Australian Politics Forum - apologist-approved criticsm

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 96744	Re: apologist-approved criticsm Reply #30 - Jun 14^th, 2014 at 6:50pm freediver wrote on Jun 14^th, 2014 at 6:30pm: Sounds like the facts were irrelevant to him too. That depends on which facts you’re seeking. Ghandi’s was a spiritual path. He believed he followed the same God as Muslims, Mother England, and even atheists.
Back to top	IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Online OzPolitic Posts: 38868 Gender:	Re: apologist-approved criticsm Reply #31 - Jun 14^th, 2014 at 6:50pm freediver wrote on Jun 14^th, 2014 at 6:30pm: Sounds like the facts were irrelevant to him too. Umm....how can facts be irrelevant?
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49500
At my desk.

Re: apologist-approved criticsm
Reply #32 - Jun 14^th, 2014 at 6:54pm

Karnal wrote on Jun 14^th, 2014 at 6:50pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 14^th, 2014 at 6:30pm:

Sounds like the facts were irrelevant to him too.

That depends on which facts you’re seeking. Ghandi’s was a spiritual path. He believed he followed the same God as Muslims, Mother England, and even atheists.

So you can choose your facts? Is that a bit like what Yadda does? Or do we need your approval to do that? Perhaps we can only choose facts based on the truth?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96744

Re: apologist-approved criticsm
Reply #33 - Jun 14^th, 2014 at 6:58pm

Aussie wrote on Jun 14^th, 2014 at 6:50pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 14^th, 2014 at 6:30pm:

Sounds like the facts were irrelevant to him too.

Umm....how can facts be irrelevant?

FD’s referring to Mo’s (pbuh) directive to kill all non-Muslims. He’s saying I’m avoiding the fact that Muslims are assasinating Australians everywhere, right under our noses.

The police don’t do anything - they’re all Muslim apologists.

Typical.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49500 At my desk.	Re: apologist-approved criticsm Reply #34 - Jun 14^th, 2014 at 7:03pm Did Gandhi actually try to cover up the fact that British soldiers beat up protestors?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 96744	Re: apologist-approved criticsm Reply #35 - Jun 14^th, 2014 at 7:03pm freediver wrote on Jun 14^th, 2014 at 6:54pm: Perhaps we can only choose facts based on the truth? I think you’re right. For Ghandi, God is truth. He believed truth is in all people, regardless of their religion. If I’m not mistaken, this is also in the Koran.
Back to top	IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 96744	Re: apologist-approved criticsm Reply #36 - Jun 14^th, 2014 at 7:06pm freediver wrote on Jun 14^th, 2014 at 7:03pm: Did Gandhi actually try to cover up the fact that British soldiers beat up protestors? Oh no, he used it.The British media reported the attacks - they were largely on Ghandi’s side. Apologists.
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49500
At my desk.

Re: apologist-approved criticsm
Reply #37 - Jun 14^th, 2014 at 7:06pm

Quote:

I think you’re right. For Ghandi, God is truth. He believed truth is in all people, regardless of their religion.

So we should practice restraint in our criticism by only basing it on the truth within us?

Quote:

Oh no, he used it.The British media reported the attacks - they were largely on Ghandi’s side.

Did Gandhi try to stop them?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 96744	Re: apologist-approved criticsm Reply #38 - Jun 14^th, 2014 at 7:11pm Good point on restraint - I completely agree. Truth, however, is not intellectual. It’s built on compassion and mutual understanding. Ghandi gave interviews.
Back to top	IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Online OzPolitic Posts: 38868 Gender:	Re: apologist-approved criticsm Reply #39 - Jun 14^th, 2014 at 7:21pm Hang on.....somehow we have moved from fact to truth.
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49500
At my desk.

Re: apologist-approved criticsm
Reply #40 - Jun 14^th, 2014 at 7:23pm

Karnal wrote on Jun 14^th, 2014 at 7:11pm:

Good point on restraint - I completely agree. Truth, however, is not intellectual. It’s built on compassion and mutual understanding.

Ghandi gave interviews.

Ah, nothing to do with facts then? We must base our criticism on compassion and mutual understanding, not the facts?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

moses

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6353

Re: apologist-approved criticsm
Reply #41 - Jun 14^th, 2014 at 7:25pm

Karnal wrote: Quote:

Right again, M. I believe Muhammed, pbuh, is believed to be the final prophet, and that this is a universal belief among Muslims.

Personally, I think this is a ludicrous claim.

I think the physical second coming of Christ is a ludicrous claim too, but that’s just me - how could I ever know?

I think the second coming of Christ refers to your own enlightenment. I don’t think it’s meant to be an historical event.

Muslims, however, do not believe Muhammed was the final messenger of God. Apparently the Koran talks about other messengers and other prophets. These messengers are too numerous to mention, but some Muslims follow them. I’ve met Muslim yogis and Muslims following gurus in the Hindu/Vedic tradition. India has a long history of Muslim saints and gurus, and the ones I’ve met don’t believe their religion prevents them from following other spiritual traditions. They even recite Sanskrit mantras and prayers. Some spend their time meditating in the Himalayas - I’m reading a book by a Muslim yogi right now.

Now, I don’t know if this is forbidden in Islam or not. Muslims, however, do follow other teachers and messengers outside the Islamic tradition.

Yes I admit that there is a difference between a prophet and a messenger. however this does not detract from my stance that the qur'an cannot be changed or revised. It actually reinforces it.

From this source

We learn from the Quran that every prophet is also a messenger, but not every messenger is a prophet. Only prophets are sent with scripture to deliver

As a result, and in accordance with 33:40, Muhammad was NOT the last messenger. He was the last prophet, which means that there will be no scripture delivered after the Quran.

So muslims believe the qur'an cannot be changed or revised, they believe there can never be any scriptures revealed or delivered after the qur'an.

Therefore the tenet still is binding on all muslims:

muhammad was the last prophet, he was granted a shari'ah or the law that was perfect and final requiring no revision in the days to come.

For the teaching of the last prophet were to be everbinding, to remain unchanged to the end of time, he was sent as a acme of perfection with over-flowing guidance and resplendent light. There can be no revision of the qur'an.

So far nothing has been presented to show that the muslim who rapes, tortures and murders, as the qur'an instructs him to, is not the true muslim (who follows the literal commands in the qur'an).

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96744

Re: apologist-approved criticsm
Reply #42 - Jun 14^th, 2014 at 8:05pm

I don’t.think this is a thread on the true Muslims, M. It’s about us apologists. FD will be very cranky with you if you don’t open a new thread and ask your question there. He’s not in a very good mood tonight.

I don’t agree with the last prophet rule in Islam, but I don’t think scripture in itself is meant to be the point. The point is what people do with scripture, how they live their lives.

I think it’s the height of arrogance to say this or that scripture is the last to be revealed by God, but then, I’d have to read the scripture. The parts I’ve read of the Koran haven’t interested me at all. It’s not my path.

I’m an apologist.

The Torah can’t be changed or revised either, but I don’t know many Jews who go around killing gentiles or taking their foreskins.

Who knows? Maybe Y does - he calls the Torah the Law.

Back to top

IP Logged

moses

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6353

Re: apologist-approved criticsm
Reply #43 - Jun 15^th, 2014 at 10:31am

It is very much a thread about true muslims.

What else are you apologizing for, if not the degenerate islamic qur'an / hadi'th and those true believers who follow to the core, the last clear and true scriptures of islam, which are the root cause of their debauched, perverted behaviour?

You also apologize for the false so called moderate muslim, who refuses to decry and ridicule the depravity of the commands of allah, the teachings of muhammad and the verses in the qur'an / hadi'th which provoke the blood lust and degeneracy of true muslims.

There will never be any progress in the islamic world until someone starts telling the truth.

But then we all know what that means don't we? ( the violent end of islam, the blood will flow thick and fast, as muslims sort out who's right and wrong)

Truth is the enemy of islam.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49500 At my desk.	Re: apologist-approved criticsm Reply #44 - Jun 15^th, 2014 at 11:42am The truth is that Muhammed was a pacifist. When he said to kill gays, he meant only the inhospitable ones, not the loving, gentle ones. You can tell this from the context. Is this a truth you approve of Karnal?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged