What a surprise!

Islamic group backs sacked principal

The removal of the principal and deputy of a Sydney high school after a refusal to co-operate with an anti-radicalisation campaign is an “extremely worrying development”, according to controversial Muslim organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir.

A memo sent by the outfit, which has in the past espoused anti-gay and anti-women views, suggests Punchbowl Boys’ High School principal Chris Griffiths was removed “because of his ­reluctance to effectively criminalise his students by implementing the government’s deradicalisation programs”.

The controversy comes as federal Justice Minister Michael Keenan said young people remained vulnerable to extremist propaganda and as Iraq’s ambassador to Australia, Hussain Al-Ameri, warned that there were “sleeping colonies” of potential terrorists in the country.

Malcolm Turnbull, in Jakarta yesterday, said security agencies had access to enough “tools” to target radicalised youth, potential terrorists, and Australian citizens working for Islamic State abroad. “We take our counter-terrorism activities extremely seriously,” the Prime Minister said.

NSW Education Department secretary Mark Scott on Monday confirmed revelations in The Weekend Australian that the Punchbowl school had resisted the government’s School Community Working Together ­program. It followed earlier reports that Mr Griffiths and his deputy, Joumana Dennaoiu, had been dumped amid a backlash over the exclusion of female staff from ­official events held at the largely Muslim school.

Mr Griffith was replaced by Robert Patruno, who previously ran the education unit at Reiby Juvenile Justice Centre, a move which Hizb ut-Tahrir said “effectively treats the community, and specifically the youth, as ­criminals”.

    More: Who’s singing Australia’s song?

“The information that is slowly emerging (indicates) that this has been a witch hunt to remove a figure who refuses to buy into the pre-emptive criminalisation of a largely ‘Muslim’ school,” the memo reads.

It is understood Mr Griffiths and Ms Dennaoui are considering their legal options, amid concerns about the ­unusual nature of their removal from the school. Both are said to have been blindsided by the news that they were being removed and Mr Griffiths went on immediate sick leave late last week when he received information of the department’s impending action. It is understood neither Mr Griffiths nor his deputy have been briefed fully by the department regarding the results of the appraisal or reasons for the department’s decision.

While the Education Department has told The Australian it received numerous complaints from staff last year, it is understood that neither Mr Griffiths nor the Australian Education Union were made aware of those complaints.

The updated My School website reveals Punchbowl went backwards last year in NAPLAN tests.

It was below or substantially below similar schools on the basics of reading and writing, and was substantially below the Australian average.

In Year 7 reading, it had an ­average score of 469 last year, down 10 points from 2015. It also lost ground on spelling, grammar and punctuation, and numeracy. Students in Year 7 and 9, however, did better in persuasive writing than they did in 2015.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/education/islamic-group-backs-sacked-punchbowl-boys-high-principal/news-story/0a0469cb64af7813c4d0daa0d2fc8f31

That should help him get his job back.

Greggy is in lockstep with HuT

Gordon wrote on Mar 8^th, 2017 at 6:46pm:

What a surprise!

Why does it surprise you?

Gordon wrote on Mar 8^th, 2017 at 6:46pm:

What a surprise! Islamic group backs sacked principal The removal of the principal and deputy of a Sydney high school after a refusal to co-operate with an anti-radicalisation campaign is an “extremely worrying development”, according to controversial Muslim organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir. A memo sent by the outfit, which has in the past espoused anti-gay and anti-women views, suggests Punchbowl Boys’ High School principal Chris Griffiths was removed “because of his ­reluctance to effectively criminalise his students by implementing the government’s deradicalisation programs”. The controversy comes as federal Justice Minister Michael Keenan said young people remained vulnerable to extremist propaganda and as Iraq’s ambassador to Australia, Hussain Al-Ameri, warned that there were “sleeping colonies” of potential terrorists in the country. Malcolm Turnbull, in Jakarta yesterday, said security agencies had access to enough “tools” to target radicalised youth, potential terrorists, and Australian citizens working for Islamic State abroad. “We take our counter-terrorism activities extremely seriously,” the Prime Minister said. NSW Education Department secretary Mark Scott on Monday confirmed revelations in The Weekend Australian that the Punchbowl school had resisted the government’s School Community Working Together ­program. It followed earlier reports that Mr Griffiths and his deputy, Joumana Dennaoiu, had been dumped amid a backlash over the exclusion of female staff from ­official events held at the largely Muslim school. Mr Griffith was replaced by Robert Patruno, who previously ran the education unit at Reiby Juvenile Justice Centre, a move which Hizb ut-Tahrir said “effectively treats the community, and specifically the youth, as ­criminals”.     More: Who’s singing Australia’s song? “The information that is slowly emerging (indicates) that this has been a witch hunt to remove a figure who refuses to buy into the pre-emptive criminalisation of a largely ‘Muslim’ school,” the memo reads. It is understood Mr Griffiths and Ms Dennaoui are considering their legal options, amid concerns about the ­unusual nature of their removal from the school. Both are said to have been blindsided by the news that they were being removed and Mr Griffiths went on immediate sick leave late last week when he received information of the department’s impending action. It is understood neither Mr Griffiths nor his deputy have been briefed fully by the department regarding the results of the appraisal or reasons for the department’s decision. While the Education Department has told The Australian it received numerous complaints from staff last year, it is understood that neither Mr Griffiths nor the Australian Education Union were made aware of those complaints. The updated My School website reveals Punchbowl went backwards last year in NAPLAN tests. It was below or substantially below similar schools on the basics of reading and writing, and was substantially below the Australian average. In Year 7 reading, it had an ­average score of 469 last year, down 10 points from 2015. It also lost ground on spelling, grammar and punctuation, and numeracy. Students in Year 7 and 9, however, did better in persuasive writing than they did in 2015. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/education/islamic-group-backs-sacked-punchbowl-boys-high-principal/news-story/0a0469cb64af7813c4d0daa0d2fc8f31

Quote:

............. below or substantially below similar schools on the basics of reading and writing, and was substantially below the Australian average..................

Sure, but how are their bomb making skills progressing ?

How does, "Islamic Group" get translated in your mind, Gordon to "Islamists"?   You do realise, as I am sure you do, that "Islamists" are very different to Islamic Groups.   You're an Islamophobe, aren't you, Gordon?   Tsk, tsk.    ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 9^th, 2017 at 12:18am:

How does, "Islamic Group" get translated in your mind, Gordon to "Islamists"?   You do realise, as I am sure you do, that "Islamists" are very different to Islamic Groups.   You're an Islamophobe, aren't you, Gordon?   Tsk, tsk.    ::) ::)

Brian support HuT.
At least your views are out in the open now.

Gordon wrote on Mar 9^th, 2017 at 8:50am:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 9th, 2017 at 12:18am: How does, "Islamic Group" get translated in your mind, Gordon to "Islamists"?   You do realise, as I am sure you do, that "Islamists" are very different to Islamic Groups.   You're an Islamophobe, aren't you, Gordon?   Tsk, tsk.    ::) ::) Brian support HuT. At least your views are out in the open now.

"Islamic Groups"  are very different to "Islamist groups", Gordon.   Obviously your Islamophobia has blinded you to reality.    ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 10^th, 2017 at 12:15am:

Gordon wrote on Mar 9th, 2017 at 8:50am: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 9th, 2017 at 12:18am: How does, "Islamic Group" get translated in your mind, Gordon to "Islamists"?   You do realise, as I am sure you do, that "Islamists" are very different to Islamic Groups.   You're an Islamophobe, aren't you, Gordon?   Tsk, tsk.    ::) ::) Brian support HuT. At least your views are out in the open now. "Islamic Groups"  are very different to "Islamist groups", Gordon.   Obviously your Islamophobia has blinded you to reality.    ::) ::)

May I ask you what an Islamist is?

edit: Not you Yadda, Brian.

Greg? What is an Islamist? Is it something like a Buddhist or an atheist, a creationist? What does the ist suffix mean? I'm in need of a bit of pedantry.

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 10^th, 2017 at 12:15am:

"Islamic Groups"  are very different to "Islamist groups", Gordon.

"Islamic Groups" groups promote Allah's war against unbelief [Jihad].

While, "Islamist Groups" groups promote Allah's war against unbelief [Jihad] too.



.



1/    "...Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith." [i.e. 'Unbelief' [in man] is a crime.].
Koran 2.98
[ - - The enemy of moslems is identified. All of 'unbelieving' mankind, are declared to be the enemy of moslems.]

2/    "...those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47:8-11
[ - - Here, it is clearly stated to every good moslem, that moslem enmity, violence, and warfare, against 'those who reject Faith', is morally justified, and 'lawful'. /sarc off]

3/    "...And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah........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
[ - - Those who reject 'Faith' are ipso facto, 'rightly' deemed, by ISLAM [i.e. by Allah], as being innately evil. Therefore those who reject 'Faith' 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'.]




.




ISLAMIC LAW....
"Ibn 'Umar related that the Messenger of Allah, upon whom be peace, said, "I have been ordered to kill the people until they testify that there is no god except Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer and pay the zakah. If they do that, their blood and wealth are protected from me save by the rights of Islam. Their reckoning will be with Allah." (Related by al-Bukhari and Muslim.) "
fiqhussunnah/fus1_06


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."





Google;
islam, unbelief is worse than killing





THE HADITH....

"...the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him." - DEAD.
hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.260





.




Spokesmen for ISLAM will tell anyone who will listen;

THAT IT IS WRONG, AND THAT IT IS TOTALLY AGAINST ISLAMIC LAW,      TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE.



Here is a moslem in the UK explaining, who the innocent people are.

---------- >



Please watch this YT...
A UK moslem community leader, speaking in the wake of the London 7/7 bombing;


Quote:

YT KILLING OF NON-MUSLIMS IS LEGITIMATE "...when we say innocent people, we mean moslems." "....[not accepting ISLAM] is a crime against God." "...If you are a non-moslem, then you are guilty of not believing in God." "...as a moslem....i must have hatred towards everything which is non-ISLAM." "...[moslems] allegiance is always with the moslems, so i will never condemn a moslem for what he does." "...Britain has always been Dar al Harb [the Land of War]" "...no, i could never condemn a moslem brother, i would never condemn a moslem brother. I will always stand with my moslem brother....whether he is an oppresser or the oppressed."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4





.





Yadda said....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1431117115/1#1

Quote:

"every moslem in Australia is a latent, wanna-be homicidal maniac" - Yadda QUESTION; What about the innocent moslems ? IMO, [logically] there are no innocent moslems [among persons who have come to the age of consent], and yet still declare themselves to be moslems. How so [logically] ? QUESTION; How credible is it that a person who is devout enough to insist that he is a moslem, is unaware of what ISLAM promotes, and is unaware of what the principle tenets of ISLAM are ? QUESTION; How 'innocent' is a person who agrees to give aid and comfort [and to give their own 'power'],      ...to a philosophy which transforms human beings, into homicidal maniacs ? QUESTION; How 'innocent' is a person who agrees to give aid and comfort [and to give their own 'power'],     ...to a philosophy which claims that murdering, in the cause of religious bigotry, is a religious virtue ?

.



Good 'Aussie' moslems, practicing ISLAM behind closed doors.....

------------- >

Muslims brainwash children in Australia  -------- >   goto 43 sec
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krk5piUzp1E


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krk5piUzp1E

Neither of you? You were both here a few minutes ago...

I guess I'll go play
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiOi-KSiGM0

See, that's why I said not you Yadda. You fill pages with shyte no-one reads.

ISLAM is ISLAM.

And every moslem is a follower of ISLAM.       < -------- dictionary definition.

And every moslem, is a moslem.



.



Yadda said....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1451577940/5#5

Quote:

........I know that it can be a difficult concept for many to grasp, .....but i am still promoting the proposition that, .....a person who insists that he is a moslem, ....is, a moslem.

.




But what is ISLAM about ???


Yadda said....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1424590530/17#17

Quote:

The heart of ISLAM is the Koran  [and heart of the Koran, is the ideas and ideals it contains]. SO WHAT DOES THE KORAN SAY ABOUT MOSLEMS LIVING IN PEACE WITH DISBELIEVERS ? ; ---------- >

Setanta wrote on Mar 10^th, 2017 at 12:40am:

See, that's why I said not you Yadda. You fill pages with shyte no-one reads.

Then why does the view count go up ?           ;)

Yadda wrote on Mar 10^th, 2017 at 12:53am:

Setanta wrote on Mar 10th, 2017 at 12:40am: See, that's why I said not you Yadda. You fill pages with shyte no-one reads. Then why does the view count go up ?           ;)

I don't care about the view count. I'd like Brian's and Greg's definition of an Islamist. Be aware, as I'm sure you are, I'm a leftie and abhor discrimination. I just want to get some facts straight.

HERE!

Depending on what POV you wish to take - an Islamist is:-

a) an adherent of a radical and totally rigid interpretation of the Koran, and is intent on establishing a theocracy to rule the world according to Islam, and to achieve this by any means.

or

b)  Is an adherent of the Arab Spring, with the idea of a new form of freedom developed by a truly democratic approach to Islamic life and a rejection of the strictures placed on this by the ruling clique.

The problem for the West is this:-

1) If the Islamist is of the first category - that constitutes a danger to all other civilisations.

2)  If the Islamist is an adherent to the second - the democracy under consideration is based on a religious foundation and on a Medieval interpretation of some ancient 'age of glory' that involved a Caliphate of Khalifate, which was a creator or mathematics, medicine and many other things (all true to some extent)..

3)  The Caliphate (or Khalifate) is still ruled by Islam via The Khoran, and any New Caliphate will be tainted by 1600 years or more of tainted interpretation and bloodshed.

It's a hard call - for every movement to remove a despot in an Islamic country, there are any number of movements which blame the west for their centuries old subjugation - which has some basis in colonialisation - but which does not fully address the facts, including that the religion itself merely replaces the despot without altering the real position for the ordinary Muslim or Islamist.

Unfortunately - either way you look at it - Islamism is a danger to all, even though it is a  democratic movement from the ground up, for the simple reason that it is based on a hopelessly distorted religious theme which allows no dissension or dissidence.

Hope that clears it up for you.

Look in Chat under Grammar basics...

Yadda wrote on Mar 10^th, 2017 at 12:53am:

Setanta wrote on Mar 10th, 2017 at 12:40am: See, that's why I said not you Yadda. You fill pages with shyte no-one reads. Then why does the view count go up ?           ;)

We look... we see.. we move on...... the hand, having slowly writ, moves the keyboard away from yadda, yadda, yadda..... and juliar.... and the candle burns down...

Night.....

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 10^th, 2017 at 12:15am:

Gordon wrote on Mar 9th, 2017 at 8:50am: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 9th, 2017 at 12:18am: How does, "Islamic Group" get translated in your mind, Gordon to "Islamists"?   You do realise, as I am sure you do, that "Islamists" are very different to Islamic Groups.   You're an Islamophobe, aren't you, Gordon?   Tsk, tsk.    ::) ::) Brian support HuT. At least your views are out in the open now. "Islamic Groups"  are very different to "Islamist groups", Gordon.   Obviously your Islamophobia has blinded you to reality.    ::) ::)

Even Gandalf considers HuT to be Islamists.
But well done you by showing us your support for them.
Better out than in.

Setanta wrote on Mar 10^th, 2017 at 12:17am:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 10th, 2017 at 12:15am: Gordon wrote on Mar 9th, 2017 at 8:50am: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 9th, 2017 at 12:18am: How does, "Islamic Group" get translated in your mind, Gordon to "Islamists"?   You do realise, as I am sure you do, that "Islamists" are very different to Islamic Groups.   You're an Islamophobe, aren't you, Gordon?   Tsk, tsk.    ::) ::) Brian support HuT. At least your views are out in the open now. "Islamic Groups"  are very different to "Islamist groups", Gordon.   Obviously your Islamophobia has blinded you to reality.    ::) ::) May I ask you what an Islamist is? edit: Not you Yadda....

Setanta wrote on Mar 10^th, 2017 at 12:40am:

See, that's why I said not you Yadda. You fill pages with shyte no-one reads.

Setanta,

I feel compelled to go on, and on and on, about ISLAM,         because people like you are still choosing to give ISLAM [and moslems] a pass.

Why is that Setanta ?

Is it because they tell you that      their ISLAM      is different ?

Different HOW ?

Different Allah ?

Different Mohammed ?

Different Koran ?



Setanta,

Do you doubt, or do you deny,            that mainstream ISLAM, its tenets and its mainstream doctrines, call for conversion of OR, oppression of, OR, the murder of those who are not moslems ?



.




The moslems who live among us, are lying to us.


Quote:

Creed of the sword Mark Durie September 23, 2006 .....the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdel Aziz al-Sheikh, issued a statement on the official Saudi news service, defending Muslims' divine right to resort to violence: "The spread of Islam has gone through several phases, secret and then public, in Mecca and Medina. God then authorised the faithful to defend themselves and to fight against those fighting them, which amounts to a right legitimised by God. This ... is quite reasonable, and God will not hate it." Saudi Arabia's most senior cleric also explained that war was never Islam's ancient founder, the prophet Mohammed's, first choice: "He gave three options: either accept Islam, or surrender and pay tax,        and they will be allowed to remain in their land, observing their religion under the protection of Muslims." Thus, according to the Grand Mufti, the third option of violence against non-Muslims was only a last resort, if they refused to convert or surrender peacefully to the armies of Islam. .......At the beginning, in Mohammed's Meccan period, when he was weaker and his followers few, passages of the Koran encouraged peaceful relations and avoidance of conflict: "Invite (all) to the way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious." (16:125) Later, after persecution and emigration to Medina in the first year of the Islamic calendar, authority was given to engage in warfare for defensive purposes only: "Fight in the path of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits, for God does not love transgressors." (2:190) As the Muslim community grew stronger and conflict with its neighbours did not abate, further revelations expanded the licence for waging war, until in Sura 9, regarded as one of the last chapters to be revealed, it is concluded that war against non-Muslims could be waged more or less at any time and in any place to extend the dominance of Islam.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20460114-601,00.html

Setanta wrote on Mar 10^th, 2017 at 1:32am:

Yadda wrote on Mar 10th, 2017 at 12:53am: Setanta wrote on Mar 10th, 2017 at 12:40am: See, that's why I said not you Yadda. You fill pages with shyte no-one reads. Then why does the view count go up ?           ;) I don't care about the view count. I'd like Brian's and Greg's definition of an Islamist. Be aware, as I'm sure you are, I'm a leftie and abhor discrimination.

What you mean, is that you are a 'humanist'.

And you hate it when other people try promote the idea that we [i.e. civilised society] should try to discriminate between what is good and what is evil,         and, that we should abhor what is evil.

Romans 12:9
......Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.



Q.
WHAT IS EVIL ?

Lying is evil.

Denying what is true is evil.



THIS, IS EVIL....

-------- >

IMAGE.....
http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2012/09/17/1226475/975416-islamic-protest-in-the-streets-of-sydney.jpg



THIS, IS EVIL....

-------- >

Muslims brainwash children in Australia  -------- >   goto 43 sec
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krk5piUzp1E


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krk5piUzp1E




.





Setanta wrote on Mar 10^th, 2017 at 1:32am:

I just want to get some facts straight.

No Setanta.

IMO, in your question ["What is an Islamist?" "What is an Islamic?"], you are simply seeking to immeasurably broaden 'all of the borders' of discussion, about ISLAM,       in order to create more and more material [and yet more and more 'interpretations' about what ISLAM is].

And THAT, is what MOSLEMS seek to do!

Which will enable others of your ilk,          to be able to obfuscate, and to 'muddy the waters' in the public discussion about what ISLAM is,            ...... and thereby create yet another 'vector' for ISLAMISTS         moslems        to deceive those who are not moslems.

THAT, is what you are doing, imo.



You steadfastly refuse to condemn moslems [who live within a secular nation, Australia], and who willingly choose to be members of a group [and who support a philosophy], which, AS AN ARTICLE OF THEIR FAITH, condones, and encourages the HATRED, oppression, and murder,         of those who do not believe as they [moslems] believe.




"....the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies."
Koran 4.101


"......the curse of Allah is on those without Faith."
Koran 2.089


"....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith."
Koran 2.98


"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47.008
v. 8-11


"There is for you an excellent example (to follow) in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: "We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides Allah: we have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred for ever,- unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone"....."
Koran 60:4





.




Yadda said....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1431117115/1#1

Quote:

"every moslem in Australia is a latent, wanna-be homicidal maniac" - Yadda QUESTION; What about the innocent moslems ? IMO, [logically] there are no innocent moslems [among persons who have come to the age of consent], and yet still declare themselves to be moslems. How so [logically] ? QUESTION; How credible is it that a person who is devout enough to insist that he is a moslem, is unaware of what ISLAM promotes, and is unaware of what the principle tenets of ISLAM are ? QUESTION; How 'innocent' is a person who agrees to give aid and comfort [and to give their own 'power'],      ...to a philosophy which transforms human beings, into homicidal maniacs ? QUESTION; How 'innocent' is a person who agrees to give aid and comfort [and to give their own 'power'],     ...to a philosophy which claims that murdering, in the cause of religious bigotry, is a religious virtue ?

You're a strange man Yadda.

What I was trying to show, and why Greg and Brian did not answer is that Islamist is just another name for Moslem. An Islamist is someone that believes in Islam. What I do not understand is why they try to divorce people that believe in Islam and it's teachings from Moslems who believe in Islam and it's teachings.

I hold no animosity to people that follow Islam, just as I don't against those that follow yours. I do get a little peeved at anyone that commits acts of mass murder or condones it.

I do hold the religions accountable for what they teach people.

Setanta wrote on Mar 10^th, 2017 at 12:40am:

See, that's why I said not you Yadda. You fill pages with shyte no-one reads.

;D

Setanta wrote on Mar 10^th, 2017 at 12:17am:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 10th, 2017 at 12:15am: Gordon wrote on Mar 9th, 2017 at 8:50am: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 9th, 2017 at 12:18am: How does, "Islamic Group" get translated in your mind, Gordon to "Islamists"?   You do realise, as I am sure you do, that "Islamists" are very different to Islamic Groups.   You're an Islamophobe, aren't you, Gordon?   Tsk, tsk.    ::) ::) Brian support HuT. At least your views are out in the open now. "Islamic Groups"  are very different to "Islamist groups", Gordon.   Obviously your Islamophobia has blinded you to reality.    ::) ::) May I ask you what an Islamist is? edit: Not you Yadda, Brian.

It is any Muslim who does not conform to the fairytale version of Islam that Brian insists the vast majority of Muslims have adopted. Basically like Gandalf, but without the support for wife beating as a valid way of asking a woman what she is thinking and without the mindless support for genocide. If Brian ever found a non-Islamist Muslim, he would be afraid to ask them whether they are an apostate.

Setanta wrote on Mar 10^th, 2017 at 11:51pm:

What I was trying to show, and why Greg and Brian did not answer is that Islamist is just another name for Moslem. An Islamist is someone that believes in Islam. What I do not understand is why they try to divorce people that believe in Islam and it's teachings from Moslems who believe in Islam and it's teachings. I hold no animosity to people that follow Islam, just as I don't against those that follow yours. I do get a little peeved at anyone that commits acts of mass murder or condones it.

You, and people like you, are giving ISLAM and moslems 'a pass',          because, imo, you refuse to personally confront the undeniable truth,        about what ISLAM is,       and about what ISLAM promotes [in its 'cultural' tenets and its religious doctrines].

YOU REFUSE, TO PERSONALLY CONFRONT, THE UNDENIABLE TRUTH, ABOUT WHAT ISLAM IS.



Setanta,

Would you refute this statement, can you refute this statement; ?

PROPOSITION;
Moslems, who choose to live within a secular nation, e.g. Australia [and within many secular nations], also willingly choose to be members of a group [and support a philosophy], which, AS AN ARTICLE OF THEIR FAITH, condones, and encourages the HATRED, oppression, and murder,         of those who do not believe as they [moslems] believe.


Setanta,

If you do NOT refute that statement/proposition, then please can you explain to us, why you would choose, to not be openly critical of moslems, for being moslems.



Setanta,

Further argument.....

A moslem is a follower of ISLAM.       < -------- dictionary definition.

PROPOSITION;
Every person who self-identifies as a moslem, is choosing to       intimately       associate himself/herself with ISLAM's 'cultural' tenets and its religious doctrines [which encourage the HATRED, oppression, and murder,         of those who do not believe as they [moslems] believe.].

And yet, supposedly rational persons like yourself continue to, uncritically, give ISLAM, and moslems living among us, 'a pass'.




.






Setanta wrote on Mar 10^th, 2017 at 11:51pm:

You're a strange man Yadda.

No contest.


http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1214199336/431#431

Setanta wrote on Mar 10^th, 2017 at 11:51pm:

You're a strange man Yadda. What I was trying to show, and why Greg and Brian did not answer is that Islamist is just another name for Moslem. An Islamist is someone that believes in Islam. What I do not understand is why they try to divorce people that believe in Islam and it's teachings from Moslems who believe in Islam and it's teachings. I hold no animosity to people that follow Islam, just as I don't against those that follow yours. I do get a little peeved at anyone that commits acts of mass murder or condones it. I do hold the religions accountable for what they teach people.

Islam is a faith.  Islamism is a political movement to effect change using a variety of methods with the outcome being sharia law.

When Islamists may use political means they're referred to as political Islamists.

If they use violence, they are referred to as violent Islamists.

I called Hizb ut-Tahrir Islamists. The statement below can be found on their Australian website.

Hizb ut-Tahrir is an Islamic political party that works globally to resume the Islamic way of life through the establishment of the Khilafah in the Muslim World. In the West, Hizb ut-Tahrir carries Islam intellectually as the solution to the malaise of secular liberalism
http://www.hizb-australia.org/

Quote:

Islam is a faith.  Islamism is a political movement

Islam is an in-principle rejection of the distinction you are making.

freediver wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 2:39pm:

Quote: Islam is a faith.  Islamism is a political movement Islam is an in-principle rejection of the distinction you are making.

Sufism for one is about the most opposite to a political movement you can get.

Do they reject Muhammad's career as a militant political leader as being contrary to the principles of Islam?

freediver wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 4:37pm:

Do they reject Muhammad's career as a militant political leader as being contrary to the principles of Islam?

And if they don't that magically makes them a political movement I suppose?

Does it ever occur to you that muslims might have a different interpretation of the historical Muhammad than you?

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 4:46pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 4:37pm: Do they reject Muhammad's career as a militant political leader as being contrary to the principles of Islam? And if they don't that magically makes them a political movement I suppose? Does it ever occur to you that muslims might have a different interpretation of the historical Muhammad than you?

Apparently they think he was on a mission from God.

Do even Sufi's support Muhammed's action of merging religion and state?

freediver wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 5:03pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 4:46pm: freediver wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 4:37pm: Do they reject Muhammad's career as a militant political leader as being contrary to the principles of Islam? And if they don't that magically makes them a political movement I suppose? Does it ever occur to you that muslims might have a different interpretation of the historical Muhammad than you? Apparently they think he was on a mission from God. Do even Sufi's support Muhammed's action of merging religion and state?

It is simply laughable to use such arguments to argue that the suffis today are some sort of political movement.

The point is suffism is an example of a version of Islam that is about the exact opposite of a political ideology - regardless of what version of history you attempt to shove down its adherents' throats.

Setanta wrote on Mar 10^th, 2017 at 12:17am:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 10th, 2017 at 12:15am: Gordon wrote on Mar 9th, 2017 at 8:50am: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 9th, 2017 at 12:18am: How does, "Islamic Group" get translated in your mind, Gordon to "Islamists"?   You do realise, as I am sure you do, that "Islamists" are very different to Islamic Groups.   You're an Islamophobe, aren't you, Gordon?   Tsk, tsk.    ::) ::) Brian support HuT. At least your views are out in the open now. "Islamic Groups"  are very different to "Islamist groups", Gordon.   Obviously your Islamophobia has blinded you to reality.    ::) ::) May I ask you what an Islamist is? edit: Not you Yadda, Brian.

"Islamist" is a militant or fundamentalist follower of Islam, Setanta.    Whether that person's view is inimical to Western views is up to what that person believes and how far they are willing to carry that belief to fruitition.  Rather as a "Christian Fundamentalist" might be someone who believes in the glory and justification of The Bible.   What they do with that belief determines if they engage in Terrorism or just protest.

"Islamic Groups" are simply groups of Muslims who have banded together to present their views on a particular issue.   They maybe influenced by their beliefs in Islam but not entirely.  They are more moderate than Islamists.

Personally, I have a scale (in reverse order):

Muslims
Islamic Groups
Salafists
Islamists
Terrorists

Ordinary Muslims come at the lower end of the scale, ranging up to Terrorists.   I don't doubt there are many other groups in their, mixed in, as well.

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 6:20pm:

Setanta wrote on Mar 10th, 2017 at 12:17am: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 10th, 2017 at 12:15am: Gordon wrote on Mar 9th, 2017 at 8:50am: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 9th, 2017 at 12:18am: How does, "Islamic Group" get translated in your mind, Gordon to "Islamists"?   You do realise, as I am sure you do, that "Islamists" are very different to Islamic Groups.   You're an Islamophobe, aren't you, Gordon?   Tsk, tsk.    ::) ::) Brian support HuT. At least your views are out in the open now. "Islamic Groups"  are very different to "Islamist groups", Gordon.   Obviously your Islamophobia has blinded you to reality.    ::) ::) May I ask you what an Islamist is? edit: Not you Yadda, Brian. "Islamist" is a militant or fundamentalist follower of Islam, Setanta.    Whether that person's view is inimical to Western views is up to what that person believes and how far they are willing to carry that belief to fruitition.  Rather as a "Christian Fundamentalist" might be someone who believes in the glory and justification of The Bible.   What they do with that belief determines if they engage in Terrorism or just protest. "Islamic Groups" are simply groups of Muslims who have banded together to present their views on a particular issue.   They maybe influenced by their beliefs in Islam but not entirely.  They are more moderate than Islamists. Personally, I have a scale (in reverse order): Muslims Islamic Groups Salafists Islamists Terrorists Ordinary Muslims come at the lower end of the scale, ranging up to Terrorists.   I don't doubt there are many other groups in their, mixed in, as well.

Do you consider HuT to be an Islamist group?

Setanta wrote on Mar 10^th, 2017 at 12:40am:

See, that's why I said not you Yadda. You fill pages with shyte no-one reads.

I read it ... and so should you

calling a members post shyte is not the actions of a non biased moderator.

The same could be said of your input.

Not that I think that .... other than your response to Yadda.

Gnads wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 6:54pm:

Setanta wrote on Mar 10th, 2017 at 12:40am: See, that's why I said not you Yadda. You fill pages with shyte no-one reads. I read it ... and so should you calling a members post shyte is not the actions of a non biased moderator. The same could be said of your input. Not that I think that .... other than your response to Yadda.

I think that was a way of saying Yadda needs an editor.

And the rest of us?

Gnads wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 7:00pm:

And the rest of us?

I got my Mumbai tech guy to write a Firefox plug in that auto detects Yadda posts and edits them down for my viewing pleasure; )

Islam is the religion. Islamism the belief of imposing the religion of Islam on other people.

Auggie wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 9:52pm:

Islam is the religion. Islamism the belief of imposing the religion of Islam on other people.

Not necessarily.  Islamism covers a wide range of beliefs and viewpoints.  Some Islamists just want to promote Islam over all other religions without any agenda to do so, other want to use the sword and bathe the world in blood.   Attempting to classify a religo-political movement in that manner is pointless.   You have to examine each person and their views on their merits.

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 9:54pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 9:52pm: Islam is the religion. Islamism the belief of imposing the religion of Islam on other people. Not necessarily.  Islamism covers a wide range of beliefs and viewpoints.  Some Islamists just want to promote Islam over all other religions without any agenda to do so, other want to use the sword and bathe the world in blood.   Attempting to classify a religo-political movement in that manner is pointless.   You have to examine each person and their views on their merits.

Correct, there are a variety of methods; they could be democratic or by violent means.

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 6:20pm:

Setanta wrote on Mar 10th, 2017 at 12:17am: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 10th, 2017 at 12:15am: Gordon wrote on Mar 9th, 2017 at 8:50am: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 9th, 2017 at 12:18am: How does, "Islamic Group" get translated in your mind, Gordon to "Islamists"?   You do realise, as I am sure you do, that "Islamists" are very different to Islamic Groups.   You're an Islamophobe, aren't you, Gordon?   Tsk, tsk.    ::) ::) Brian support HuT. At least your views are out in the open now. "Islamic Groups"  are very different to "Islamist groups", Gordon.   Obviously your Islamophobia has blinded you to reality.    ::) ::) May I ask you what an Islamist is? edit: Not you Yadda, Brian. "Islamist" is a militant or fundamentalist follower of Islam, Setanta.    Whether that person's view is inimical to Western views is up to what that person believes and how far they are willing to carry that belief to fruitition.  Rather as a "Christian Fundamentalist" might be someone who believes in the glory and justification of The Bible.   What they do with that belief determines if they engage in Terrorism or just protest. "Islamic Groups" are simply groups of Muslims who have banded together to present their views on a particular issue.   They maybe influenced by their beliefs in Islam but not entirely.  They are more moderate than Islamists. Personally, I have a scale (in reverse order): Muslims Islamic Groups Salafists Islamists Terrorists Ordinary Muslims come at the lower end of the scale, ranging up to Terrorists.   I don't doubt there are many other groups in their, mixed in, as well.

Where do you get your definition of "ist" Brian?

Quote:

ist ɪst/ nouninformalderogatory a follower of a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement. "you can't be born an ist"

Quote:

-ist Word Origin 1. a suffix of nouns, often corresponding to verbs ending in -ize or nouns ending in -ism, that denote a person who practices or is concerned with something, or holds certain principles, doctrines, etc.: apologist; dramatist; machinist; novelist; realist; socialist; Thomist.

An Islamist is someone that follows Islam, IE a Moslem.

There's no need for a separate name. They are followers of Islam. It's like political correctness. No, he wasn't a Moslem, he was an Islamist. ::)

Just say it like it is, radical fundamentalist Moslem, no need for a new term.

It's not FMG, it's just a bit of cutting, no mutilation at all. Jesus Christ call a spade a spade.


Quote:

mutilate ˈmjuːtɪleɪt/ verb inflict a violent and disfiguring injury on. "most of the prisoners had been mutilated" synonyms:      mangle, maim, disfigure, cut to pieces, cut up, hack up, butcher, dismember, tear limb from limb, tear apart, lacerate "many of the bodies had been mutilated" inflict serious damage on.

Setanta wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 1:31am:

An Islamist is someone that follows Islam, IE a Moslem. There's no need for a separate name. They are followers of Islam. It's like political correctness. No, he wasn't a Moslem, he was an Islamist. Just say it like it is, radical fundamentalist Moslem, no need for a new term. It's not FMG, it's just a bit of cutting, no mutilation at all. Jesus Christ call a spade a spade.

Hold on, Setanta, I thought you were a leftist?

There is a distinction between Islam and Islamism; this is well known within counter-ideology circles. No one is down-playing the ideology that drives transnational criminal activities (i.e. terrorism). To solely attribute it to the religion of Islam is to attribute Karl Marx to the terrors of Communist regimes.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 6:14pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 5:03pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 4:46pm: freediver wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 4:37pm: Do they reject Muhammad's career as a militant political leader as being contrary to the principles of Islam? And if they don't that magically makes them a political movement I suppose? Does it ever occur to you that muslims might have a different interpretation of the historical Muhammad than you? Apparently they think he was on a mission from God. Do even Sufi's support Muhammed's action of merging religion and state? It is simply laughable to use such arguments to argue that the suffis today are some sort of political movement. The point is suffism is an example of a version of Islam that is about the exact opposite of a political ideology - regardless of what version of history you attempt to shove down its adherents' throats.

I am not shoving anything down their throat Gandalf. I am asking what their own opinion is regarding Muhammad's efforts to merge religion, government and military into one movement. In typical Muslim fashion, you will not say and choose to pretend I am asking something completely different.

Is this really the best example you can come up with?

freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:27am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 6:14pm: freediver wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 5:03pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 4:46pm: freediver wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 4:37pm: Do they reject Muhammad's career as a militant political leader as being contrary to the principles of Islam? And if they don't that magically makes them a political movement I suppose? Does it ever occur to you that muslims might have a different interpretation of the historical Muhammad than you? Apparently they think he was on a mission from God. Do even Sufi's support Muhammed's action of merging religion and state? It is simply laughable to use such arguments to argue that the suffis today are some sort of political movement. The point is suffism is an example of a version of Islam that is about the exact opposite of a political ideology - regardless of what version of history you attempt to shove down its adherents' throats. I am not shoving anything down their throat Gandalf. I am asking what their own opinion is regarding Muhammad's efforts to merge religion, government and military into one movement. In typical Muslim fashion, you will not say and choose to pretend I am asking something completely different. Is this really the best example you can come up with?

Muhammad's efforts to merge religion, government and military into one movement was fundamentally against God's message in the Quran. I'm not whitewashing history; I"m saying that those things should've never been included in the Quran.

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:42am:

freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:27am: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 6:14pm: freediver wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 5:03pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 4:46pm: freediver wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 4:37pm: Do they reject Muhammad's career as a militant political leader as being contrary to the principles of Islam? And if they don't that magically makes them a political movement I suppose? Does it ever occur to you that muslims might have a different interpretation of the historical Muhammad than you? Apparently they think he was on a mission from God. Do even Sufi's support Muhammed's action of merging religion and state? It is simply laughable to use such arguments to argue that the suffis today are some sort of political movement. The point is suffism is an example of a version of Islam that is about the exact opposite of a political ideology - regardless of what version of history you attempt to shove down its adherents' throats. I am not shoving anything down their throat Gandalf. I am asking what their own opinion is regarding Muhammad's efforts to merge religion, government and military into one movement. In typical Muslim fashion, you will not say and choose to pretend I am asking something completely different. Is this really the best example you can come up with? Muhammad's efforts to merge religion, government and military into one movement was fundamentally against God's message in the Quran. I'm not whitewashing history; I"m saying that those things should've never been included in the Quran.

It's a bit hard to distance Islam from Muhammed's actions.

freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:44am:

Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:42am: freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:27am: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 6:14pm: freediver wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 5:03pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 4:46pm: freediver wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 4:37pm: Do they reject Muhammad's career as a militant political leader as being contrary to the principles of Islam? And if they don't that magically makes them a political movement I suppose? Does it ever occur to you that muslims might have a different interpretation of the historical Muhammad than you? Apparently they think he was on a mission from God. Do even Sufi's support Muhammed's action of merging religion and state? It is simply laughable to use such arguments to argue that the suffis today are some sort of political movement. The point is suffism is an example of a version of Islam that is about the exact opposite of a political ideology - regardless of what version of history you attempt to shove down its adherents' throats. I am not shoving anything down their throat Gandalf. I am asking what their own opinion is regarding Muhammad's efforts to merge religion, government and military into one movement. In typical Muslim fashion, you will not say and choose to pretend I am asking something completely different. Is this really the best example you can come up with? Muhammad's efforts to merge religion, government and military into one movement was fundamentally against God's message in the Quran. I'm not whitewashing history; I"m saying that those things should've never been included in the Quran. It's a bit hard to distance Islam from Muhammed's actions.

It is if you follow the later interpretations of the Muslim community. The word 'Quran' means 'recitation'. It is not a Testament to the things that Muhammad did or said; it is in its foundation, the Word of God, and nothing else. The later teachings in the Islamic traditions perverted the true message of God.

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:48am:

freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:44am: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:42am: freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:27am: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 6:14pm: freediver wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 5:03pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 4:46pm: freediver wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 4:37pm: Do they reject Muhammad's career as a militant political leader as being contrary to the principles of Islam? And if they don't that magically makes them a political movement I suppose? Does it ever occur to you that muslims might have a different interpretation of the historical Muhammad than you? Apparently they think he was on a mission from God. Do even Sufi's support Muhammed's action of merging religion and state? It is simply laughable to use such arguments to argue that the suffis today are some sort of political movement. The point is suffism is an example of a version of Islam that is about the exact opposite of a political ideology - regardless of what version of history you attempt to shove down its adherents' throats. I am not shoving anything down their throat Gandalf. I am asking what their own opinion is regarding Muhammad's efforts to merge religion, government and military into one movement. In typical Muslim fashion, you will not say and choose to pretend I am asking something completely different. Is this really the best example you can come up with? Muhammad's efforts to merge religion, government and military into one movement was fundamentally against God's message in the Quran. I'm not whitewashing history; I"m saying that those things should've never been included in the Quran. It's a bit hard to distance Islam from Muhammed's actions. It is if you follow the later interpretations of the Muslim community. The word 'Quran' means 'recitation'. It is not a Testament to the things that Muhammad did or said; it is in its foundation, the Word of God, and nothing else. The later teachings in the Islamic traditions perverted the true message of God.

This "word of God" says that Muhammed is the best example, one for all mankind to follow. You cannot take Muhammad out of Islam.

freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 10:04am:

Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:48am: freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:44am: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:42am: freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:27am: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 6:14pm: freediver wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 5:03pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 4:46pm: freediver wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 4:37pm: Do they reject Muhammad's career as a militant political leader as being contrary to the principles of Islam? And if they don't that magically makes them a political movement I suppose? Does it ever occur to you that muslims might have a different interpretation of the historical Muhammad than you? Apparently they think he was on a mission from God. Do even Sufi's support Muhammed's action of merging religion and state? It is simply laughable to use such arguments to argue that the suffis today are some sort of political movement. The point is suffism is an example of a version of Islam that is about the exact opposite of a political ideology - regardless of what version of history you attempt to shove down its adherents' throats. I am not shoving anything down their throat Gandalf. I am asking what their own opinion is regarding Muhammad's efforts to merge religion, government and military into one movement. In typical Muslim fashion, you will not say and choose to pretend I am asking something completely different. Is this really the best example you can come up with? Muhammad's efforts to merge religion, government and military into one movement was fundamentally against God's message in the Quran. I'm not whitewashing history; I"m saying that those things should've never been included in the Quran. It's a bit hard to distance Islam from Muhammed's actions. It is if you follow the later interpretations of the Muslim community. The word 'Quran' means 'recitation'. It is not a Testament to the things that Muhammad did or said; it is in its foundation, the Word of God, and nothing else. The later teachings in the Islamic traditions perverted the true message of God. This "word of God" says that Muhammed is the best example, one for all mankind to follow. You cannot take Muhammad out of Islam.

The Word of God, later on, said that people should obey the Prophet. That was not what he said for the first 75% of his revelations. Not indicative of someone who is omnipotent?

Let's get theological here: do you agree with this statement? 'Would God ever command a person to kill another person?"

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 10:18am:

freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:04am: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:48am: freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:44am: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:42am: freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:27am: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 6:14pm: freediver wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 5:03pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 4:46pm: freediver wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 4:37pm: Do they reject Muhammad's career as a militant political leader as being contrary to the principles of Islam? And if they don't that magically makes them a political movement I suppose? Does it ever occur to you that muslims might have a different interpretation of the historical Muhammad than you? Apparently they think he was on a mission from God. Do even Sufi's support Muhammed's action of merging religion and state? It is simply laughable to use such arguments to argue that the suffis today are some sort of political movement. The point is suffism is an example of a version of Islam that is about the exact opposite of a political ideology - regardless of what version of history you attempt to shove down its adherents' throats. I am not shoving anything down their throat Gandalf. I am asking what their own opinion is regarding Muhammad's efforts to merge religion, government and military into one movement. In typical Muslim fashion, you will not say and choose to pretend I am asking something completely different. Is this really the best example you can come up with? Muhammad's efforts to merge religion, government and military into one movement was fundamentally against God's message in the Quran. I'm not whitewashing history; I"m saying that those things should've never been included in the Quran. It's a bit hard to distance Islam from Muhammed's actions. It is if you follow the later interpretations of the Muslim community. The word 'Quran' means 'recitation'. It is not a Testament to the things that Muhammad did or said; it is in its foundation, the Word of God, and nothing else. The later teachings in the Islamic traditions perverted the true message of God. This "word of God" says that Muhammed is the best example, one for all mankind to follow. You cannot take Muhammad out of Islam. The Word of God, later on, said that people should obey the Prophet. That was not what he said for the first 75% of his revelations. Not indicative of someone who is omnipotent? Let's get theological here: do you agree with this statement? 'Would God ever command a person to kill another person?"

That is a question, not a statement. I don't claim to know the answer.

If you are going to start chopping out large sections of the Koran, then you are rejecting Islam itself, in its entirety. You cannot keep a straight face while insisting the first 3/4 is true and pure but Muhammed deliberately corrupted the rest of it.

freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 10:30am:

Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:18am: freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 10:04am: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:48am: freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:44am: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:42am: freediver wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:27am: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 6:14pm: freediver wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 5:03pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 4:46pm: freediver wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 4:37pm: Do they reject Muhammad's career as a militant political leader as being contrary to the principles of Islam? And if they don't that magically makes them a political movement I suppose? Does it ever occur to you that muslims might have a different interpretation of the historical Muhammad than you? Apparently they think he was on a mission from God. Do even Sufi's support Muhammed's action of merging religion and state? It is simply laughable to use such arguments to argue that the suffis today are some sort of political movement. The point is suffism is an example of a version of Islam that is about the exact opposite of a political ideology - regardless of what version of history you attempt to shove down its adherents' throats. I am not shoving anything down their throat Gandalf. I am asking what their own opinion is regarding Muhammad's efforts to merge religion, government and military into one movement. In typical Muslim fashion, you will not say and choose to pretend I am asking something completely different. Is this really the best example you can come up with? Muhammad's efforts to merge religion, government and military into one movement was fundamentally against God's message in the Quran. I'm not whitewashing history; I"m saying that those things should've never been included in the Quran. It's a bit hard to distance Islam from Muhammed's actions. It is if you follow the later interpretations of the Muslim community. The word 'Quran' means 'recitation'. It is not a Testament to the things that Muhammad did or said; it is in its foundation, the Word of God, and nothing else. The later teachings in the Islamic traditions perverted the true message of God. This "word of God" says that Muhammed is the best example, one for all mankind to follow. You cannot take Muhammad out of Islam. The Word of God, later on, said that people should obey the Prophet. That was not what he said for the first 75% of his revelations. Not indicative of someone who is omnipotent? Let's get theological here: do you agree with this statement? 'Would God ever command a person to kill another person?" That is a question, not a statement. I don't claim to know the answer. If you are going to start chopping out large sections of the Koran, then you are rejecting Islam itself, in its entirety. You cannot keep a straight face while insisting the first 3/4 is true and pure but Muhammed deliberately corrupted the rest of it.

Yes, good point: it was a question, and I never implied that you knew the answer. I was just being a smart-arse.

This the thing: Muslims and others are playing this 'zero-sum' game where it's either 'accept or reject' all of it. Why can't most of it be great, and only a small portion be bad? In the Medinan verses there are verses that are the same or echo the same message as the Meccan verses, so it's definitely more than 75% of the Quran being 'uncorrupted.'

Let me ask you a question: how does not accepting say 25% of a scripture completely take away from the main idea of the religion? Submission to God is what Islam teaches. In some sense, this is greatest form of equality. If you disregard the part where women have to wear Hijabs or other headscarves, how does the latter derogate from the former?

Gordon wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 7:04pm:

Gnads wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 7:00pm: And the rest of us? I got my Mumbai tech guy to write a Firefox plug in that auto detects Yadda posts and edits them down for my viewing pleasure; )

LOL

Auggie wrote on Mar 11^th, 2017 at 9:52pm:

Islam is the religion. Islamism the belief of imposing the religion of Islam on other people.

"Islam is the religion.  Islamism the belief of imposing the religion of Islam on other people."



ISLAM  ??

---------- >


Yadda said....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1424590530/17#17

Quote:

The heart of ISLAM is the Koran  [and heart of the Koran, is the ideas and ideals it contains]. SO WHAT DOES THE KORAN SAY ABOUT MOSLEMS LIVING IN PEACE WITH DISBELIEVERS ? ; ---------- >

Yadda wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 11:45am:

Auggie wrote on Mar 11th, 2017 at 9:52pm: Islam is the religion. Islamism the belief of imposing the religion of Islam on other people. "Islam is the religion.  Islamism the belief of imposing the religion of Islam on other people." ISLAM  ?? ---------- > Yadda said.... http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1424590530/17#17 Quote: The heart of ISLAM is the Koran  [and heart of the Koran, is the ideas and ideals it contains]. SO WHAT DOES THE KORAN SAY ABOUT MOSLEMS LIVING IN PEACE WITH DISBELIEVERS ? ; ---------- >

Read my post above in response to FD

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:48am:

It is if you follow the later interpretations of the Muslim community. The word 'Quran' means 'recitation'. It is not a Testament to the things that Muhammad did or said; it is in its foundation, the Word of God,        and nothing else.         The later teachings in the Islamic traditions perverted the true message of God.

ARGUMENT;
Some today seek to discount the importance of the influence of the Koran upon the lives of moslems,
and would argue that the Koran and its contents are an anachronism,       ....and that Koran verses do not reflect or guide, the intent of the moslem community, here in Australia, today,
.....I would offer, that the Koran is, and always has been, ~the~ most important source of religious authority for ISLAMIC religious leaders, and ~the~ most important source of religious instruction, for every moslem.

Any person who would suggest other than that, is either ignorant, OR, is being deliberately deceitful.




augcaesarustus said.....

"The later teachings in the Islamic traditions perverted the true message of God."



Yadda paraphrases [gives a new edit].....

"The complete teachings in the Islamic traditions are an abomination to the God inspired human psyche,        and, the complete teachings in the Islamic traditions are the true message of ALLAH."

.....aka SATAN

Yadda wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 12:01pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:48am: It is if you follow the later interpretations of the Muslim community. The word 'Quran' means 'recitation'. It is not a Testament to the things that Muhammad did or said; it is in its foundation, the Word of God,        and nothing else.         The later teachings in the Islamic traditions perverted the true message of God. ARGUMENT; Some today seek discount the importance of the influence of the Koran upon the lives of moslems, and would argue that the Koran and its contents are an anachronism,       ....and that Koran verses do not reflect or guide, the intent of the moslem community, here in Australia, today, .....I would offer, that the Koran is, and always has been, ~the~ most important source of religious authority for ISLAMIC religious leaders, and ~the~ most important source of religious instruction, for every moslem. Any person who would suggest other than that, is either ignorant, OR, is being deliberately deceitful. augcaesarustus said..... "The later teachings in the Islamic traditions perverted the true message of God." Yadda paraphrases [gives a new edit]..... "The complete teachings in the Islamic traditions are an abomination to the God inspired human psyche,        and, the complete teachings in the Islamic traditions are the true message of ALLAH." .....aka SATAN

Are you saying that God is Satan?

Those who worship god are muslims. Those who worship Muhammad are muhammadans.

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 12:03pm:

Yadda wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 12:01pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:48am: It is if you follow the later interpretations of the Muslim community. The word 'Quran' means 'recitation'. It is not a Testament to the things that Muhammad did or said; it is in its foundation, the Word of God,        and nothing else.         The later teachings in the Islamic traditions perverted the true message of God. ARGUMENT; Some today seek discount the importance of the influence of the Koran upon the lives of moslems, and would argue that the Koran and its contents are an anachronism,       ....and that Koran verses do not reflect or guide, the intent of the moslem community, here in Australia, today, .....I would offer, that the Koran is, and always has been, ~the~ most important source of religious authority for ISLAMIC religious leaders, and ~the~ most important source of religious instruction, for every moslem. Any person who would suggest other than that, is either ignorant, OR, is being deliberately deceitful. augcaesarustus said..... "The later teachings in the Islamic traditions perverted the true message of God." Yadda paraphrases [gives a new edit]..... "The complete teachings in the Islamic traditions are an abomination to the God inspired human psyche,        and, the complete teachings in the Islamic traditions are the true message of ALLAH." .....aka SATAN Are you saying that God is Satan?

I'm saying that Allah, is NOT, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.


e.g.
On keeping oaths, on keeping your word, on honouring a verbal undertaking we make....

ALLAH;

"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

Coz, Mohammed was a covenant breaker, and a liar, just like Mohammed's god.



"expiate my oath", means an obligation to Allah of penance [Kaffara], e.g. fasting for three days, or to clothe or feed poor people.




Allah and Mohammed above.



+++

From the Jewish O.T. Bible;

Numbers 30:2
If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.


Chalk and cheese!




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



.




I have read the O.T & N.T. Bible [KJV] through cover to cover, and i have read much of the Koran.

IMO, it is comparing chalk and cheese.

And imo, the Koran is the chalk.


And believe me the Koran [by comparison], is mostly a lot of boastful, unstructured, largely violent, gibberish!


If you don't believe me [about the gibberish claim], i encourage anyone, to read the Koran for yourself !

There is no excuse, it is available online.

And the Koran starts out on its 1st page, so, so, promising....

http://quran.com/1/1



After the opening verses the Koran just seems to settle into a constant uninspiring PRATTLE.

e.g.

Quote:

This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah; Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them; And who believe in the Revelation sent to thee, and sent before thy time, and (in their hearts) have the assurance of the Hereafter. They are on (true) guidance, from their Lord, and it is these who will prosper. As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether thou warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe. Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur). Of the people there are some who say: "We believe in Allah and the Last Day;" but they do not (really) believe. Fain would they deceive Allah and those who believe, but they only deceive themselves, and realise (it) not! In their hearts is a disease; and Allah has increased their disease: And grievous is the penalty they (incur), because they are false (to themselves). When it is said to them: "Make not mischief on the earth," they say: "Why, we only Want to make peace!" Of a surety, they are the ones who make mischief, but they realise (it) not. When it is said to them: "Believe as the others believe:" They say: "Shall we believe as the fools believe?" Nay, of a surety they are the fools, but they do not know. When they meet those who believe, they say: "We believe;" but when they are alone with their evil ones, they say: "We are really with you: We (were) only jesting."

That is an excerpt from the beginning of the 2nd chapter of the Koran;
[the 2nd chapter is 286 verses in length]

Yadda wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 12:23pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 12:03pm: Yadda wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 12:01pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:48am: It is if you follow the later interpretations of the Muslim community. The word 'Quran' means 'recitation'. It is not a Testament to the things that Muhammad did or said; it is in its foundation, the Word of God,        and nothing else.         The later teachings in the Islamic traditions perverted the true message of God. ARGUMENT; Some today seek discount the importance of the influence of the Koran upon the lives of moslems, and would argue that the Koran and its contents are an anachronism,       ....and that Koran verses do not reflect or guide, the intent of the moslem community, here in Australia, today, .....I would offer, that the Koran is, and always has been, ~the~ most important source of religious authority for ISLAMIC religious leaders, and ~the~ most important source of religious instruction, for every moslem. Any person who would suggest other than that, is either ignorant, OR, is being deliberately deceitful. augcaesarustus said..... "The later teachings in the Islamic traditions perverted the true message of God." Yadda paraphrases [gives a new edit]..... "The complete teachings in the Islamic traditions are an abomination to the God inspired human psyche,        and, the complete teachings in the Islamic traditions are the true message of ALLAH." .....aka SATAN Are you saying that God is Satan? I'm saying that Allah, is NOT, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Moslems claim, and would have us believe that Allah, and the Jewish God, are the same God.

Never.

This cannot be so, unless the God of the Old Testament has had a personality transplant.



Read the Koran, and then read the Bible, it is like comparing chalk and cheese.

I've read the Quran. The verse you quoted in Sura 2 is talking about 'Belief in God as opposed to the belief in Pagan Gods', which was the tension at the time.

You read the Meccan verses: you'll see that it refers almost all the time to the same God as the Abrahamic God. It refers to Old Testament stories, and clearly states that they are one and the same God.

The Quran, in its earliest form, was never about 'Muhammad' it was about complete submission to God. It was only later that devotion to Muhammad was required.

Do this: read the Chronological Quran as stated on Wikiislam. Read each sura chronologically, then read the Medinan verses. You'll see that the Meccan verses say nowhere to 'Obey the Prophet' and only describe Muhammad as a warner - he is only a conduit through which God speaks. There are few Medinan insertions into the Meccan verses, which you can spot quite clearly.

The early message of the Quran was that some of the People of the Book were not following the messages of the earlier prophets, so God had sent a warner to bring people back on the path to submission to God - the God of the Book. Read the first 3/4 of the Quran, then come back to me.

Christianity is about the worship of Jesus as a divine being, the Son of God. Islam is about the worship of God only. Later attempts to include a kind of 'adoration' for Muhammad is almost akin to a Cult. Hence, Muslim vs Mohammadan.

The first verse revealed to Muhammad according to Islamic scholars is Surah 96.

Quote:

This the thing: Muslims and others are playing this 'zero-sum' game where it's either 'accept or reject' all of it.

That has nothing to do with a zero sum game. Once you chop up the Koran, you are rejecting it's sacredness. You are rejecting Islam. Removing the last quarter rejects the principles that supposedly make the first 3/4 special. You are left with the rantings of a desert warmonger.


Quote:

Why can't most of it be great, and only a small portion be bad?

If we were talking about a question of history, this would be the norm. That's not how religion works.


Quote:

Let me ask you a question: how does not accepting say 25% of a scripture completely take away from the main idea of the religion?

Because the main idea is that the scripture in its entirety is perfect. Otherwise you are left with the rantings of a desert warmonger.

This isn't to say you cannot make your own religion based on only 3/4 of the Koran being good. Muhammed basically did this with Judaism and Christianity. But it would not be the same religion.

freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 2:13pm:

Quote: This the thing: Muslims and others are playing this 'zero-sum' game where it's either 'accept or reject' all of it. That has nothing to do with a zero sum game. Once you chop up the Koran, you are rejecting it's sacredness. You are rejecting Islam. Removing the last quarter rejects the principles that supposedly make the first 3/4 special. You are left with the rantings of a desert warmonger. [quote]Why can't most of it be great, and only a small portion be bad?

If we were talking about a question of history, this would be the norm. That's not how religion works.


Quote:

Let me ask you a question: how does not accepting say 25% of a scripture completely take away from the main idea of the religion?

Because the main idea is that the scripture in its entirety is perfect. Otherwise you are left with the rantings of a desert warmonger.

This isn't to say you cannot make your own religion based on only 3/4 of the Koran being good. Muhammed basically did this with Judaism and Christianity. But it would not be the same religion.[/quote]

If you read the Meccan verses, they actually aren't the ravings of a desert warmonger. The messages about 'doing righteous deeds, feeding the poor, being modest with material things'; these are messages that Jesus taught and he was a just a Palestinian carpenter.

True, the Meccan verses are very prophetic and do condemn the disbelievers to the Fire; but this leaves the punishment up to God, and not up to people. Punishment by God is also a concept in Judaism and Christianity. Second, in the early traditions of Islam, disbelief was almost always associated with bad deeds; the two were intertwined. The idea that you could be Atheist never occurred to anyone at the time.

The idea that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant is not necessarily a part of all religions; but most. The reason this is, is due to the authority and power. If you can convince people that this Book is perfect, then you claim to have a monopoly  on the truth. Christianity was like that hundreds of years ago. People believed that the Bible was the literal word of God, or the sayings of Jesus; but during the last two hundred or so years, people have read the Bible in context, and many now know that the Gospels and Epistles were written after Jesus' ministry. Many Christians would acknowledge the Bible as 'divinely inspired' as opposed to 'inerrant'. The Jews have another Torah, known as the Oral Torah, which they believed was passed down from God to Moses on Mt Sinai and wasn't recorded in the Tanakh.

Ultimately, in the modern world, we now view religion differently. Yes, there are certain rituals and beliefs that define certain religions. My person interpretation of the Quran is that it emphasizes submission to God, which the other Abrahamic religions don't preach as much (Judaism focuses on the Land of Israel). That's what Islam means: "submission". A Muslim is someone who submits to God.

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 1:00pm:

Christianity is about the worship of Jesus as a divine being, the Son of God.

Why then do Christians have in their Bible, the Old Testament and parts of the New Testament that do not refer directly to Jesus and his doings?    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 5:10pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 1:00pm: Christianity is about the worship of Jesus as a divine being, the Son of God. Why then do Christians have in their Bible, the Old Testament and parts of the New Testament that do not refer directly to Jesus and his doings?    ::)

I'm not sure what you mean. The New Testament is mainly a series of documents talking about Jesus' actions, sayings and the added claim that he is divine.

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 5:19pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:10pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 1:00pm: Christianity is about the worship of Jesus as a divine being, the Son of God. Why then do Christians have in their Bible, the Old Testament and parts of the New Testament that do not refer directly to Jesus and his doings?    ::) I'm not sure what you mean. The New Testament is mainly a series of documents talking about Jesus' actions, sayings and the added claim that he is divine.

The Old Testament was written before Jesus arose as the supposed Messiah.
The New Testament discusses the teachings and person of Jesus, as well as events in first-century Christianity.  It does so through the Gospels of the Disciplines and the writings after the death of Christ from Saint Pauline, the book of Revelation and other oddments.

What is far more interesting is the Gospels according to the Disciples that the Church decided weren't quite Kosher enough, such as Judas and of course the Gnostics.   

My point is why is The Old Testament still in The Bible and why are the revelations of Saint Paul, who never saw Jesus or his works and the book of Revelations still there, if Christianity is about the worship of Jesus as the Son of God?   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 6:09pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:19pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:10pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 1:00pm: Christianity is about the worship of Jesus as a divine being, the Son of God. Why then do Christians have in their Bible, the Old Testament and parts of the New Testament that do not refer directly to Jesus and his doings?    ::) I'm not sure what you mean. The New Testament is mainly a series of documents talking about Jesus' actions, sayings and the added claim that he is divine. The Old Testament was written before Jesus arose as the supposed Messiah. The New Testament discusses the teachings and person of Jesus, as well as events in first-century Christianity.  It does so through the Gospels of the Disciplines and the writings after the death of Christ from Saint Pauline, the book of Revelation and other oddments. What is far more interesting is the Gospels according to the Disciples that the Church decided weren't quite Kosher enough, such as Judas and of course the Gnostics.    My point is why is The Old Testament still in The Bible and why are the revelations of Saint Paul, who never saw Jesus or his works and the book of Revelations still there, if Christianity is about the worship of Jesus as the Son of God?   ::)

Ok, so this is my point of view, and I hope it answers your question.

I believe that very early on, the followers of Jesus interpreted his ministry in a very Jewish manner: i.e. Jesus was the descendant of King David and was the prophesized Jewish Messiah who would rule Israel. Obviously, this went smashingly (sarcasm...). Fast-forward to a couple of decades and Saul has a revelation on the road to Damascus where Jesus appeared to him and asked: "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?"

Paul then wrote his letters. It's important to understand that Paul's 'experience' on the road to Damascus was what drove the current theology of Christianity. Because Jesus appeared to Paul, in Paul's mind, Jesus had been resurrected as a 'Spirit' and that's why Jesus had appeared to him. Paul wrote the 7 letters first, then the Gospel of Mark came as the earliest and so on. All of the Gospels use Paul's theology to describe Jesus's actions and sayings.

Therefore, in my mind there was a struggle between those who had a Jewish interpretation of Jesus (i.e. as is more reflected in the Epistle of James) and those who had followed Paul's teachings. When the church had established the canon, they had probably attempted to reconcile these two teachings by including the Jewish origins, as well as the distinct Christian teachings as propagated by Paul.

The idea of the 'Son of God' is actually a Pauline teaching, the divine being and the human as one; and the Holy Spirit representing the link between the two. The Gnostics could've been inspired by Paul, and further developed the theology of Gnosticism. If you read some of the other Gospels, they're quite weird and 'out there', although the Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Judas are quite interesting.

It was Paul who established (or at least cemented) the theology of Christ being the Son of God, i.e. divine in nature.

I'm not saying that I believe that Jesus was divine, I don't; I have my own views. I'm saying that the central tenets of early church was that Jesus was both divine and human in form.

Personally, I don't like Paul. I think he corrupted Christianity with his theology, although I agree his intentions were good. I believe that Jesus that was wholly human, and that's what made him incredible.

Paul/Saul...probably on the hooch, saw a vision and gibbered into Biblical history.

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 5:10pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 1:00pm: Christianity is about the worship of Jesus as a divine being, the Son of God. Why then do Christians have in their Bible, the Old Testament and parts of the New Testament that do not refer directly to Jesus and his doings?    ::)

Because they are not as eyewateringly stupid as you.

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 6:40pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 6:09pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:19pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:10pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 1:00pm: Christianity is about the worship of Jesus as a divine being, the Son of God. Why then do Christians have in their Bible, the Old Testament and parts of the New Testament that do not refer directly to Jesus and his doings?    ::) I'm not sure what you mean. The New Testament is mainly a series of documents talking about Jesus' actions, sayings and the added claim that he is divine. The Old Testament was written before Jesus arose as the supposed Messiah. The New Testament discusses the teachings and person of Jesus, as well as events in first-century Christianity.  It does so through the Gospels of the Disciplines and the writings after the death of Christ from Saint Pauline, the book of Revelation and other oddments. What is far more interesting is the Gospels according to the Disciples that the Church decided weren't quite Kosher enough, such as Judas and of course the Gnostics.    My point is why is The Old Testament still in The Bible and why are the revelations of Saint Paul, who never saw Jesus or his works and the book of Revelations still there, if Christianity is about the worship of Jesus as the Son of God?   ::) Ok, so this is my point of view, and I hope it answers your question. I believe that very early on, the followers of Jesus interpreted his ministry in a very Jewish manner: i.e. Jesus was the descendant of King David and was the prophesized Jewish Messiah who would rule Israel. Obviously, this went smashingly (sarcasm...). Fast-forward to a couple of decades and Saul has a revelation on the road to Damascus where Jesus appeared to him and asked: "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" Paul then wrote his letters. It's important to understand that Paul's 'experience' on the road to Damascus was what drove the current theology of Christianity. Because Jesus appeared to Paul, in Paul's mind, Jesus had been resurrected as a 'Spirit' and that's why Jesus had appeared to him. Paul wrote the 7 letters first, then the Gospel of Mark came as the earliest and so on. All of the Gospels use Paul's theology to describe Jesus's actions and sayings. Therefore, in my mind there was a struggle between those who had a Jewish interpretation of Jesus (i.e. as is more reflected in the Epistle of James) and those who had followed Paul's teachings. When the church had established the canon, they had probably attempted to reconcile these two teachings by including the Jewish origins, as well as the distinct Christian teachings as propagated by Paul. The idea of the 'Son of God' is actually a Pauline teaching, the divine being and the human as one; and the Holy Spirit representing the link between the two. The Gnostics could've been inspired by Paul, and further developed the theology of Gnosticism. If you read some of the other Gospels, they're quite weird and 'out there', although the Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Judas are quite interesting. It was Paul who established (or at least cemented) the theology of Christ being the Son of God, i.e. divine in nature. I'm not saying that I believe that Jesus was divine, I don't; I have my own views. I'm saying that the central tenets of early church was that Jesus was both divine and human in form. Personally, I don't like Paul. I think he corrupted Christianity with his theology, although I agree his intentions were good. I believe that Jesus that was wholly human, and that's what made him incredible.

You are ready to send off your $9.99 (plus p&p) for your Doctor of Divinity cert. You have worked for is as hard as Brian.

Aussie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 6:45pm:

Paul/Saul...probably on the hooch, saw a vision and gibbered into Biblical history.

You too are a Doctor of Divinity caliber thinker.

Frank wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 6:53pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 6:40pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 6:09pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:19pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:10pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 1:00pm: Christianity is about the worship of Jesus as a divine being, the Son of God. Why then do Christians have in their Bible, the Old Testament and parts of the New Testament that do not refer directly to Jesus and his doings?    ::) I'm not sure what you mean. The New Testament is mainly a series of documents talking about Jesus' actions, sayings and the added claim that he is divine. The Old Testament was written before Jesus arose as the supposed Messiah. The New Testament discusses the teachings and person of Jesus, as well as events in first-century Christianity.  It does so through the Gospels of the Disciplines and the writings after the death of Christ from Saint Pauline, the book of Revelation and other oddments. What is far more interesting is the Gospels according to the Disciples that the Church decided weren't quite Kosher enough, such as Judas and of course the Gnostics.    My point is why is The Old Testament still in The Bible and why are the revelations of Saint Paul, who never saw Jesus or his works and the book of Revelations still there, if Christianity is about the worship of Jesus as the Son of God?   ::) Ok, so this is my point of view, and I hope it answers your question. I believe that very early on, the followers of Jesus interpreted his ministry in a very Jewish manner: i.e. Jesus was the descendant of King David and was the prophesized Jewish Messiah who would rule Israel. Obviously, this went smashingly (sarcasm...). Fast-forward to a couple of decades and Saul has a revelation on the road to Damascus where Jesus appeared to him and asked: "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" Paul then wrote his letters. It's important to understand that Paul's 'experience' on the road to Damascus was what drove the current theology of Christianity. Because Jesus appeared to Paul, in Paul's mind, Jesus had been resurrected as a 'Spirit' and that's why Jesus had appeared to him. Paul wrote the 7 letters first, then the Gospel of Mark came as the earliest and so on. All of the Gospels use Paul's theology to describe Jesus's actions and sayings. Therefore, in my mind there was a struggle between those who had a Jewish interpretation of Jesus (i.e. as is more reflected in the Epistle of James) and those who had followed Paul's teachings. When the church had established the canon, they had probably attempted to reconcile these two teachings by including the Jewish origins, as well as the distinct Christian teachings as propagated by Paul. The idea of the 'Son of God' is actually a Pauline teaching, the divine being and the human as one; and the Holy Spirit representing the link between the two. The Gnostics could've been inspired by Paul, and further developed the theology of Gnosticism. If you read some of the other Gospels, they're quite weird and 'out there', although the Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Judas are quite interesting. It was Paul who established (or at least cemented) the theology of Christ being the Son of God, i.e. divine in nature. I'm not saying that I believe that Jesus was divine, I don't; I have my own views. I'm saying that the central tenets of early church was that Jesus was both divine and human in form. Personally, I don't like Paul. I think he corrupted Christianity with his theology, although I agree his intentions were good. I believe that Jesus that was wholly human, and that's what made him incredible. You are ready to send off your $9.99 (plus p&p) for your Doctor of Divinity cert. You have worked for is as hard as Brian.

Are you saying that what I said is blatantly obvious? That you already knew it?

Aussie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 6:45pm:

Paul/Saul...probably on the hooch, saw a vision and gibbered into Biblical history.

With credit to Paul, his intentions were good.

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 7:02pm:

Frank wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 6:53pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 6:40pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 6:09pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:19pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:10pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 1:00pm: Christianity is about the worship of Jesus as a divine being, the Son of God. Why then do Christians have in their Bible, the Old Testament and parts of the New Testament that do not refer directly to Jesus and his doings?    ::) I'm not sure what you mean. The New Testament is mainly a series of documents talking about Jesus' actions, sayings and the added claim that he is divine. The Old Testament was written before Jesus arose as the supposed Messiah. The New Testament discusses the teachings and person of Jesus, as well as events in first-century Christianity.  It does so through the Gospels of the Disciplines and the writings after the death of Christ from Saint Pauline, the book of Revelation and other oddments. What is far more interesting is the Gospels according to the Disciples that the Church decided weren't quite Kosher enough, such as Judas and of course the Gnostics.    My point is why is The Old Testament still in The Bible and why are the revelations of Saint Paul, who never saw Jesus or his works and the book of Revelations still there, if Christianity is about the worship of Jesus as the Son of God?   ::) Ok, so this is my point of view, and I hope it answers your question. I believe that very early on, the followers of Jesus interpreted his ministry in a very Jewish manner: i.e. Jesus was the descendant of King David and was the prophesized Jewish Messiah who would rule Israel. Obviously, this went smashingly (sarcasm...). Fast-forward to a couple of decades and Saul has a revelation on the road to Damascus where Jesus appeared to him and asked: "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" Paul then wrote his letters. It's important to understand that Paul's 'experience' on the road to Damascus was what drove the current theology of Christianity. Because Jesus appeared to Paul, in Paul's mind, Jesus had been resurrected as a 'Spirit' and that's why Jesus had appeared to him. Paul wrote the 7 letters first, then the Gospel of Mark came as the earliest and so on. All of the Gospels use Paul's theology to describe Jesus's actions and sayings. Therefore, in my mind there was a struggle between those who had a Jewish interpretation of Jesus (i.e. as is more reflected in the Epistle of James) and those who had followed Paul's teachings. When the church had established the canon, they had probably attempted to reconcile these two teachings by including the Jewish origins, as well as the distinct Christian teachings as propagated by Paul. The idea of the 'Son of God' is actually a Pauline teaching, the divine being and the human as one; and the Holy Spirit representing the link between the two. The Gnostics could've been inspired by Paul, and further developed the theology of Gnosticism. If you read some of the other Gospels, they're quite weird and 'out there', although the Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Judas are quite interesting. It was Paul who established (or at least cemented) the theology of Christ being the Son of God, i.e. divine in nature. I'm not saying that I believe that Jesus was divine, I don't; I have my own views. I'm saying that the central tenets of early church was that Jesus was both divine and human in form. Personally, I don't like Paul. I think he corrupted Christianity with his theology, although I agree his intentions were good. I believe that Jesus that was wholly human, and that's what made him incredible. You are ready to send off your $9.99 (plus p&p) for your Doctor of Divinity cert. You have worked for is as hard as Brian. Are you saying that what I said is blatantly obvious? That you already knew it?

I mean it's banal and common-place like Brain's pretentious posts. He sent off for a Doctor of Divinity and got it. You are sufficiently banal and low brow for one so why not also get one?

Frank wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 7:12pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 7:02pm: Frank wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 6:53pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 6:40pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 6:09pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:19pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:10pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 1:00pm: Christianity is about the worship of Jesus as a divine being, the Son of God. Why then do Christians have in their Bible, the Old Testament and parts of the New Testament that do not refer directly to Jesus and his doings?    ::) I'm not sure what you mean. The New Testament is mainly a series of documents talking about Jesus' actions, sayings and the added claim that he is divine. The Old Testament was written before Jesus arose as the supposed Messiah. The New Testament discusses the teachings and person of Jesus, as well as events in first-century Christianity.  It does so through the Gospels of the Disciplines and the writings after the death of Christ from Saint Pauline, the book of Revelation and other oddments. What is far more interesting is the Gospels according to the Disciples that the Church decided weren't quite Kosher enough, such as Judas and of course the Gnostics.    My point is why is The Old Testament still in The Bible and why are the revelations of Saint Paul, who never saw Jesus or his works and the book of Revelations still there, if Christianity is about the worship of Jesus as the Son of God?   ::) Ok, so this is my point of view, and I hope it answers your question. I believe that very early on, the followers of Jesus interpreted his ministry in a very Jewish manner: i.e. Jesus was the descendant of King David and was the prophesized Jewish Messiah who would rule Israel. Obviously, this went smashingly (sarcasm...). Fast-forward to a couple of decades and Saul has a revelation on the road to Damascus where Jesus appeared to him and asked: "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" Paul then wrote his letters. It's important to understand that Paul's 'experience' on the road to Damascus was what drove the current theology of Christianity. Because Jesus appeared to Paul, in Paul's mind, Jesus had been resurrected as a 'Spirit' and that's why Jesus had appeared to him. Paul wrote the 7 letters first, then the Gospel of Mark came as the earliest and so on. All of the Gospels use Paul's theology to describe Jesus's actions and sayings. Therefore, in my mind there was a struggle between those who had a Jewish interpretation of Jesus (i.e. as is more reflected in the Epistle of James) and those who had followed Paul's teachings. When the church had established the canon, they had probably attempted to reconcile these two teachings by including the Jewish origins, as well as the distinct Christian teachings as propagated by Paul. The idea of the 'Son of God' is actually a Pauline teaching, the divine being and the human as one; and the Holy Spirit representing the link between the two. The Gnostics could've been inspired by Paul, and further developed the theology of Gnosticism. If you read some of the other Gospels, they're quite weird and 'out there', although the Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Judas are quite interesting. It was Paul who established (or at least cemented) the theology of Christ being the Son of God, i.e. divine in nature. I'm not saying that I believe that Jesus was divine, I don't; I have my own views. I'm saying that the central tenets of early church was that Jesus was both divine and human in form. Personally, I don't like Paul. I think he corrupted Christianity with his theology, although I agree his intentions were good. I believe that Jesus that was wholly human, and that's what made him incredible. You are ready to send off your $9.99 (plus p&p) for your Doctor of Divinity cert. You have worked for is as hard as Brian. Are you saying that what I said is blatantly obvious? That you already knew it? I mean it's banal and common-place like Brain's pretentious posts. He sent off for a Doctor of Divinity and got it. You are sufficiently banal and low brow for one so why not also get one?

Ok, so great. You and I agree on this interpretation of Christianity. You're smarter than I gave you credit for.

Setanta wrote on Mar 10^th, 2017 at 12:29am:

Greg? What is an Islamist? Is it something like a Buddhist or an atheist, a creationist? What does the ist suffix mean? I'm in need of a bit of pedantry.

;D

'Islamist' is a term used by politically correct non-Muslim Useful Idiots who pretend that the vast bulk of the world's Muslims are blind to the passages in the Koran and the hadiths which advocate for war against the Infidel.

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 8:40am:

Setanta wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 1:31am: An Islamist is someone that follows Islam, IE a Moslem. There's no need for a separate name. They are followers of Islam. It's like political correctness. No, he wasn't a Moslem, he was an Islamist. Just say it like it is, radical fundamentalist Moslem, no need for a new term. It's not FMG, it's just a bit of cutting, no mutilation at all. Jesus Christ call a spade a spade. Hold on, Setanta, I thought you were a leftist? There is a distinction between Islam and Islamism; this is well known within counter-ideology circles. No one is down-playing the ideology that drives transnational criminal activities (i.e. terrorism). To solely attribute it to the religion of Islam is to attribute Karl Marx to the terrors of Communist regimes.

I am Augustus, I just don't like political correctness. One does not negate the other. Were the Muslims that spread Islam by the sword all the way to Spain, Islamists or Muslims? Islam is a religion I despise, Muslims I'll take on a case by case and don't discriminate against in any way. Most of them were born into it and had no choice and the few I know are good people.

So when does one switch from being an Islamist to a Muslim or vice versa? What do we call Christians that as as nutty as fundy Muslims? Do we have a name for them to separate them from the rest of the Christians? Of course not. Calling the nutters Islamists and the rest Muslim? Crazy political correctness.

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 7:16pm:

Frank wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 7:12pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 7:02pm: Frank wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 6:53pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 6:40pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 6:09pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:19pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:10pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 1:00pm: Christianity is about the worship of Jesus as a divine being, the Son of God. Why then do Christians have in their Bible, the Old Testament and parts of the New Testament that do not refer directly to Jesus and his doings?    ::) I'm not sure what you mean. The New Testament is mainly a series of documents talking about Jesus' actions, sayings and the added claim that he is divine. The Old Testament was written before Jesus arose as the supposed Messiah. The New Testament discusses the teachings and person of Jesus, as well as events in first-century Christianity.  It does so through the Gospels of the Disciplines and the writings after the death of Christ from Saint Pauline, the book of Revelation and other oddments. What is far more interesting is the Gospels according to the Disciples that the Church decided weren't quite Kosher enough, such as Judas and of course the Gnostics.    My point is why is The Old Testament still in The Bible and why are the revelations of Saint Paul, who never saw Jesus or his works and the book of Revelations still there, if Christianity is about the worship of Jesus as the Son of God?   ::) Ok, so this is my point of view, and I hope it answers your question. I believe that very early on, the followers of Jesus interpreted his ministry in a very Jewish manner: i.e. Jesus was the descendant of King David and was the prophesized Jewish Messiah who would rule Israel. Obviously, this went smashingly (sarcasm...). Fast-forward to a couple of decades and Saul has a revelation on the road to Damascus where Jesus appeared to him and asked: "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" Paul then wrote his letters. It's important to understand that Paul's 'experience' on the road to Damascus was what drove the current theology of Christianity. Because Jesus appeared to Paul, in Paul's mind, Jesus had been resurrected as a 'Spirit' and that's why Jesus had appeared to him. Paul wrote the 7 letters first, then the Gospel of Mark came as the earliest and so on. All of the Gospels use Paul's theology to describe Jesus's actions and sayings. Therefore, in my mind there was a struggle between those who had a Jewish interpretation of Jesus (i.e. as is more reflected in the Epistle of James) and those who had followed Paul's teachings. When the church had established the canon, they had probably attempted to reconcile these two teachings by including the Jewish origins, as well as the distinct Christian teachings as propagated by Paul. The idea of the 'Son of God' is actually a Pauline teaching, the divine being and the human as one; and the Holy Spirit representing the link between the two. The Gnostics could've been inspired by Paul, and further developed the theology of Gnosticism. If you read some of the other Gospels, they're quite weird and 'out there', although the Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Judas are quite interesting. It was Paul who established (or at least cemented) the theology of Christ being the Son of God, i.e. divine in nature. I'm not saying that I believe that Jesus was divine, I don't; I have my own views. I'm saying that the central tenets of early church was that Jesus was both divine and human in form. Personally, I don't like Paul. I think he corrupted Christianity with his theology, although I agree his intentions were good. I believe that Jesus that was wholly human, and that's what made him incredible. You are ready to send off your $9.99 (plus p&p) for your Doctor of Divinity cert. You have worked for is as hard as Brian. Are you saying that what I said is blatantly obvious? That you already knew it? I mean it's banal and common-place like Brain's pretentious posts. He sent off for a Doctor of Divinity and got it. You are sufficiently banal and low brow for one so why not also get one? Ok, so great. You and I agree on this interpretation of Christianity. You're smarter than I gave you credit for.

Thanks. Banal and common-place seem high praise now.
Cloth-eared.  Let's settle for cloth-eared.

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 6:09pm:

What is far more interesting is the Gospels according to the Disciples that the Church decided weren't quite Kosher enough, such as Judas and of course the Gnostics.

How are they interesting? What part of those gospels do you find interesting, Brian? What do thet illustrate for you?

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 5:19pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:10pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 1:00pm: Christianity is about the worship of Jesus as a divine being, the Son of God. Why then do Christians have in their Bible, the Old Testament and parts of the New Testament that do not refer directly to Jesus and his doings?    ::) I'm not sure what you mean. The New Testament is mainly a series of documents talking about Jesus' actions, sayings and the added claim that he is divine.

He is an idiot. He doesn't know what he means.

Setanta wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 7:44pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:40am: Setanta wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 1:31am: An Islamist is someone that follows Islam, IE a Moslem. There's no need for a separate name. They are followers of Islam. It's like political correctness. No, he wasn't a Moslem, he was an Islamist. Just say it like it is, radical fundamentalist Moslem, no need for a new term. It's not FMG, it's just a bit of cutting, no mutilation at all. Jesus Christ call a spade a spade. Hold on, Setanta, I thought you were a leftist? There is a distinction between Islam and Islamism; this is well known within counter-ideology circles. No one is down-playing the ideology that drives transnational criminal activities (i.e. terrorism). To solely attribute it to the religion of Islam is to attribute Karl Marx to the terrors of Communist regimes. I am Augustus, I just don't like political correctness. One does not negate the other. Were the Muslims that spread Islam by the sword all the way to Spain, Islamists or Muslims? Islam is a religion I despise, Muslims I'll take on a case by case and don't discriminate against in any way. Most of them were born into it and had no choice and the few I know are good people. So when does one switch from being an Islamist to a Muslim or vice versa? What do we call Christians that as as nutty as fundy Muslims? Do we have a name for them to separate them from the rest of the Christians? Of course not. Calling the nutters Islamists and the rest Muslim? Crazy political correctness.

It's not a matter of political correctness necessarily; it's a matter of trying to find the right terminology to describe what is driving these criminals. The religion of Islam is so diverse and broad that it's difficult to attribute Islam solely to these acts. There are other reasons why people commit criminal acts. It's a hell of leap of faith to believe that you're going somewhere better after you die.

Don't forget that secularism is well entrenched in Western society, that's why there's no established term of the Islamist equivalent of Christianity. Islamism is the the political imposition of Islam, which is the implementation of sharia law, etc.

Frank wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 7:50pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 7:16pm: Frank wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 7:12pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 7:02pm: Frank wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 6:53pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 6:40pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 6:09pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:19pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:10pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 1:00pm: Christianity is about the worship of Jesus as a divine being, the Son of God. Why then do Christians have in their Bible, the Old Testament and parts of the New Testament that do not refer directly to Jesus and his doings?    ::) I'm not sure what you mean. The New Testament is mainly a series of documents talking about Jesus' actions, sayings and the added claim that he is divine. The Old Testament was written before Jesus arose as the supposed Messiah. The New Testament discusses the teachings and person of Jesus, as well as events in first-century Christianity.  It does so through the Gospels of the Disciplines and the writings after the death of Christ from Saint Pauline, the book of Revelation and other oddments. What is far more interesting is the Gospels according to the Disciples that the Church decided weren't quite Kosher enough, such as Judas and of course the Gnostics.    My point is why is The Old Testament still in The Bible and why are the revelations of Saint Paul, who never saw Jesus or his works and the book of Revelations still there, if Christianity is about the worship of Jesus as the Son of God?   ::) Ok, so this is my point of view, and I hope it answers your question. I believe that very early on, the followers of Jesus interpreted his ministry in a very Jewish manner: i.e. Jesus was the descendant of King David and was the prophesized Jewish Messiah who would rule Israel. Obviously, this went smashingly (sarcasm...). Fast-forward to a couple of decades and Saul has a revelation on the road to Damascus where Jesus appeared to him and asked: "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" Paul then wrote his letters. It's important to understand that Paul's 'experience' on the road to Damascus was what drove the current theology of Christianity. Because Jesus appeared to Paul, in Paul's mind, Jesus had been resurrected as a 'Spirit' and that's why Jesus had appeared to him. Paul wrote the 7 letters first, then the Gospel of Mark came as the earliest and so on. All of the Gospels use Paul's theology to describe Jesus's actions and sayings. Therefore, in my mind there was a struggle between those who had a Jewish interpretation of Jesus (i.e. as is more reflected in the Epistle of James) and those who had followed Paul's teachings. When the church had established the canon, they had probably attempted to reconcile these two teachings by including the Jewish origins, as well as the distinct Christian teachings as propagated by Paul. The idea of the 'Son of God' is actually a Pauline teaching, the divine being and the human as one; and the Holy Spirit representing the link between the two. The Gnostics could've been inspired by Paul, and further developed the theology of Gnosticism. If you read some of the other Gospels, they're quite weird and 'out there', although the Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Judas are quite interesting. It was Paul who established (or at least cemented) the theology of Christ being the Son of God, i.e. divine in nature. I'm not saying that I believe that Jesus was divine, I don't; I have my own views. I'm saying that the central tenets of early church was that Jesus was both divine and human in form. Personally, I don't like Paul. I think he corrupted Christianity with his theology, although I agree his intentions were good. I believe that Jesus that was wholly human, and that's what made him incredible. You are ready to send off your $9.99 (plus p&p) for your Doctor of Divinity cert. You have worked for is as hard as Brian. Are you saying that what I said is blatantly obvious? That you already knew it? I mean it's banal and common-place like Brain's pretentious posts. He sent off for a Doctor of Divinity and got it. You are sufficiently banal and low brow for one so why not also get one? Ok, so great. You and I agree on this interpretation of Christianity. You're smarter than I gave you credit for. Thanks. Banal and common-place seem high praise now. Cloth-eared.  Let's settle for cloth-eared.

It's interesting that people take credit for having ideas that they could never express THEMSELVES.

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 8:02pm:

Setanta wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 7:44pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:40am: Setanta wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 1:31am: An Islamist is someone that follows Islam, IE a Moslem. There's no need for a separate name. They are followers of Islam. It's like political correctness. No, he wasn't a Moslem, he was an Islamist. Just say it like it is, radical fundamentalist Moslem, no need for a new term. It's not FMG, it's just a bit of cutting, no mutilation at all. Jesus Christ call a spade a spade. Hold on, Setanta, I thought you were a leftist? There is a distinction between Islam and Islamism; this is well known within counter-ideology circles. No one is down-playing the ideology that drives transnational criminal activities (i.e. terrorism). To solely attribute it to the religion of Islam is to attribute Karl Marx to the terrors of Communist regimes. I am Augustus, I just don't like political correctness. One does not negate the other. Were the Muslims that spread Islam by the sword all the way to Spain, Islamists or Muslims? Islam is a religion I despise, Muslims I'll take on a case by case and don't discriminate against in any way. Most of them were born into it and had no choice and the few I know are good people. So when does one switch from being an Islamist to a Muslim or vice versa? What do we call Christians that as as nutty as fundy Muslims? Do we have a name for them to separate them from the rest of the Christians? Of course not. Calling the nutters Islamists and the rest Muslim? Crazy political correctness. It's not a matter of political correctness necessarily; it's a matter of trying to find the right terminology to describe what is driving these criminals. The religion of Islam is so diverse and broad that it's difficult to attribute Islam solely to these acts. There are other reasons why people commit criminal acts. It's a hell of leap of faith to believe that you're going somewhere better after you die. Don't forget that secularism is well entrenched in Western society, that's why there's no established term of the Islamist equivalent of Christianity. Islamism is the the political imposition of Islam, which is the implementation of sharia law, etc.

The sad truth is even conservative Muslims hold views that would turn the stomach of liberal progressives. From Muslim conservative onwards it just gets progressively worse until you end up with the head choppers.

Gordon wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 8:09pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:02pm: Setanta wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 7:44pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:40am: Setanta wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 1:31am: An Islamist is someone that follows Islam, IE a Moslem. There's no need for a separate name. They are followers of Islam. It's like political correctness. No, he wasn't a Moslem, he was an Islamist. Just say it like it is, radical fundamentalist Moslem, no need for a new term. It's not FMG, it's just a bit of cutting, no mutilation at all. Jesus Christ call a spade a spade. Hold on, Setanta, I thought you were a leftist? There is a distinction between Islam and Islamism; this is well known within counter-ideology circles. No one is down-playing the ideology that drives transnational criminal activities (i.e. terrorism). To solely attribute it to the religion of Islam is to attribute Karl Marx to the terrors of Communist regimes. I am Augustus, I just don't like political correctness. One does not negate the other. Were the Muslims that spread Islam by the sword all the way to Spain, Islamists or Muslims? Islam is a religion I despise, Muslims I'll take on a case by case and don't discriminate against in any way. Most of them were born into it and had no choice and the few I know are good people. So when does one switch from being an Islamist to a Muslim or vice versa? What do we call Christians that as as nutty as fundy Muslims? Do we have a name for them to separate them from the rest of the Christians? Of course not. Calling the nutters Islamists and the rest Muslim? Crazy political correctness. It's not a matter of political correctness necessarily; it's a matter of trying to find the right terminology to describe what is driving these criminals. The religion of Islam is so diverse and broad that it's difficult to attribute Islam solely to these acts. There are other reasons why people commit criminal acts. It's a hell of leap of faith to believe that you're going somewhere better after you die. Don't forget that secularism is well entrenched in Western society, that's why there's no established term of the Islamist equivalent of Christianity. Islamism is the the political imposition of Islam, which is the implementation of sharia law, etc. The sad truth is even conservative Muslims hold views that would turn the stomach of liberal progressives. From Muslim conservative onwards it just gets progressively worse until you end up with the head choppers.

Yes, you are right that people hold pernicious beliefs about many things. There's nothing we can do about it.

Well, we can do better vetting.  A lot of people want to come to Australia.  I wouldn't ban Islam immigration but I'd preference others.

We have more than enough kebab joints.  Time for more taco food trucks  :)

Gordon wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 8:14pm:

Well, we can do better vetting.  A lot of people want to come to Australia.  I wouldn't ban Islam immigration but I'd preference others. We have more than enough kebab joints.  Time for more taco food trucks  :)

Do you prefer Mexican over Kebabs?

Setanta wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 7:44pm:

What do we call Christians that are as nutty as fundy Muslims? Do we have a name for them to separate them from the rest of the Christians?

Wogs.  :)

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 8:20pm:

Setanta wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 7:44pm: What do we call Christians that are as nutty as fundy Muslims? Do we have a name for them to separate them from the rest of the Christians? Wogs.  :)

What is a Wog, Herbert?

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 8:18pm:

Gordon wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:14pm: Well, we can do better vetting.  A lot of people want to come to Australia.  I wouldn't ban Islam immigration but I'd preference others. We have more than enough kebab joints.  Time for more taco food trucks  :) Do you prefer Mexican over Kebabs?

I'm being glib but I think we need to seriously put the brakes on muslim, particularly Arab muslim immigration.

As I said before, what's in it for Australia to burden itself with such have high maintenence people?

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 8:02pm:

Setanta wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 7:44pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:40am: Setanta wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 1:31am: An Islamist is someone that follows Islam, IE a Moslem. There's no need for a separate name. They are followers of Islam. It's like political correctness. No, he wasn't a Moslem, he was an Islamist. Just say it like it is, radical fundamentalist Moslem, no need for a new term. It's not FMG, it's just a bit of cutting, no mutilation at all. Jesus Christ call a spade a spade. Hold on, Setanta, I thought you were a leftist? There is a distinction between Islam and Islamism; this is well known within counter-ideology circles. No one is down-playing the ideology that drives transnational criminal activities (i.e. terrorism). To solely attribute it to the religion of Islam is to attribute Karl Marx to the terrors of Communist regimes. I am Augustus, I just don't like political correctness. One does not negate the other. Were the Muslims that spread Islam by the sword all the way to Spain, Islamists or Muslims? Islam is a religion I despise, Muslims I'll take on a case by case and don't discriminate against in any way. Most of them were born into it and had no choice and the few I know are good people. So when does one switch from being an Islamist to a Muslim or vice versa? What do we call Christians that as as nutty as fundy Muslims? Do we have a name for them to separate them from the rest of the Christians? Of course not. Calling the nutters Islamists and the rest Muslim? Crazy political correctness. It's not a matter of political correctness necessarily; it's a matter of trying to find the right terminology to describe what is driving these criminals. The religion of Islam is so diverse and broad that it's difficult to attribute Islam solely to these acts. There are other reasons why people commit criminal acts. It's a hell of leap of faith to believe that you're going somewhere better after you die. Don't forget that secularism is well entrenched in Western society, that's why there's no established term of the Islamist equivalent of Christianity. Islamism is the the political imposition of Islam, which is the implementation of sharia law, etc.

Why are the early expansions of Islam not called Islamist? The new ones just want the same as the originals. It's Islamist or Muslim, both by definition are followers of Islam. Moh was pretty much a desert pirate, the religion is built on crime, that most don't follow on with that says more for mankind than it does the religion. But again, Islamist/Muslim same thing, followers of Islam.

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 8:21pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:20pm: Setanta wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 7:44pm: What do we call Christians that are as nutty as fundy Muslims? Do we have a name for them to separate them from the rest of the Christians? Wogs.  :) What is a Wog, Herbert?

I plead the Miranda Right:


    You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions.
    Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law.
    You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.
    If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish.
    If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.
    Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?


:)

..

Setanta wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 8:25pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:02pm: Setanta wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 7:44pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:40am: Setanta wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 1:31am: An Islamist is someone that follows Islam, IE a Moslem. There's no need for a separate name. They are followers of Islam. It's like political correctness. No, he wasn't a Moslem, he was an Islamist. Just say it like it is, radical fundamentalist Moslem, no need for a new term. It's not FMG, it's just a bit of cutting, no mutilation at all. Jesus Christ call a spade a spade. Hold on, Setanta, I thought you were a leftist? There is a distinction between Islam and Islamism; this is well known within counter-ideology circles. No one is down-playing the ideology that drives transnational criminal activities (i.e. terrorism). To solely attribute it to the religion of Islam is to attribute Karl Marx to the terrors of Communist regimes. I am Augustus, I just don't like political correctness. One does not negate the other. Were the Muslims that spread Islam by the sword all the way to Spain, Islamists or Muslims? Islam is a religion I despise, Muslims I'll take on a case by case and don't discriminate against in any way. Most of them were born into it and had no choice and the few I know are good people. So when does one switch from being an Islamist to a Muslim or vice versa? What do we call Christians that as as nutty as fundy Muslims? Do we have a name for them to separate them from the rest of the Christians? Of course not. Calling the nutters Islamists and the rest Muslim? Crazy political correctness. It's not a matter of political correctness necessarily; it's a matter of trying to find the right terminology to describe what is driving these criminals. The religion of Islam is so diverse and broad that it's difficult to attribute Islam solely to these acts. There are other reasons why people commit criminal acts. It's a hell of leap of faith to believe that you're going somewhere better after you die. Don't forget that secularism is well entrenched in Western society, that's why there's no established term of the Islamist equivalent of Christianity. Islamism is the the political imposition of Islam, which is the implementation of sharia law, etc. Why are the early expansions of Islam not called Islamist? The new ones just want the same as the originals. It's Islamist or Muslim, both by definition are followers of Islam. Moh was pretty much a desert pirate, the religion is built on crime, that most don't follow on with that says more for mankind than it does the religion. But again, Islamist/Muslim same thing, followers of Islam.

Because at the time there was no such thing secularism, given that the Christian world was not secular. Hence, Islamism was not a necessary definition.

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 8:04pm:

It's interesting that people take credit for having ideas that they could never express THEMSELVES.

Once again you are saying banal and commonplace things. Do you have any ideas of your own?

Gordon wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 8:23pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:18pm: Gordon wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:14pm: Well, we can do better vetting.  A lot of people want to come to Australia.  I wouldn't ban Islam immigration but I'd preference others. We have more than enough kebab joints.  Time for more taco food trucks  :) Do you prefer Mexican over Kebabs? I'm being glib but I think we need to seriously put the brakes on muslim, particularly Arab muslim immigration. As I said before, what's in it for Australia to burden itself with such have high maintenence people?

One option could be to completely restrict refugees from that part of the world, and to reduce immigration numbers of persons coming in. The problem is that Saudi Arabia is swimming in money and uses it to influence Western countries; of course they also help with terrorism - apparently.

If a Saudi prince offered you $5 million to turn a blind eye, would you do it?

Frank wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 8:36pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:04pm: It's interesting that people take credit for having ideas that they could never express THEMSELVES. Once again you are saying banal and commonplace things. Do you have any ideas of your own?

I tell you what? If you can articulate a complicated idea as I have done above about Saul/Paul, I'll bow down in awe to you.

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 8:40pm:

Gordon wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:23pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:18pm: Gordon wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:14pm: Well, we can do better vetting.  A lot of people want to come to Australia.  I wouldn't ban Islam immigration but I'd preference others. We have more than enough kebab joints.  Time for more taco food trucks  :) Do you prefer Mexican over Kebabs? I'm being glib but I think we need to seriously put the brakes on muslim, particularly Arab muslim immigration. As I said before, what's in it for Australia to burden itself with such have high maintenence people? One option could be to completely restrict refugees from that part of the world, and to reduce immigration numbers of persons coming in. The problem is that Saudi Arabia is swimming in money and uses it to influence Western countries; of course they also help with terrorism - apparently. If a Saudi prince offered you $5 million to turn a blind eye, would you do it?

$5m, no. 

Gordon wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 8:48pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:40pm: Gordon wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:23pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:18pm: Gordon wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:14pm: Well, we can do better vetting.  A lot of people want to come to Australia.  I wouldn't ban Islam immigration but I'd preference others. We have more than enough kebab joints.  Time for more taco food trucks  :) Do you prefer Mexican over Kebabs? I'm being glib but I think we need to seriously put the brakes on muslim, particularly Arab muslim immigration. As I said before, what's in it for Australia to burden itself with such have high maintenence people? One option could be to completely restrict refugees from that part of the world, and to reduce immigration numbers of persons coming in. The problem is that Saudi Arabia is swimming in money and uses it to influence Western countries; of course they also help with terrorism - apparently. If a Saudi prince offered you $5 million to turn a blind eye, would you do it? $5m, no.

I'd take it.

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 8:35pm:

Because at the time there was no such thing secularism, given that the Christian world was not secular. Hence, Islamism was not a necessary definition.

Islamist has nothing to do with secularism, paganism, Christianity, it solely has to do with Islam. Trying to break a religion into parts because some are nutjobs is stupid. It's pure PC crap to not hurt the feeling of Muslims that are not head choppers. Tough titties, that's your religion, don't like it, give it up.

PC is thought police shyte. Calling the nutjobs Islamist to not offend other followers of the same religion it PC. They are both Muslims and follow the same religion. Although the Sunni seem to be by far the worst at being crazy.

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 8:51pm:

Gordon wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:48pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:40pm: Gordon wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:23pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:18pm: Gordon wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:14pm: Well, we can do better vetting.  A lot of people want to come to Australia.  I wouldn't ban Islam immigration but I'd preference others. We have more than enough kebab joints.  Time for more taco food trucks  :) Do you prefer Mexican over Kebabs? I'm being glib but I think we need to seriously put the brakes on muslim, particularly Arab muslim immigration. As I said before, what's in it for Australia to burden itself with such have high maintenence people? One option could be to completely restrict refugees from that part of the world, and to reduce immigration numbers of persons coming in. The problem is that Saudi Arabia is swimming in money and uses it to influence Western countries; of course they also help with terrorism - apparently. If a Saudi prince offered you $5 million to turn a blind eye, would you do it? $5m, no.  I'd take it.

I think you have...  ;D

Setanta wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 8:55pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:35pm: Because at the time there was no such thing secularism, given that the Christian world was not secular. Hence, Islamism was not a necessary definition. Islamist has nothing to do with secularism, paganism, Christianity, it solely has to do with Islam. Trying to break a religion into parts because some are nutjobs is stupid. It's pure PC crap to not hurt the feeling of Muslims that are not head choppers. Tough titties, that's your religion, don't like it, give it up. PC is thought police shyte. Calling the nutjobs Islamist to not offend other followers of the same religion it PC. They are both Muslims and follow the same religion. Although the Sunni seem to be by far the worst at being crazy.

Setanta, read the Quran. In fact, I just posted a on the Islam Board called 'Sura 90.' Read it.

Setanta wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 8:58pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:51pm: Gordon wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:48pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:40pm: Gordon wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:23pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:18pm: Gordon wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:14pm: Well, we can do better vetting.  A lot of people want to come to Australia.  I wouldn't ban Islam immigration but I'd preference others. We have more than enough kebab joints.  Time for more taco food trucks  :) Do you prefer Mexican over Kebabs? I'm being glib but I think we need to seriously put the brakes on muslim, particularly Arab muslim immigration. As I said before, what's in it for Australia to burden itself with such have high maintenence people? One option could be to completely restrict refugees from that part of the world, and to reduce immigration numbers of persons coming in. The problem is that Saudi Arabia is swimming in money and uses it to influence Western countries; of course they also help with terrorism - apparently. If a Saudi prince offered you $5 million to turn a blind eye, would you do it? $5m, no.  I'd take it. I think you have...  ;D

I wish, and I'd have me my four wives too....  :D

Setanta wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 8:55pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:35pm: Because at the time there was no such thing secularism, given that the Christian world was not secular. Hence, Islamism was not a necessary definition. Islamist has nothing to do with secularism, paganism, Christianity, it solely has to do with Islam. Trying to break a religion into parts because some are nutjobs is stupid. It's pure PC crap to not hurt the feeling of Muslims that are not head choppers. Tough titties, that's your religion, don't like it, give it up. PC is thought police shyte. Calling the nutjobs Islamist to not offend other followers of the same religion it PC. They are both Muslims and follow the same religion. Although the Sunni seem to be by far the worst at being crazy.

I just see the term islamist as a rating for where a muslim is on the scale from cultural Muslim to headchopper.

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:02pm:

Setanta wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:58pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:51pm: Gordon wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:48pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:40pm: Gordon wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:23pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:18pm: Gordon wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:14pm: Well, we can do better vetting.  A lot of people want to come to Australia.  I wouldn't ban Islam immigration but I'd preference others. We have more than enough kebab joints.  Time for more taco food trucks  :) Do you prefer Mexican over Kebabs? I'm being glib but I think we need to seriously put the brakes on muslim, particularly Arab muslim immigration. As I said before, what's in it for Australia to burden itself with such have high maintenence people? One option could be to completely restrict refugees from that part of the world, and to reduce immigration numbers of persons coming in. The problem is that Saudi Arabia is swimming in money and uses it to influence Western countries; of course they also help with terrorism - apparently. If a Saudi prince offered you $5 million to turn a blind eye, would you do it? $5m, no.  I'd take it. I think you have...  ;D I wish, and I'd have me my four wives too....  :D

Ever been to Lakemba?

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:02pm:

I wish, and I'd have me my four wives too....  :D

Me too. It's looking like the wife has rheumatoid arthritis, she/we could do with a bit of help. She's only 51.

Gordon wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:09pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:02pm: Setanta wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:58pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:51pm: Gordon wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:48pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:40pm: Gordon wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:23pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:18pm: Gordon wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:14pm: Well, we can do better vetting.  A lot of people want to come to Australia.  I wouldn't ban Islam immigration but I'd preference others. We have more than enough kebab joints.  Time for more taco food trucks  :) Do you prefer Mexican over Kebabs? I'm being glib but I think we need to seriously put the brakes on muslim, particularly Arab muslim immigration. As I said before, what's in it for Australia to burden itself with such have high maintenence people? One option could be to completely restrict refugees from that part of the world, and to reduce immigration numbers of persons coming in. The problem is that Saudi Arabia is swimming in money and uses it to influence Western countries; of course they also help with terrorism - apparently. If a Saudi prince offered you $5 million to turn a blind eye, would you do it? $5m, no.  I'd take it. I think you have...  ;D I wish, and I'd have me my four wives too....  :D Ever been to Lakemba?

No, I've heard of it. Do men there have four wives?

Hars to tell. In the day time it a bustling hive of activity,  people spilling out of the cafes, chatting drinking tea coffe and eating baklavas.

It's a total sausage party tho.  Men would outnumber the women 50:1.

I guess muslim women don't like to take the air.

Gordon wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:12pm:

+

You have to be able to treat them equally; i.e. give them their own room and/or bathroom. I doubt that the wives in Lakemba even have their own room.

Frank wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 6:51pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 5:10pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 1:00pm: Christianity is about the worship of Jesus as a divine being, the Son of God. Why then do Christians have in their Bible, the Old Testament and parts of the New Testament that do not refer directly to Jesus and his doings?    ::) Because they are not as eyewateringly stupid as you.

Oh, dearie, dearie, me, Soren.  Why do you feel that you need to resort to ad hominem debate all the time?  For someone who claims such superiority, you fail dismally to display it.  Tsk, tsk.    ::) ::)

Gordon wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:12pm:

Hars to tell. In the day time it a bustling hive of activity,  people spilling out of the cafes, chatting drinking tea coffe and eating baklavas. It's a total sausage party tho.  Men would outnumber the women 50:1. I guess muslim women don't like to take the air.

Maybe, they're the ones working?

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:24pm:

Gordon wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:12pm: Hars to tell. In the day time it a bustling hive of activity,  people spilling out of the cafes, chatting drinking tea coffe and eating baklavas. It's a total sausage party tho.  Men would outnumber the women 50:1. I guess muslim women don't like to take the air. Maybe, they're the ones working?

Funny.  If you get a chance pop into Lakemba. Nicr lebbo food at Jasmines but you'll find it educational.

Take a woman in active wear and another heavily pregnant with her watermelon showing.

Fun times :)

Gordon wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:31pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:24pm: Gordon wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:12pm: Hars to tell. In the day time it a bustling hive of activity,  people spilling out of the cafes, chatting drinking tea coffe and eating baklavas. It's a total sausage party tho.  Men would outnumber the women 50:1. I guess muslim women don't like to take the air. Maybe, they're the ones working? Funny.  If you get a chance pop into Lakemba. Nicr lebbo food at Jasmines but you'll find it educational. Take a woman in active wear and another heavily pregnant with her watermelon showing. Fun times :)

I'll be there speaking Arabic with them. With the men, I mean.

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:39pm:

Gordon wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:31pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:24pm: Gordon wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:12pm: Hars to tell. In the day time it a bustling hive of activity,  people spilling out of the cafes, chatting drinking tea coffe and eating baklavas. It's a total sausage party tho.  Men would outnumber the women 50:1. I guess muslim women don't like to take the air. Maybe, they're the ones working? Funny.  If you get a chance pop into Lakemba. Nicr lebbo food at Jasmines but you'll find it educational. Take a woman in active wear and another heavily pregnant with her watermelon showing. Fun times :) I'll be there speaking Arabic with them. With the men, I mean.

Be sure to ask them where their womenfolk are.

Gordon wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:54pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:39pm: Gordon wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:31pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:24pm: Gordon wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:12pm: Hars to tell. In the day time it a bustling hive of activity,  people spilling out of the cafes, chatting drinking tea coffe and eating baklavas. It's a total sausage party tho.  Men would outnumber the women 50:1. I guess muslim women don't like to take the air. Maybe, they're the ones working? Funny.  If you get a chance pop into Lakemba. Nicr lebbo food at Jasmines but you'll find it educational. Take a woman in active wear and another heavily pregnant with her watermelon showing. Fun times :) I'll be there speaking Arabic with them. With the men, I mean. Be sure to ask them where their womenfolk are.

I wouldn't do that. That would be disrespectful.

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 10:05pm:

Gordon wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:54pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:39pm: Gordon wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:31pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:24pm: Gordon wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:12pm: Hars to tell. In the day time it a bustling hive of activity,  people spilling out of the cafes, chatting drinking tea coffe and eating baklavas. It's a total sausage party tho.  Men would outnumber the women 50:1. I guess muslim women don't like to take the air. Maybe, they're the ones working? Funny.  If you get a chance pop into Lakemba. Nicr lebbo food at Jasmines but you'll find it educational. Take a woman in active wear and another heavily pregnant with her watermelon showing. Fun times :) I'll be there speaking Arabic with them. With the men, I mean. Be sure to ask them where their womenfolk are. I wouldn't do that. That would be disrespectful.

How so? If part of their culture is to keep women home while the men are out enjoying themselves, what's wrong with asking them about it?

Disrespect may be felt if you criticise them for it.

If such basic parts of their culture can't be scrutinised what chance is their of getting into more difficult areas?

Gordon wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 10:31pm:

If such basic parts of their culture can't be scrutinised what chance is their of getting into more difficult areas?

Just be culturally sensitive, it's not mutilation if you throw acid in a schoolgirl's face, chop her c@nt up, or set her on fire because she "offended her brother's or father's sensibilities".  It might offend the recipients of other peoples offence, where does the self inflicted offence end?

This is why I am a culturalist. Some cultures suck and should be told so.

Auggie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 8:40pm:

If a Saudi prince offered you $5 million to turn a blind eye, would you do it?

Hypotheticals can be structured to produce whatever result the gamer wants to be the outcome for propaganda purposes. Far Leftwing constitutional lawyer Geoffrey Robertson used to host a TV series as a Leftwing political propaganda exercise using verbal sleight-of-hand and sophistry in which he would gently shepherd the panel of guests towards the desired conclusions using a series of seemingly innocuous questions.

It was a Side Show Alley circus act more than anything else, something akin to a hypnotist's stage show, only the dupes and the foils were fully awake as his series of proposed scenarios inevitably guided them like donkeys or sheep towards a Leftwing-luvvy conclusion on various social issues.

He and his wife, Kathy Lette, were/are the sort of people who would have agreed, with loud clapping and hooting Professor Donald Horne's (The Lucky Country) proposal that Australia should no more invite the British to migrate here than invite the Muslim Turks. After 200 years of British settlement Australia was still Terra Nullius so far as these North Shore luvvies were concerned, with no Western, Christian, secular, or British ethos, heritage and culture to protect and preserve against alien occupation.

Donald Horne was a peace-time traitor to Australia just as Tony Blair is today a peace-time traitor to Britain, with the latter very much deserving the same fate as Lord Haw Haw. 

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 13^th, 2017 at 7:27am:

Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 8:40pm: If a Saudi prince offered you $5 million to turn a blind eye, would you do it? Hypotheticals can be structured to produce whatever result the gamer wants to be the outcome for propaganda purposes. Far Leftwing constitutional lawyer Geoffrey Robertson used to host a TV series as a Leftwing political propaganda exercise using verbal sleight-of-hand and sophistry in which he would gently shepherd the panel of guests towards the desired conclusions using a series of seemingly innocuous questions. It was a Side Show Alley circus act more than anything else, something akin to a hypnotist's stage show, only the dupes and the foils were fully awake as his series of proposed scenarios inevitably guided them like donkeys or sheep towards a Leftwing-luvvy conclusion on various social issues. He and his wife, Kathy Lette, were/are the sort of people who would have agreed, with loud clapping and hooting Professor Donald Horne's (The Lucky Country) proposal that Australia should no more invite the British to migrate here than invite the Muslim Turks. After 200 years of British settlement Australia was still Terra Nullius so far as these North Shore luvvies were concerned, with no Western, Christian, secular, or British ethos, heritage and culture to protect and preserve against alien occupation. Donald Horne was a peace-time traitor to Australia just as Tony Blair is today a peace-time traitor to Britain, with the latter very much deserving the same fate as Lord Haw Haw.

The point I was trying to make is that money can corrupt people.

Gordon wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 10:31pm:

If such basic parts of their culture can't be scrutinised what chance is their of getting into more difficult areas?

I value my life more than I do freedom.

Gordon wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:12pm:

Hars to tell. In the day time it a bustling hive of activity,  people spilling out of the cafes, chatting drinking tea coffe and eating baklavas. It's a total sausage party tho.  Men would outnumber the women 50:1. I guess muslim women don't like to take the air.

;D ;D ;D

Nice one.

Gordon wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:31pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:24pm: Gordon wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:12pm: Hars to tell. In the day time it a bustling hive of activity,  people spilling out of the cafes, chatting drinking tea coffe and eating baklavas. It's a total sausage party tho.  Men would outnumber the women 50:1. I guess muslim women don't like to take the air. Maybe, they're the ones working? Funny.  If you get a chance pop into Lakemba. Nicr lebbo food at Jasmines but you'll find it educational. Take a woman in active wear and another heavily pregnant with her watermelon showing. Fun times :)

I frequently go to the halal KFC in Bankstown, which is close to Lakemba. Oversized hijabi women in tight active wear seem to be a feature there.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 13^th, 2017 at 4:51pm:

Gordon wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:31pm: Auggie wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:24pm: Gordon wrote on Mar 12th, 2017 at 9:12pm: Hars to tell. In the day time it a bustling hive of activity,  people spilling out of the cafes, chatting drinking tea coffe and eating baklavas. It's a total sausage party tho.  Men would outnumber the women 50:1. I guess muslim women don't like to take the air. Maybe, they're the ones working? Funny.  If you get a chance pop into Lakemba. Nicr lebbo food at Jasmines but you'll find it educational. Take a woman in active wear and another heavily pregnant with her watermelon showing. Fun times :) I frequently go to the halal KFC in Bankstown, which is close to Lakemba. Oversized hijabi women in tight active wear seem to be a feature there.

Have you ever seen a Muslim woman not pregnant?

Auggie wrote on Mar 13^th, 2017 at 4:53pm:

Have you ever seen a Muslim woman not pregnant?

It's a religious requirement to help build the Muslim communities in the West to rival that of the locals in terms of voting power, and it's all funded by the Welfare States of the Infidels.

Incidentally, Gandalf, are you letting a 7th century desert religion dictate to you what you may eat and what you may not eat? Are you under some sort of hypnotism, or do you believe that terrible things will happen to you if you eat bacon and pork products?

I'm trying to understand why you have willingly decided to abuse and degrade your intelligence, your education, and your personal sovereignty.