European political systems and are happy to do so.

Many of these are barely functional democracies and have a poor human rights record.


Quote:

But both states are the financial and geographic centre of extremist Islam. How do we account for that?

Saudi Arabia is at the heart of Islam. Pakistan is one of those barely functioning democracies. I give you that it is anti-western, but that is hardly the critical issue here.


Quote:

The islamic text I follow doesn't vilify. It preaches tolerance and freedoms.

Which one is that? The Koran? Does it mention anything about following Muhammed's example?


Quote:

You don't deny the existence of these particular texts - you just argue that they have been abbrogated.

So you only follow bits of the Koran? Why didn't you point out this abrogation concept all those times I have asked you what your method is for interpreting Muhammed's example? Is it because the only reasonable interpretation of Islam is that the violent, punitive version of Islam abrogated the early "wishy washy" version of Islam?


Quote:

Though I do not deny that vilification and demonisation of non-muslims exists in muslim communities and countries. And I also do not deny that in many instances it is institutionalised and justified on doctrinal grounds. You ask me what I think about this - I answer by saying it is unacceptable and must be fought.

You spend most of your time denying that it exists. How can you fight something that you don't believe exists? In the case of Malaysia, how are your efforts going at fighting the doctrinal view that apostates should be executed and adulterers should be stoned to death? How many of the locals have you swayed with your argument that they don't really think what they say they think?

Did you ever study history, FD? Even just a little bit?

The past 500 years might be a good place to start.

Better get cracking. You might want to start with the European Age of Expansion.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 8:24pm:

Yadda wrote on Apr 6th, 2014 at 7:25pm: But gandalf, What about the vilification of non-moslems and demonisation of non-moslems, that is entrenched and promoted within ISLAMIC doctrines and a vilification which is present for all to see, contained within ISLAMIC religious texts ??? The islamic text I follow doesn't vilify. It preaches tolerance and freedoms. You don't deny the existence of these particular texts - you just argue that they have been abbrogated. But I follow them nonetheless. Though I do not deny that vilification and demonisation of non-muslims exists in muslim communities and countries. And I also do not deny that in many instances it is institutionalised and justified on doctrinal grounds. You ask me what I think about this - I answer by saying it is unacceptable and must be fought. But is there any point in me explaining? Since anything I say can simply be dismissed as deliberate deception - in line with the muslim doctrine of deceit called taqqiya right?

Taqqiya IS a Muslim doctrine.  As is the infallibility of the Koran.  And your 'fight' against the doctrinally justified vilification and demoniasation of non-Muslims  is commendable but evidently without any effect. You are weak horse of Islam and are just as afraid of the strong horses (violent jihadis) as non-Muslims are.

That you may - may - be the majority shows just how utterly ineffective you are. I think the majority are the opportunists - as in every religion - who will sniff the wind and trim their sails accordingly.  Which means you are not having a significant following because if you did you would have gotten rid of the monstrous head-hackers by now.

This is why people are suspicious of your pronouncements - you are evidently not speaking for Islam because if you did, the head-hackers wouldn't be setting the agenda for Islam.
You would.  But you aren't. You are cowering like the rest of us. You hold forth among infidels here - here where you are safe.

Doesn’t sound like you support G’s right to follow a belief system that preaches tolerance and freedoms, FD.  Rather he got stoned for apostacy, eh?

You know what you are, FD? You’re a libertarian. A proud defender of free speech and human rights.

Soren wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 9:17pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 6th, 2014 at 8:24pm: Yadda wrote on Apr 6th, 2014 at 7:25pm: But gandalf, What about the vilification of non-moslems and demonisation of non-moslems, that is entrenched and promoted within ISLAMIC doctrines and a vilification which is present for all to see, contained within ISLAMIC religious texts ??? The islamic text I follow doesn't vilify. It preaches tolerance and freedoms. You don't deny the existence of these particular texts - you just argue that they have been abbrogated. But I follow them nonetheless. Though I do not deny that vilification and demonisation of non-muslims exists in muslim communities and countries. And I also do not deny that in many instances it is institutionalised and justified on doctrinal grounds. You ask me what I think about this - I answer by saying it is unacceptable and must be fought. But is there any point in me explaining? Since anything I say can simply be dismissed as deliberate deception - in line with the muslim doctrine of deceit called taqqiya right? Taqqiya IS a Muslim doctrine.  As is the infallibility of the Koran.  And your 'fight' against the doctrinally justified vilification and demoniasation of non-Muslims  is commendable but evidently without any effect. You are weak horse of Islam and are just as afraid of the strong horses (violent jihadis) as non-Muslims are. That you may - may - be the majority shows just how utterly ineffective you are. I think the majority are the opportunists - as in every religion - who will sniff the wind and trim their sails accordingly.  Which means you are not having a significant following because if you did you would have gotten rid of the monstrous head-hackers by now. This is why people are suspicious of your pronouncements - you are evidently not speaking for Islam because if you did, the head-hackers wouldn't be setting the agenda for Islam. You would.  But you aren't. You are cowering like the rest of us. You hold forth among infidels here - here where you are safe.

Cowerering, are we? Where did you say you lived, dear boy?

South Sudan, was it?

Better get yourself an armoured Mercedes. Everyone who’s anyone has one, old chap.

Karnal wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 7:33pm:

Militant Islamic groups in both these countries are rare - as they are through most of the Muslim world. If I’m wrong, please show me where and how.

Most of the killing in the name of Islam occur where there is a significant Muslim minority population or where Muslims are the majority.

Most of the dead are other Muslims. There is an awful lot of infidel murdering going on but it is still other Muslims that Muslims seem to prefer to murder in the name of Islam

Islam has been at war with itself since the day Mohammed died and what started the bloodshed then remains unresolved today. In the globalised world we have today, Islam's civil war of 1400 years is now touching everyone. Importing Muslims, the world is importing Islam's civil war.

Islam cannot withstand critical scrutiny - that's why it wants to make it illegal through UN channels. Once it is subjected to critical scrutiny, it will collapse.
This is why they murder cartoonists, film-makers, novelists, translators, and menace anyone who is critical of Islam. Mohammed was stupid enough to stipulate the Koran's infallibility and eternal existence. There is no room for reform and adjustment. Criticism is the death of Islam, and that's why they will kill you for it.

freediver wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 9:04pm:

You spend most of your time denying that it exists.

That demonization and vilification of non-muslims happens in parts of the muslim world?

You are mistaken my friend.

You really should spend more time understanding what I actually say FD.

Soren wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 9:38pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 6th, 2014 at 7:33pm: Militant Islamic groups in both these countries are rare - as they are through most of the Muslim world. If I’m wrong, please show me where and how.  Most of the killing in the name of Islam occur where there is a significant Muslim minority population or where Muslims are the majority. Most of the dead are other Muslims. There is an awful lot of infidel murdering going on but it is still other Muslims that Muslims seem to prefer to murder in the name of Islam Islam has been at war with itself since the day Mohammed died and what started the bloodshed then remains unresolved today. In the globalised world we have today, Islam's civil war of 1400 years is now touching everyone. Importing Muslims, the world is importing Islam's civil war. Islam cannot withstand critical scrutiny - that's why it wants to make it illegal through UN channels. Once it is subjected to critical scrutiny, it will collapse. This is why they murder cartoonists, film-makers, novelists, translators, and menace anyone who is critical of Islam. Mohammed was stupid enough to stipulate the Koran's infallibility and eternal existence. There is no room for reform and adjustment. Criticism is the death of Islam, and that's why they will kill you for it.

So that’s why you’re cowering - all those posts you’ve written about the Muselman on this board. I see.

So why don’t you just learn to be nice and let them all kill each other off?

You Freudians. You have to be confrontational, don’t you.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 9:46pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 6th, 2014 at 9:04pm: You spend most of your time denying that it exists. That demonization and vilification of non-muslims happens in parts of the muslim world? You are mistaken my friend. You really should spend more time understanding what I actually say FD.

gandalf,

The demonization and vilification of non-muslims happens, here on this very OzPol forum too, my friend!


e.g.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1396356294/97#97

Quote:

This is not the FD that started this forum - where you would pounce on anything even remotely prejudicial and vilifying against muslims - as any honest and objective contributor should. Now you are an apologist for the most heinous and offensive bigotry, and regularly chip in with your own ignorant trash.

awww poor FD.

Will you give him a hug for me Y?

Karnal wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 9:51pm:

You Freudians. You have to be confrontational, don’t you.

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/19gdw4jlxjp65gif/ku-medium.gif



Feelings, nothing more than feelings..


;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Sorry Y, just as an addendum to that, see if you can see any distinction between...

1. All muslims are lying deceitful undesirables who should be expelled from our country and go to hell

2. one individual on this forum has articulated arguments that make him an apologist for bigotry

I'm with you Y - number 2 is demonization and vilification of the worst kind, while number 1 is just healthy free speech.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 10:00pm:

awww poor FD. Will you give him a hug for me Y?

gandalf,

FD does not gag YOUR opinions [nor delete any of your posts], because FD is [comfortable, and] happy for you [and everyone] to express their opinions and points of view.


gandalf,

Go to any moslem run forum.

They gag, and delete opinions they do not agree with.




gandalf,

The difference between Freediver, and yourself,
.....is that Freediver is NOT a moslem.

But you are.





Dictionary;
Muslim = = a follower of Islam.



What is ISLAM ???

And what violence against 'disbelievers' does ISLAM sanction require, form the part of a true moslem ?

ISLAMIC law....

"Ibn 'Abbas reported that the Prophet said: "The bare essence of Islam and the basics of the religion are three [acts], upon which Islam has been established. Whoever leaves one of them becomes an unbeliever and his blood may legally be spilled. [The acts are:] Testifying that there is no God except Allah, the obligatory prayers, and the fast of Ramadan."...."
fiqhussunnah/#3.110

n.b.
"Whoever......becomes an unbeliever.....his blood may legally be spilled."





FROM THE SUNNA OF MOHAMMED

"...If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him."
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.260

gandalf,

The difference between Freediver, and yourself,
.....is that Freediver is NOT a moslem.

But you are.




gandalf,

You are a moslem.

And you are a 'flag' in the political wind.

And as soon as, the instant the political wind favours moslems, you will become a Jihadist.

Why so ?

Because you are a moslem gandalf.


i.e.
You are not a sincere person, you are a moslem gandalf.

When the day arrives, you will 'expiate' your oath to pluralism, and to Australian standards of tolerance.

You are a moslem gandalf.

You declare that, to us, every day!








"Love is not love Which alters when it alteration"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295407319/0#0

Quote:

From the Koran, Hadith; Allah told Mohammed, it is OK to not fulfil the oaths you make. i.e. If you find something better, you are free to go, and make a better deal, and abandon your first oath. "Allah indeed has sanctioned for you the expiation of your oaths and Allah is your Protector, and He is the Knowing the Wise." Koran 66:2 "The Prophet said, "If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath."." hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #007.067.427 hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #008.078.618 hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #008.079.709 hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #008.079.710 hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #008.079.712 hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #008.079.715 "expiate my oath", means an obligation to Allah of penance [Kaffara], e.g. fasting for three days, or to clothe or feed poor people. "If you ever take an oath to do something and later on you find that something else is better, then you should expiate your oath and do what is better." hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #009.089.260 hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #009.089.261 "The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: An oath or a vow about something over which a human being has no control, and to disobey Allah, and to break ties of relationship is not binding. If anyone takes an oath and then considers something else better than it, he should give it up, and do what is better, for leaving it is its atonement." hadithsunnah/abudawud/ #021.3268 "Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that Abdullah ibn Umar said, "Whoever swears by Allah and then says, 'Allah willing' and then does not do what he has sworn to, has not broken his oath." " hadithsunnah/muwatta/ #022.22.6.10 hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #009.089.260 hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #009.089.260 hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #009.089.260

0ktema wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 11:50pm:

Pete Waldo wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 10:52pm: Though nobody has all the answers, nor a franchise on truth. Without much doubt ... you would seem to have set up a fairly secure world for yourself - backed up by all your chosen scripture and literal interpretation there of.

It isn't me that set it up, but the one great God Yahweh through His 1600 year record to mankind, whose people have followed Him through two covenants over 3500 years.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/muhammad_islam_in_bible_prophecy.htm#the_conflict

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Regarding your peculiar suggestion of a "literal interpretation there of", the very post you are replying to discussed Revelation chapter 13, and a 7-headed, 10-horned "beast", that I understand to be a kingdom - not a 7-headed, 10-horned beast. The post also specifically discussed my NOT taking the figurative language of prophetic dreams and visions literally.
So how did your reading and comprehension skills cause to come up with your opposite suggestion?


0ktema wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 11:50pm:

Personally I started to overcome Christian exclusivity at the ripe old age of 9.

Whether you intended it or not you are saying you overcame the Gospel.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Regarding "exclusivity", had you been, and remained, ignorant to the gospel, you may not have been held accountable:

Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

But if you had understood the Gospel, and then rejected it, that is a different matter:

2Pe 2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. 22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

Did you even understand the nature of your claim? We all generally credit 9 year olds with possessing great wisdom don't we? How many years prior to your turning 9 did you spend in Bible study, apologetics, study of Biblical prophecy and archaeology and such?

What was it that caused you to desire to "overcome" Christianity? Was it fulfilled Bible prophecy that too clearly demonstrates the veracity of the Gospel record?

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me. 45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, 46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 And ye are witnesses of these things.

So what is one prophecy that was "written in the Psalms" that Jesus was making reference to?

Psalms 22:16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. 17 I may tell all my bones: they look [and] stare upon me. 18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/the_lamb_slain.htm

That passage was penned before crucifixion had even been invented. The details are confirmed as fulfilled by the New Testament witnesses.

Matthew 27:35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.
Mark 15:24 And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take.
Luke 23:33 And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left. 34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.
John 19:23 Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also [his] coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. 24 They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/the_lamb_slain.htm

Pete Waldo wrote on Apr 6^th, 2014 at 10:37pm:

0ktema wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:50pm: Pete Waldo wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 10:52pm: Though nobody has all the answers, nor a franchise on truth. Without much doubt ... you would seem to have set up a fairly secure world for yourself - backed up by all your chosen scripture and literal interpretation there of. It isn't me that set it up, but the one great God Yahweh through His 1600 year record to mankind, whose people have followed Him through two covenants over 3500 years. http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/muhammad_islam_in_bible_prophecy.htm#the_conflict 2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 0ktema wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:50pm: Personally I started to overcome Christian exclusivity at the ripe old age of 9. Whether you intended it or not you are saying you overcame the Gospel. John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. Regarding "exclusivity", had you been, and remained, ignorant to the gospel, you may not have been held accountable: Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. But if you had understood the Gospel, and then rejected it, that is a different matter: 2Pe 2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. 22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire. Did you even understand the nature of your claim? We all generally credit 9 year olds with possessing great wisdom don't we? How many years prior to your turning 9 did you spend in Bible study, apologetics, study of Biblical prophecy and archaeology and such? What was it that caused you to desire to "overcome" Christianity? Was it fulfilled Bible prophecy that too clearly demonstrates the veracity of the Gospel record? That passage was penned before crucifixion had even been invented. The details are confirmed as fulfilled by the New Testament witnesses.

Beyond any possible omissions and possible changes made (by the hand of man) over the history of the recorded Bible - Jesus is considered to be the only person who was one with God and therefore without fallibility. Everyone else even his disciples were not perfect and so whatever they communicate in the gospels indeed may not be totally infallible.

In my King James Bible, that which is printed in red (the actual record of Jesus spoken word) is what I give most regard.

To truly follow Jesus' example is a spiritual matter well beyond the mere quoting of scripture.

When Jesus said “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” The "I am" he refers to is his very state, his oneness with God and his fullness of Spirit.

In other words, self transcendence or moving beyond the ego is the only way to truly know God.
This is true communion, true salvation and real faith. The making of room for the decent of the Holy Spirit.

The belief that one can be saved by the vicarious sacrifice of Jesus (himself) is convenient cop-out from the serious effort and practice of real self sacrifice or the moment by moment transcendence of the loveless activity that is the ego.

The essence of the story of Jesus life is - knowing his (God's) love and sharing it with all others.

Those that merely quote scripture an law in an effort to prove their superiority of knowledge, the veracity of their search or such, are simply playing the same game that the Pharisees tried to play with Jesus! 

...............................

Almost certainly what I have posted above will mean little to you, other than you assuming that I shall suffer eternal damnation if I do not repent - as you seem very convinced as to the truth of your apparent convictions and would seem to have invested a lot of time and effort developing them. 
Que Sera, Sera Pete.

0ktema wrote on Apr 7^th, 2014 at 1:27am:

Pete Waldo wrote on Apr 6th, 2014 at 10:37pm: 0ktema wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:50pm: Pete Waldo wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 10:52pm: Though nobody has all the answers, nor a franchise on truth. Without much doubt ... you would seem to have set up a fairly secure world for yourself - backed up by all your chosen scripture and literal interpretation there of. It isn't me that set it up, but the one great God Yahweh through His 1600 year record to mankind, whose people have followed Him through two covenants over 3500 years. http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/muhammad_islam_in_bible_prophecy.htm#the_conflict 2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 0ktema wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:50pm: Personally I started to overcome Christian exclusivity at the ripe old age of 9. Whether you intended it or not you are saying you overcame the Gospel. John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. Regarding "exclusivity", had you been, and remained, ignorant to the gospel, you may not have been held accountable: Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. But if you had understood the Gospel, and then rejected it, that is a different matter: 2Pe 2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. 22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire. Did you even understand the nature of your claim? We all generally credit 9 year olds with possessing great wisdom don't we? How many years prior to your turning 9 did you spend in Bible study, apologetics, study of Biblical prophecy and archaeology and such? What was it that caused you to desire to "overcome" Christianity? Was it fulfilled Bible prophecy that too clearly demonstrates the veracity of the Gospel record? That passage was penned before crucifixion had even been invented. The details are confirmed as fulfilled by the New Testament witnesses. Beyond any possible omissions and possible changes made (by the hand of man) over the history of the recorded Bible - Jesus is considered to be the only person who was one with God and therefore without fallibility. Everyone else even his disciples were not perfect and so whatever they communicate in the gospels indeed may not be totally infallible. In my King James Bible, that which is printed in red (the actual record of Jesus spoken word) is what I give most regard. To truly follow Jesus' example is a spiritual matter well beyond the mere quoting of scripture. When Jesus said “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” The "I am" he refers to is his very state, his oneness with God and his fullness of Spirit.

Indeed, and Amen. And there are many more instances that are obscured by "helper" words in the KJV, that aren't much help. Like this verse:

John 18:6 As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.

That "he" is added and does not exist in the Koine Greek. But would Jesus offering a simple declaration "I am he" cause a band of men and officers to fall to the ground? Or would "I AM", as in the Koine Greek.


0ktema wrote on Apr 7^th, 2014 at 1:27am:

In other words, self transcendence or moving beyond the ego is the only way to truly know God. This is true communion, true salvation and real faith. The making of room for the decent of the Holy Spirit. The belief that one can be saved by the vicarious sacrifice of Jesus (himself) is convenient cop-out..

One cannot be saved without it once one understands it. But your point is made in the "doctrine of repentance" having conveniently been replaced by a "decision" in the pop-church.


0ktema wrote on Apr 7^th, 2014 at 1:27am:

.......from the serious effort and practice of real self sacrifice or the moment by moment transcendence of the loveless activity that is the ego. The essence of the story of Jesus life is - knowing his (God's) love and sharing it with all others. Those that merely quote scripture an law in an effort to prove their superiority of knowledge, the veracity of their search or such, are simply playing the same game that the Pharisees tried to play with Jesus!

Jhn 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.


0ktema wrote on Apr 7^th, 2014 at 1:27am:

Almost certainly what I have posted above will mean little to you, other than you assuming that I shall suffer eternal damnation if I do not repent - as you seem very convinced as to the truth of your apparent convictions and would seem to have invested a lot of time and effort developing them.  Que Sera, Sera Pete.

No, it's empty counter-scriptural words of apostate heretics like Shelby Spong that "mean little to me".

For the benefit of others in here that don't know who we are talking about:

"Hero or heretic? - John Spong
by David Virtue

Retired bishop John Spong stirs the ecclesiastical community with his
unorthodox views

"I am a Christian," declares John Shelby Spong, the now retired
Episcopal Bishop of Newark, N.J., in his most recent book A New
Christianity for a New World (HarperCollins, September, 2001) "Yet I do not define God as a supernatural being ... I do not believe in a deity
who can help a nation win a war ... intervene to cure a loved one's
sickness ... I do not believe Jesus entered this world by a virgin
birth or did in any literal way raise the dead, overcome a medically
diagnosed paralysis, restore sight to a blind person ... I do not
believe that a literal star guided literal wise men to bring Jesus
gifts or that literal angels sang to hillside shepherds to announce his
birth ... I do not believe that the experience Christians celebrate at
Easter was the physical resuscitation of the three-days-dead body of
Jesus ..."

Like a reversed Nicene Creed, Spong's list of disbelief goes on,
confidently rejecting Christianity's core doctrines of incarnation,
atonement and resurrection. It is followed by Spong's equally confident
assertion that Christianity, as we know it, is dying. If Christianity
is to survive it has to discard such offensive notions as sin, and
abandon the language of worship in which the faithful grovel "as slaves
might be expected to before a master." It must recognize that Jesus was
totally human, that Love is God and God is Love. And that the way to
worship this God is by living fully, loving wastefully and being all
that you can be."

more
http://listserv.virtueonline.org/pipermail/virtueonline_listserv.virtueonline.org/2001-December/003088.html

Men have followed gods of their own creation since mankind's beginnings. Nothing new under the sun. Here's how far Spong has bent his prey:


0ktema wrote on Apr 7^th, 2014 at 1:27am:

The belief that one can be saved by the vicarious sacrifice of Jesus (himself) is convenient cop-out from the serious effort and practice of real self sacrifice or the moment by moment transcendence of the loveless activity that is the ego.

Heb 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: 14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/the_lamb_slain.htm

Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Hey, forget about the sacrifice of the Lamb of God man, it's about the sacrifice of ........... myself! Yea, it's about me, me me me!

If you throw a frog in hot water he will do his best to jump out. But if you put a frog in cold water, and then turn on the stove, he will relax until he is cooked to death. That's what happened to those who went down the road with guys like Shelby Spong and Gene Robinson, and those who remain in the Episcopal "Church" U.S.A.

But then apostasy is just as was prophesied for the times we live in:
http://www.christianeschatology.com/falling_away_apostasy.htm

0ktema wrote on Apr 7^th, 2014 at 1:27am:

Pete Waldo wrote on Apr 6th, 2014 at 10:37pm: 0ktema wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:50pm: Pete Waldo wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 10:52pm: Though nobody has all the answers, nor a franchise on truth. Without much doubt ... you would seem to have set up a fairly secure world for yourself - backed up by all your chosen scripture and literal interpretation there of. It isn't me that set it up, but the one great God Yahweh through His 1600 year record to mankind, whose people have followed Him through two covenants over 3500 years. http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/muhammad_islam_in_bible_prophecy.htm#the_conflict 2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 0ktema wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 11:50pm: Personally I started to overcome Christian exclusivity at the ripe old age of 9. Whether you intended it or not you are saying you overcame the Gospel. John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. Regarding "exclusivity", had you been, and remained, ignorant to the gospel, you may not have been held accountable: Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. But if you had understood the Gospel, and then rejected it, that is a different matter: 2Pe 2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. 22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire. Did you even understand the nature of your claim? We all generally credit 9 year olds with possessing great wisdom don't we? How many years prior to your turning 9 did you spend in Bible study, apologetics, study of Biblical prophecy and archaeology and such? What was it that caused you to desire to "overcome" Christianity? Was it fulfilled Bible prophecy that too clearly demonstrates the veracity of the Gospel record? That passage was penned before crucifixion had even been invented. The details are confirmed as fulfilled by the New Testament witnesses. Beyond any possible omissions and possible changes made (by the hand of man) over the history of the recorded Bible - Jesus is considered to be the only person who was one with God and therefore without fallibility. Everyone else even his disciples were not perfect and so whatever they communicate in the gospels indeed may not be totally infallible. In my King James Bible, that which is printed in red (the actual record of Jesus spoken word) is what I give most regard. To truly follow Jesus' example is a spiritual matter well beyond the mere quoting of scripture. When Jesus said “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” The "I am" he refers to is his very state, his oneness with God and his fullness of Spirit. In other words, self transcendence or moving beyond the ego is the only way to truly know God. This is true communion, true salvation and real faith. The making of room for the decent of the Holy Spirit. The belief that one can be saved by the vicarious sacrifice of Jesus (himself) is convenient cop-out from the serious effort and practice of real self sacrifice or the moment by moment transcendence of the loveless activity that is the ego. The essence of the story of Jesus life is - knowing his (God's) love and sharing it with all others. Those that merely quote scripture an law in an effort to prove their superiority of knowledge, the veracity of their search or such, are simply playing the same game that the Pharisees tried to play with Jesus!  ............................... Almost certainly what I have posted above will mean little to you, other than you assuming that I shall suffer eternal damnation if I do not repent - as you seem very convinced as to the truth of your apparent convictions and would seem to have invested a lot of time and effort developing them.  Que Sera, Sera Pete.

A resounding post, Oktema. I agree fully.

Nowhere else in the words of Jesus that we have, does he mention his own deity status. Looking at the rest of his work, he would be appalled at what St Paul did in his name.

We are all God. I.and the Father are one.

Allah Uakbar.

0ktema wrote on Apr 7^th, 2014 at 1:27am:

When Jesus said “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” The "I am" he refers to is his very state, his oneness with God and his fullness of Spirit. In other words, self transcendence or moving beyond the ego is the only way to truly know God. This is true communion, true salvation and real faith. The making of room for the decent of the Holy Spirit.

I think thats very well put.