Gandalf are these Pakistani clerics the extremists or the mainstream ones? Do you agree with them that it is just wishy washy western liberal morals being cynically exploited to attack Islam?

https://www.rt.com/news/336025-pakistan-womens-law-unislamic/

A new law protecting women from abuse in domestic situations has been denounced by at least 35 religious groups in Pakistan.

The Muslim bodies, made up entirely of men, called on the government in their country’s largest province, Punjab, to reverse the law, calling it un-Islamic and part of a Western conspiracy to destroy Pakistan’s constitution.

The Women’s Protection Act was passed in February to safeguard women from domestic, psychological, and sexual violence. Along with setting up a free helpline, women’s shelters, and local panels to investigate incidents of abuse, the law also calls for offenders to be tracked with GPS bracelets.

Women’s groups have hailed the law as a progressive step, while conservative clerics said it goes against the Quran.

A joint statement from the religious groups said the new law aimed to “add to the miseries of women”, and called on the government to retract the bill.

“This controversial law to protect women was put into operation to accomplish the West’s agenda to destroy the family system in Pakistan,” it read.

Maulana Fazlur Rehman, conservative leader of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islami (Assembly of Islamic Clerics), said the law contradicted Islamic teachings.

“The government is making public only sugar, and hiding the poison of the law,” he said during a press conference.

Rehman previously made bizarre comments about the law, stating it would make “a man insecure” and accused the government of making a “Western colony again”, according to the Independent.

I blame Islam.

I think thats the correct answer.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 3^rd, 2016 at 7:05pm:

I blame Islam. I think thats the correct answer.

Must be hard being on your side of the debate when Islamophobes have so much material to work with :)

polite_gandalf wrote on May 3^rd, 2016 at 7:05pm:

I blame Islam. I think thats the correct answer.

Correct. That’s the right answer to all of FD’s posts.

Karnal wrote on May 3^rd, 2016 at 8:33pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 3rd, 2016 at 7:05pm: I blame Islam. I think thats the correct answer. Correct. That’s the right answer to all of FD’s posts.

               ;D

It's funny, coz it's true.

Aye. Much truth is said in jest.

Ha, indefensible so the apologists beat a collective retreat to poor satire. 

I'd still like to know how they are going to spin this one. There seems to be an aweful lot of Islamic extremists out there, and they all seem to make their way to the top of the religious institutions.

Perhaps they were simply mistaken.

If just one Anglo Australian said just 1% of something like this it would never be forgiven.

When a brown muslim says this it slides because the apologists don't want to do anything to expose themselves to being a racist.

GordyL wrote on May 3^rd, 2016 at 9:03pm:

If just one Anglo Australian said just 1% of something like this it would never be forgiven. When a brown muslim says this it slides because the apologists don't want to do anything to expose themselves to being a racist.

Let it all hang out, Gordy. You nearly married one. How could you possibly be racist?

Karnal wrote on May 3^rd, 2016 at 9:39pm:

GordyL wrote on May 3rd, 2016 at 9:03pm: If just one Anglo Australian said just 1% of something like this it would never be forgiven. When a brown muslim says this it slides because the apologists don't want to do anything to expose themselves to being a racist. Let it all hang out, Gordy. You nearly married one. How could you possibly be racist?

You have Stockholm syndrome

polite_gandalf wrote on May 3^rd, 2016 at 7:05pm:

I blame Islam. I think thats the correct answer.

Quote:

..................... (Assembly of Islamic Clerics), said the law contradicted Islamic teachings.........

correct

A new law protecting women from abuse in domestic situations has been denounced by at least 35 religious groups in Pakistan.


Are these religious groups basing this on cultural or religious grounds?

Its heartening at least to see the existence of women's rights groups who feel empowered enough to speak out against those clerics - on Islamic grounds too.

Maybe these clerics can start threatening and killing these women - you know just to show how heir version of Islam isn't without a sense of irony.

GordyL wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 9:37am:

A new law protecting women from abuse in domestic situations has been denounced by at least 35 religious groups in Pakistan. Are these religious groups basing this on cultural or religious grounds?

the religion is the culture is the legal system.

ban it

polite_gandalf wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 9:58am:

Its heartening at least to see the existence of women's rights groups who feel empowered enough to speak out against those clerics - on Islamic grounds too. Maybe these clerics can start threatening and killing these women - you know just to show how heir version of Islam isn't without a sense of irony.

Is there actually anything in the Koran that supports these views?  I'm wondering if it runs through the culture and some in the Koran and they serve to prop each other up.

And what "views" would those be? That women don't deserve to be treated with respect, or that they shouldn't have the right to feel safe from abusive partners?

The answer to that is no.

Is it actually disrespectful to beat your wife when she deserves it, or is it just another way for Muslim men to demonstrate their love, like when Muhammed struck his favourite child bride?

GordyL wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 9:37am:

A new law protecting women from abuse in domestic situations has been denounced by at least 35 religious groups in Pakistan. Are these religious groups basing this on cultural or religious grounds?

Cultural obviously.  Cos Islams got nuffin to do wiv nuffin.   ;D ;D ;D

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 12:32pm:

Is it actually disrespectful to beat your wife when she deserves it, or is it just another way for Muslim men to demonstrate their love, like when Muhammed struck his favourite child bride?

Hilarious jeering aside, I actually don't subscribe to the view that Islam allows husbands to beat their wives.

Secret Wars wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 12:33pm:

GordyL wrote on May 4th, 2016 at 9:37am: A new law protecting women from abuse in domestic situations has been denounced by at least 35 religious groups in Pakistan. Are these religious groups basing this on cultural or religious grounds? Cultural obviously.  Cos Islams got nuffin to do wiv nuffin.   ;D ;D ;D

Secret, do you think its possible for a muslim who rejects the misogynistic/wife abusing version of Islam to legitimately claim that such an interpretation is in fact cultural? Crazy thought I know.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 12:47pm:

Secret Wars wrote on May 4th, 2016 at 12:33pm: GordyL wrote on May 4th, 2016 at 9:37am: A new law protecting women from abuse in domestic situations has been denounced by at least 35 religious groups in Pakistan. Are these religious groups basing this on cultural or religious grounds? Cultural obviously.  Cos Islams got nuffin to do wiv nuffin.   ;D ;D ;D Secret, do you think its possible for a muslim who rejects the misogynistic/wife abusing version of Islam to legitimately claim that such an interpretation is in fact cultural? Crazy thought I know.

Dont you think it is probable that the culture is influenced by the religion and the observance of some of its writings? 

I suspect was Gordy trying to divorce Islam from the unpalatable implications of the article by diverting blame to culture. 

Which prompted my Islam got nuffin to do wiv nuffin, the default for apologists and mitigators.

Secret Wars wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 12:56pm:

Dont you think it is probable that the culture is influenced by the religion and the observance of some of its writings?

Of course it is, but as always, this criticism deals with only one side of the argument.

You need to be honest and acknowledge it is not a one-way street. You lot bang on all day with this 'nuffin to do with Islam' jeering in regards to misogynistic and violent Islamic behaviour, but are strangely silent whenever an act of genuine kindness or selflessness is performed in the name of Islam. When that happens it really is "nuffin to do with Islam" - right? Despite the fact that Islam is specifically invoked during such acts. No, those guys obviously have the wrong end of the stick - they don't understand Islam like the terrorists and misogynists do.

Secret Wars wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 12:56pm:

I suspect was Gordy trying to divorce Islam from the unpalatable implications of the article by diverting blame to culture.

Be honest secret - and concede that you would most probably "divorce" Islam from acts of genuine kindness and charity performed by muslims (even when Islam is specifically invoked), and divert its motivation to culture or whatever.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 12:44pm:

freediver wrote on May 4th, 2016 at 12:32pm: Is it actually disrespectful to beat your wife when she deserves it, or is it just another way for Muslim men to demonstrate their love, like when Muhammed struck his favourite child bride? Hilarious jeering aside, I actually don't subscribe to the view that Islam allows husbands to beat their wives.

Good on you.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 1:16pm:

Secret Wars wrote on May 4th, 2016 at 12:56pm: Dont you think it is probable that the culture is influenced by the religion and the observance of some of its writings? Of course it is, but as always, this criticism deals with only one side of the argument. You need to be honest and acknowledge it is not a one-way street. You lot bang on all day with this 'nuffin to do with Islam' jeering in regards to misogynistic and violent Islamic behaviour, but are strangely silent whenever an act of genuine kindness or selflessness is performed in the name of Islam. When that happens it really is "nuffin to do with Islam" - right? Despite the fact that Islam is specifically invoked during such acts. No, those guys obviously have the wrong end of the stick - they don't understand Islam like the terrorists and misogynists do.

Islam got nuffin to do wiv nuffin is a response to blatant blame shifting, mitigation, diversion, whatabboutery and hey look over there apologism. 

Some honesty would be good coming from the direction of the apologist clowns, accepting that Islam has issues, that an alaakbahing idiot who blows people up in the name of alah and expressly states so, might in fact have something to do with Islam.

Whilst there are those that excuse and evade others will point to the venn, and point out the intersection is Islam and that it also is in the mix. 

I realise good news on the Islam front is short, but doing good should be a default for any great religion, not exceptionalism worthy of special note and congratulation surely? 

Secret Wars wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 1:36pm:

I realise good news on the Islam front is short, but doing good should be a default for any great religion, not exceptionalism worthy of special note and congratulation surely?

Not when the default position is that Islam was specifically created as a tool to perform evil, and is therefore an inately evil religion. You'll see this point of view being argued every day here. FD honestly believes that Prophet Muhammad cynically created Islam to enable his genocidal and warmongering ambitions - and that furthermore, muslims are compelled to follow his pedophilia/genocide/mysognism etc etc in order to be "good" muslims.

So no, to many people - here especially - it is absolutely *NOT* a given that "doing good" should be default for Islam. For them, doing good is specifically against Islamic teachings - unless of course, it is done falsely in order to deceive for some sinister purpose.

Pakistani wife beaters

wouldn't you be better served concentrating your efforts on the Aussie wife beater FD?

almost 2 dead a week is an absolutely tragic 


http://www.womensagenda.com.au/talking-about/item/5319-two-women-are-now-killed-by-domestic-violence-every-week-the-time-for-discussion-is-over-it-s-time-to-act

John Smith wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 4:00pm:

Pakistani wife beaters wouldn't you be better served concentrating your efforts on the Aussie wife beater FD? almost 2 dead a week is an absolutely tragic  http://www.womensagenda.com.au/talking-about/item/5319-two-women-are-now-killed-by-domestic-violence-every-week-the-time-for-discussion-is-over-it-s-time-to-act

FD is an advocate for women's rights, JS.

He's not interested in Australian domestic violence.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 3:54pm:

Secret Wars wrote on May 4th, 2016 at 1:36pm: I realise good news on the Islam front is short, but doing good should be a default for any great religion, not exceptionalism worthy of special note and congratulation surely? Not when the default position is that Islam was specifically created as a tool to perform evil, and is therefore an inately evil religion. You'll see this point of view being argued every day here. FD honestly believes that Prophet Muhammad cynically created Islam to enable his genocidal and warmongering ambitions - and that furthermore, muslims are compelled to follow his pedophilia/genocide/mysognism etc etc in order to be "good" muslims. So no, to many people - here especially - it is absolutely *NOT* a given that "doing good" should be default for Islam. For them, doing good is specifically against Islamic teachings - unless of course, it is done falsely in order to deceive for some sinister purpose.

Moslem == a follower of Islam.

Karnal wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 4:34pm:

John Smith wrote on May 4th, 2016 at 4:00pm: Pakistani wife beaters wouldn't you be better served concentrating your efforts on the Aussie wife beater FD? almost 2 dead a week is an absolutely tragic  http://www.womensagenda.com.au/talking-about/item/5319-two-women-are-now-killed-by-domestic-violence-every-week-the-time-for-discussion-is-over-it-s-time-to-act FD is an advocate for women's rights, JS. He's not interested in Australian domestic violence.

perhaps he should rephrase that and call himself an advocate for 'Muslim Women's rights'

John Smith wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 4:43pm:

Karnal wrote on May 4th, 2016 at 4:34pm: John Smith wrote on May 4th, 2016 at 4:00pm: Pakistani wife beaters wouldn't you be better served concentrating your efforts on the Aussie wife beater FD? almost 2 dead a week is an absolutely tragic  http://www.womensagenda.com.au/talking-about/item/5319-two-women-are-now-killed-by-domestic-violence-every-week-the-time-for-discussion-is-over-it-s-time-to-act FD is an advocate for women's rights, JS. He's not interested in Australian domestic violence. perhaps he should rephrase that and call himself an advocate for 'Muslim Women's rights'

That's what I said, but no, FD was quite clear. He fights on behalf of women everywhere.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 12:44pm:

freediver wrote on May 4th, 2016 at 12:32pm: Is it actually disrespectful to beat your wife when she deserves it, or is it just another way for Muslim men to demonstrate their love, like when Muhammed struck his favourite child bride? Hilarious jeering aside, I actually don't subscribe to the view that Islam allows husbands to beat their wives.

But you do subscribe to the view that Muhammed beat his favourite child bride because he loved her, right? I'm pretty sure it was you who came up with that one.


polite_gandalf wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 1:16pm:

Secret Wars wrote on May 4th, 2016 at 12:56pm: Dont you think it is probable that the culture is influenced by the religion and the observance of some of its writings? Of course it is, but as always, this criticism deals with only one side of the argument. You need to be honest and acknowledge it is not a one-way street. You lot bang on all day with this 'nuffin to do with Islam' jeering in regards to misogynistic and violent Islamic behaviour, but are strangely silent whenever an act of genuine kindness or selflessness is performed in the name of Islam. When that happens it really is "nuffin to do with Islam" - right? Despite the fact that Islam is specifically invoked during such acts. No, those guys obviously have the wrong end of the stick - they don't understand Islam like the terrorists and misogynists do.

A law that permits wife beating, spousal rape etc also allows you to buy your wife flowers on your anniversary. However doing so does not really detract in any way from the law allowing wife beating and spousal rape, even if you buy the flowers in the name of the ideology that invokes the laws. It kind of misses the point, don't you think Gandalf?


Quote:

Not when the default position is that Islam was specifically created as a tool to perform evil

Caliphate, anyone? Islamic State perhaps? How about convenient revelations about taking your neighbour's six year old daughter?


Quote:

wouldn't you be better served concentrating your efforts on the Aussie wife beater FD?

Hey everybody, look over there!

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 6:32pm:

But you do subscribe to the view that Muhammed beat his favourite child bride because he loved her, right? I'm pretty sure it was you who came up with that one.

*facepalm*


freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 6:32pm:

A law that permits wife beating, spousal rape etc also allows you to buy your wife flowers on your anniversary. However doing so does not really detract in any way from the law allowing wife beating and spousal rape, even if you buy the flowers in the name of the ideology that invokes the laws. It kind of misses the point, don't you think Gandalf?

Thanks for that completely irrelevant point that had nothing to do with what I said. Feel free to address the actual issue I brought up rather than build strawmen. For instance, when muslims reject such laws in the first place and specifically reject them on what they claim is Islamic grounds, it would be "nuffin to do with Islam" right?

Was it not you who cited Muhammed's alleged love for his favourite child bride as an explanation for why he beat her?

It is addressing the issue. That is why people pay no attention when a Muslim does something good - which is what you asked. It is no different from people asking why the good work priests do doesn't get a mention every time one of them rapes a kid.

Muslims rejecting shariah law is a good thing.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 7:19pm:

Was it not you who cited Muhammed's alleged love for his favourite child bride as an explanation for why he beat her?

For that to be true I would have to acknowledge that he actually beat her. Though I do recall noting how amusing it was that the Islamophobes can only cite this anecdote of a small shove to the chest to create their imaginary monster "Muhammad the wife-beater".


freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 7:19pm:

It is addressing the issue. That is why people pay no attention when a Muslim does something good - which is what you asked.

No FD, that is completely different to what I asked.

I never said people don't pay attention to when a muslim does something good - I said that when they do, its always explained as "unislamic" behaviour - actually "nuffin to do with Islam" without the sarcasm. Like I said - its all a one-way street with you lot: insisting that muslims can only be sincerely Islamic about doing evil, but never good.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 7:54pm:

freediver wrote on May 4th, 2016 at 7:19pm: Was it not you who cited Muhammed's alleged love for his favourite child bride as an explanation for why he beat her? For that to be true I would have to acknowledge that he actually beat her. Though I do recall noting how amusing it was that the Islamophobes can only cite this anecdote of a small shove to the chest to create their imaginary monster "Muhammad the wife-beater". freediver wrote on May 4th, 2016 at 7:19pm: It is addressing the issue. That is why people pay no attention when a Muslim does something good - which is what you asked. No FD, that is completely different to what I asked. I never said people don't pay attention to when a muslim does something good - I said that when they do, its always explained as "unislamic" behaviour - actually "nuffin to do with Islam" without the sarcasm. Like I said - its all a one-way street with you lot: insisting that muslims can only be sincerely Islamic about doing evil, but never good.

Yes, but FD only has the best intentions, G. He’s just trying to highlight the superiority of decent white people everywhere by showing the absolute evil of the despicable inbred Muselman.

He’s not being judgemental or anything. FD was  just asking a question.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 7:54pm:

freediver wrote on May 4th, 2016 at 7:19pm: Was it not you who cited Muhammed's alleged love for his favourite child bride as an explanation for why he beat her? For that to be true I would have to acknowledge that he actually beat her. Though I do recall noting how amusing it was that the Islamophobes can only cite this anecdote of a small shove to the chest to create their imaginary monster "Muhammad the wife-beater". freediver wrote on May 4th, 2016 at 7:19pm: It is addressing the issue. That is why people pay no attention when a Muslim does something good - which is what you asked. No FD, that is completely different to what I asked. I never said people don't pay attention to when a muslim does something good - I said that when they do, its always explained as "unislamic" behaviour - actually "nuffin to do with Islam" without the sarcasm. Like I said - its all a one-way street with you lot: insisting that muslims can only be sincerely Islamic about doing evil, but never good.

I never feel obliged to offer an explanation. Maybe I have not been paying enough attention, but I don't think anyone else does either.

Did Muhammed strike his wife because he loved her?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 12:44pm:

freediver wrote on May 4th, 2016 at 12:32pm: Is it actually disrespectful to beat your wife when she deserves it, or is it just another way for Muslim men to demonstrate their love, like when Muhammed struck his favourite child bride? Hilarious jeering aside, I actually don't subscribe to the view that Islam allows husbands to beat their wives.

In that case according to the Quran you are simply not a muslim, just an apologist. You are free to think you are of course.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 8:47pm:

I never feel obliged to offer an explanation.

Ah.

;D - yes I chuckled a little at that too K.

Quote:

Hilarious jeering aside, I actually don't subscribe to the view that Islam allows husbands to beat their wives.

Qur'an 4:34 (Pickthall)—Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret what Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great.


Qur'an 4:34 (Shakir)—Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great

Qur'an 4:34 (Ali)—Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband’s) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, Great (above you all).

Not only is it allowed, it is a command directly from the evil allah

Gee, Moses, that’s a real improvement on Leviticus.

Stone them, burn.them, behead them.

Thanks for posting, Moses. You always cheer things up around here.

Always trying to excuse islam with ancient mosaic law spoken about 3416 years ago karnal?

Why are you afraid to quote the words of Christ spoken 2016 years ago, which supersede mosaic law karnal?

Luke 16:16  The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached , and every man presseth into it.

moses wrote on May 6^th, 2016 at 6:44pm:

Why are you afraid to quote the words of Christ spoken 2016 years ago, which supersede mosaic law karnal?

you mean when he said he hadn't come to replace Mosaic law but to fulfill it?

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 6:32pm:

Hey everybody, look over there!

trying to draw attention to your bullshit?

Quote:

you mean when he said he hadn't come to replace Mosaic law but to fulfill it?

Exactly right Gandi.

Mat 5:17  Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

From the dictionary

Fulfill verb: complete successfully

If something is successfully completed it is finished.

As the following verses imply.

Rom 3:20  Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Rom 3:28  Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.


Gal 2:16  Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.


Gal 3:11  But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

The Christian faith is based on the fact that man cannot save himself by the works of the ancient mosaic law.

Like Muhammed, Muslims are not content to define their own religion, they also have to define Christianity and Judaism.

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2016 at 1:41pm:

Like Muhammed, Muslims are not content to define their own religion, they also have to define Christianity and Judaism.

lol FD I get inundated literally every day with non-muslims trying to define my religion for me. I don't feel bad about exposing the hypocricy of one of them from time to time.

Maybe we can all have a good sing-a-long of "the Bible doesn't mean what it says" to the tune of Moses' favourite song "Islam doesn't mean what it says".

Sure. You can start by elaborating on what you hope the word fulfill means in this context.

According to moses, it means to "complete" the Mosaic law, which really means that it is "superseded". Make sense to you? Me neither.

I am not the one claiming to know what it means, but the passages immediately after certainly undermine any sort of "tooth for a tooth" interpretation.

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2016 at 6:48pm:

I am not the one claiming to know what it means

Thats right FD - you restrict your expert opinions on what religious texts really mean to Islam.

Do you agree that the passages immediately after it undermine any sort of "tooth for a tooth" interpretation, and with it your efforts to paint the religion as similar to Islam?

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2016 at 7:02pm:

Do you agree that the passages immediately after it undermine any sort of "tooth for a tooth" interpretation

Probably. Just like Al-Baqara 256 undermines any sort of death for apostasy in Islam interpretation. But I'm guessing you won't be playing devils advocate next time moses et al screech about Islam commanding death for apostasy right? No, I'm pretty sure you'll join the bandwagon and start lecturing me about what my beliefs really are, and how that to say otherwise makes me a dishonest and/or fake muslim. You know, your usual routine.

gandalf wrote Reply #50 - Yesterday at 6:42pm
Quote:

According to moses, it means to "complete" the Mosaic law, which really means that it is "superseded". Make sense to you? Me neither.

Exactly right again gandi.

Christian theology's all about:

The law being completed successfully by the crucifixion of Christ.

Christ knew what His role was in the overall scale of things He was well aware that His blood would be spilt as the last perfect sacrifice under Judaic Law ushering in the era of grace for mankind.

In the Garden of Gethsemane Christ was extremely afraid of what was going to happen to Him:

His prayer was

Mathew 26:39 And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

Mark 14:36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.

Luke 22:42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

Christ feared what was about to happen to Him, He would have avoided it if God had so willed.

However He was not spared, He was crucified, the last words He spoke:

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

"It is finished" very significant words for Christians.

The signify that the law was finished, Christs' work here on earth was completed, as stated in:

Rom 3:20  Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Rom 3:28  Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.


Gal 2:16  Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.


Gal 3:11  But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

It's all pretty straight forward:

Christ finished the law successfully.

The law was superseded by faith.   

You've got it, Moses - a perfect understanding of Christian theology. No one could possibly disagree with you here.

So can I ask - why does this not apply to any of your posts here? They are all, exclusively, about hatred for the Muselman.

Have I missed something in Christian theology? Did your prophet tell you to love everybody as you love yourself, including your enemies, but give you an out for Mohammedans?

Please explain. Chapter and verse, thanks.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 8^th, 2016 at 8:53am:

freediver wrote on May 7th, 2016 at 7:02pm: Do you agree that the passages immediately after it undermine any sort of "tooth for a tooth" interpretation Probably. Just like Al-Baqara 256 undermines any sort of death for apostasy in Islam interpretation. But I'm guessing you won't be playing devils advocate next time moses et al screech about Islam commanding death for apostasy right? No, I'm pretty sure you'll join the bandwagon and start lecturing me about what my beliefs really are, and how that to say otherwise makes me a dishonest and/or fake muslim. You know, your usual routine.

This is what Al-Baqara 256 actually says:

There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion.

The death penalty for apostasy is about rejecting Islam. Al-Baqara 256 is about accepting Islam. Two different things Gandalf. This is entirely consistent with my portrayal of Islam as a faith ratchet. Muslims must settle for mere coercion in getting people to become Muslims. Only after that does it turn into compulsion.

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2016 at 7:40am:

This is what Al-Baqara 256 actually says: There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion.

NO.IT.DOESN'T!, and we've been through this before.

Actual words:

لا اكراه في الدين

4 words, which word for word is: no (لا) compulsion (اكراه) in (في) religion (الدين)

"acceptance of" has literally been added in after, probably by people who really like the idea of killing people for thought crimes (ie apostasy).

If you were consistent, this is where you and moses would stick to your "doesn't mean what it says" meme and start criticising those who insist this verse means something it doesn't actually say hmmm?

Tell me FD, do you think a good start in changing Islam's portrayal as a "faith ratchet", as you put it, would be to stop trying to undermine those muslims who want to promote 2:256 as a powerful overarching doctrinal basis for freedom of thought and freedom of speech in Islam?

Good luck with that Gandalf. Don't get yourself branded an apostate though. It seems like a sensible interpretation, given the context and that a broader interpretation would conflict with so much else said by Muhammed. Perhaps you could start with quran.com?

When you justified Muhammed's slaughter of Jews by saying they were given the option of repenting, what did that 'repentance' actually involve?

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2016 at 12:37pm:

Good luck with that Gandalf. Don't get yourself branded an apostate though. It seems like a sensible interpretation, given the context and that a broader interpretation would conflict with so much else said by Muhammed. Perhaps you could start with quran.com?

I'll certainly prosecute my case with anyone who keeps perpetuating this misguided version. I think its a very important component of 'reopening the doors of ijtihad' in Islamic jurisprudence. Do you think its a worthwhile endeavor - to prosecute a doctrinal case for things like freedom of religion in Islam? Or is it better to just ignore such efforts and insist that its doomed to be a faith ratchet for all time?

Karnal wrote:Reply #56 - Yesterday at 6:22pm


Quote:

Have I missed something in Christian theology? Did your prophet tell you to love everybody as you love yourself, including your enemies, but give you an out for Mohammedans? Please explain. Chapter and verse, thanks.

Glad to Karnal

Matthew 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. 

Luke 4:12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

Pretty easy to understand, as the average Aussie would say (don't push your luck mate)

You most certainly are not to take the "love thy neighbour" to the heights of stupidity karnal, you don't tempt the Lord thy God with acts of wanton folly.

You are also told time and time again to shun evil.

I have no qualms in stating that islam is an utterly evil concept.

I have no qualms in stating that muhammad was human filth, a thief, liar, pedophile, rapist, torturer and mass murderer. (evil to the core)

I have no qualms in stating that allah is a satanic evil deity.

I have no qualms in stating that the qur'an is a book riddled with evilness, overflowing with satanic verses urging muslims to commit unspeakable atrocities against their fellow man.

So love something as evil as islam?

I don't think so, I'll take the advice from Luke 4:12 and Matthew 4:7 on this one Karnal.

moses wrote on May 9^th, 2016 at 2:07pm:

Karnal wrote:Reply #56 - Yesterday at 6:22pm Quote: Have I missed something in Christian theology? Did your prophet tell you to love everybody as you love yourself, including your enemies, but give you an out for Mohammedans? Please explain. Chapter and verse, thanks. Glad to Karnal Matthew 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.  Luke 4:12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

I'm curious. How do you interpret a statement like "thou shalt not tempt thy God" as a religious duty to hate the Muselman?

When Yeheshua was dying on the cross, he asked his Father to forgive those who put him up there for their ignorance. This is the most compelling example of the new "covenant" you've described, Moses. Not only does Yeheshua do away with the eye-for-an-eye rhetoric, he taught - and practiced - forgiveness, tolerance and love for all.

No exceptions. In fact, he even tells followers what to do if hurt by an enemy - don't fight back, turn the other cheek. Those who love their enemies receive God's peace. Those who don't, as Yehesua said, are not true disciples. He made this clear too: "not all who go in my name will enter the Kingdom of heaven".

Yehesua taught his followers to leave judgement to God. He did not make an exception for those who follow different belief systems. The New Testament is clear. "Judge not, as ye surely shall be judged".

Maybe it doesn't mean what it says, eh?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 9^th, 2016 at 2:07pm:

freediver wrote on May 9th, 2016 at 12:37pm: Good luck with that Gandalf. Don't get yourself branded an apostate though. It seems like a sensible interpretation, given the context and that a broader interpretation would conflict with so much else said by Muhammed. Perhaps you could start with quran.com? I'll certainly prosecute my case with anyone who keeps perpetuating this misguided version. I think its a very important component of 'reopening the doors of ijtihad' in Islamic jurisprudence. Do you think its a worthwhile endeavor - to prosecute a doctrinal case for things like freedom of religion in Islam? Or is it better to just ignore such efforts and insist that its doomed to be a faith ratchet for all time?

Every little bit helps Gandalf. If you could get your co-religionists to stop killing apostates, it would be much appreciated. Do keep us updated on quran.com. It is the top google result when I search for the verse number.

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2016 at 5:31pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 9th, 2016 at 2:07pm: freediver wrote on May 9th, 2016 at 12:37pm: Good luck with that Gandalf. Don't get yourself branded an apostate though. It seems like a sensible interpretation, given the context and that a broader interpretation would conflict with so much else said by Muhammed. Perhaps you could start with quran.com? I'll certainly prosecute my case with anyone who keeps perpetuating this misguided version. I think its a very important component of 'reopening the doors of ijtihad' in Islamic jurisprudence. Do you think its a worthwhile endeavor - to prosecute a doctrinal case for things like freedom of religion in Islam? Or is it better to just ignore such efforts and insist that its doomed to be a faith ratchet for all time? Every little bit helps Gandalf. If you could get your co-religionists to stop killing apostates, it would be much appreciated.

Given G is responsible for his co-religionists, FD, what role should Freeeeedom/democracy supporters have in events like the invasion of Iraq?

If you listen to ISIS or Al Qaida, we have a very important role indeed.

Ban us, kill us, nuke us, no?

Karnal wrote on May 9^th, 2016 at 2:33pm:

moses wrote on May 9th, 2016 at 2:07pm: Karnal wrote:Reply #56 - Yesterday at 6:22pm Quote: Have I missed something in Christian theology? Did your prophet tell you to love everybody as you love yourself, including your enemies, but give you an out for Mohammedans? Please explain. Chapter and verse, thanks. Glad to Karnal Matthew 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.  Luke 4:12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. I'm curious. How do you interpret a statement like "thou shalt not tempt thy God" as a religious duty to hate the Muselman? When Yeheshua was dying on the cross, he asked his Father to forgive those who put him up there for their ignorance. This is the most compelling example of the new "covenant" you've described, Moses. Not only does Yeheshua do away with the eye-for-an-eye rhetoric, he taught - and practiced - forgiveness, tolerance and love for all. No exceptions. In fact, he even tells followers what to do if hurt by an enemy - don't fight back, turn the other cheek. Those who love their enemies receive God's peace. Those who don't, as Yehesua said, are not true disciples. He made this clear too: "not all who go in my name will enter the Kingdom of heaven". Yehesua taught his followers to leave judgement to God. He did not make an exception for those who follow different belief systems. The New Testament is clear. "Judge not, as ye surely shall be judged". Maybe it doesn't mean what it says, eh?

What Jesus did NOT teach is 'Give in to every invader and let them take everything you and your people have and let them kill you if you do not submit'.

He didn't teach that.


So while you can be meek and forgiving on A PERSONAL LEVEL - on the 'I and Thou' level -  you are not obliged to bend over to every marauding horde of invader (which is what Muslims are and have always been).

You are confusing many things most of the time and this is just one of them.

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2016 at 5:31pm:

If you could get your co-religionists to stop killing apostates, it would be much appreciated.

Good idea FD - any suggestions? Maybe if I ask nicely?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 9^th, 2016 at 7:34pm:

freediver wrote on May 9th, 2016 at 5:31pm: If you could get your co-religionists to stop killing apostates, it would be much appreciated. Good idea FD - any suggestions? Maybe if I ask nicely?

Well, what use are you otherwise?


You are the vast majority. What use are you if you can't even stop the 'tiny minority' in your midst??

polite_gandalf wrote on May 9^th, 2016 at 7:34pm:

freediver wrote on May 9th, 2016 at 5:31pm: If you could get your co-religionists to stop killing apostates, it would be much appreciated. Good idea FD - any suggestions? Maybe if I ask nicely?

You're right Gandalf. It's a lost cause. Just stick to telling non-Muslims about how you are a reformer.

Frank wrote on May 9^th, 2016 at 7:36pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 9th, 2016 at 7:34pm: freediver wrote on May 9th, 2016 at 5:31pm: If you could get your co-religionists to stop killing apostates, it would be much appreciated. Good idea FD - any suggestions? Maybe if I ask nicely? Well, what use are you otherwise? You are the vast majority. What use are you if you can't even stop the 'tiny minority' in your midst??

"But the process of radicalisation generally occurs some time before Islamists engage in the use of violence. We should be just as concerned about Muslims who do not use violence themselves but in whose midst the plotters of terror can operate. Such people constitute a hospitable environment for radicals, though they themselves do not resort to violence. Until we address the enabling role of non­violent extremists, the seedbed of terrorism will continue to spread.

To make deradicalisation ­effective, we need to do two things. First, we need to abandon the familiar distinction between “a tiny minority of violent extremists” and “an enormous majority of moderate Muslims”, which is standard fare in politicians’ speeches. Second, we need to counter that sustained campaign of radicalisation waged by powerful Muslim organisations such as the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/deradicalisation-programs-must-resist-medina-militantcy/news-story/938ff09bed30a22bb553e3242c6a9362

Secret Wars wrote on May 9^th, 2016 at 7:44pm:

To make deradicalisation ­effective, we need to do two things. First, we need to abandon the familiar distinction between “a tiny minority of violent extremists” and “an enormous majority of moderate Muslims”, which is standard fare in politicians’ speeches.

Well, we must be on the way because the 'vast majority' of Western people have abandoned that meaningless distinction years ago. You can tell because even the Muslims are reluctant to roll it out as a reflexive arse covering like they used to.  Nobody believes in that distinction, not even Muslims.

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2016 at 7:38pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 9th, 2016 at 7:34pm: freediver wrote on May 9th, 2016 at 5:31pm: If you could get your co-religionists to stop killing apostates, it would be much appreciated. Good idea FD - any suggestions? Maybe if I ask nicely? You're right Gandalf. It's a lost cause.

thats certainly the attitude you're deternined to see prevail, in your constant efforts, day in day out, to undermine and ridicule any muslim who tries to argue otherwise. Every little bit helps eh fd?

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2016 at 7:38pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 9th, 2016 at 7:34pm: freediver wrote on May 9th, 2016 at 5:31pm: If you could get your co-religionists to stop killing apostates, it would be much appreciated. Good idea FD - any suggestions? Maybe if I ask nicely? Just stick to telling non-Muslims about how you are a reformer.

And who says i stick to telling it to non-muslims. You dont know a damn thing about what i do and who i argue with in the real world.

How's that reform going Gandalf? Do you need me to approve it before you roll it out?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 9^th, 2016 at 9:32pm:

freediver wrote on May 9th, 2016 at 7:38pm: polite_gandalf wrote on May 9th, 2016 at 7:34pm: freediver wrote on May 9th, 2016 at 5:31pm: If you could get your co-religionists to stop killing apostates, it would be much appreciated. Good idea FD - any suggestions? Maybe if I ask nicely? Just stick to telling non-Muslims about how you are a reformer. And who says i stick to telling it to non-muslims. You dont know a damn thing about what i do and who i argue with in the real world.

Given the sheer amount of time that you spend on here I'd say that would be a total of just one distinguished german man. FD. ;D

Karnal wrote Reply #62 - Yesterday at 2:33pm:


Quote:

I'm curious. How do you interpret a statement like "thou shalt not tempt thy God" as a religious duty to hate the Muselman? When Yeheshua was dying on the cross, he asked his Father to forgive those who put him up there for their ignorance. This is the most compelling example of the new "covenant" you've described, Moses. Not only does Yeheshua do away with the eye-for-an-eye rhetoric, he taught - and practiced - forgiveness, tolerance and love for all. No exceptions. In fact, he even tells followers what to do if hurt by an enemy - don't fight back, turn the other cheek. Those who love their enemies receive God's peace. Those who don't, as Yehesua said, are not true disciples. He made this clear too: "not all who go in my name will enter the Kingdom of heaven". Yehesua taught his followers to leave judgement to God. He did not make an exception for those who follow different belief systems. The New Testament is clear. "Judge not, as ye surely shall be judged". Maybe it doesn't mean what it says, eh?

Good try at guile Karnal, but it won't cut it here.

if you want to quote examples set by Christ then I give you:

Matthew 4:5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

Matthew 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

Matthew 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

Now you want me to cast myself down before an evil hoard of satan worshipers (muslims) who believe that they have the right rape torture and murder non believers. (they become the highest grade of muslim if they embark on this course)

So do I have to love the evilness of islam?

No I don't Karnal,  it's  still Matthew 4:7 as the common sense reaction to the utter evilness of islam / allah / muhammad / qur'an.

moses wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 1:53pm:

Karnal wrote Reply #62 - Yesterday at 2:33pm: Quote: I'm curious. How do you interpret a statement like "thou shalt not tempt thy God" as a religious duty to hate the Muselman? When Yeheshua was dying on the cross, he asked his Father to forgive those who put him up there for their ignorance. This is the most compelling example of the new "covenant" you've described, Moses. Not only does Yeheshua do away with the eye-for-an-eye rhetoric, he taught - and practiced - forgiveness, tolerance and love for all. No exceptions. In fact, he even tells followers what to do if hurt by an enemy - don't fight back, turn the other cheek. Those who love their enemies receive God's peace. Those who don't, as Yehesua said, are not true disciples. He made this clear too: "not all who go in my name will enter the Kingdom of heaven". Yehesua taught his followers to leave judgement to God. He did not make an exception for those who follow different belief systems. The New Testament is clear. "Judge not, as ye surely shall be judged". Maybe it doesn't mean what it says, eh? Good try at guile Karnal, but it won't cut it here. if you want to quote examples set by Christ then I give you: Matthew 4:5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, Matthew 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. Matthew 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Now you want me to cast myself down before an evil hoard of satan worshipers (muslims) who believe that they have the right rape torture and murder non believers. (they become the highest grade of muslim if they embark on this course) So do I have to love the evilness of islam? No I don't Karnal,  it's  still Matthew 4:7 as the common sense reaction to the utter evilness of islam / allah / muhammad / qur'an.

No, Moses, you have to love your neighbor as you love thyself. If you preach the opposite, there is no way you can call yourself a Christian.

Jesus being tempted in the desert has nothing to do with the Muselman. You know this.

Have you ever thought of becoming baptized in the Holy Spirit?

moses wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 1:53pm:

Karnal wrote Reply #62 - Yesterday at 2:33pm: Quote: I'm curious. How do you interpret a statement like "thou shalt not tempt thy God" as a religious duty to hate the Muselman? When Yeheshua was dying on the cross, he asked his Father to forgive those who put him up there for their ignorance. This is the most compelling example of the new "covenant" you've described, Moses. Not only does Yeheshua do away with the eye-for-an-eye rhetoric, he taught - and practiced - forgiveness, tolerance and love for all. No exceptions. In fact, he even tells followers what to do if hurt by an enemy - don't fight back, turn the other cheek. Those who love their enemies receive God's peace. Those who don't, as Yehesua said, are not true disciples. He made this clear too: "not all who go in my name will enter the Kingdom of heaven". Yehesua taught his followers to leave judgement to God. He did not make an exception for those who follow different belief systems. The New Testament is clear. "Judge not, as ye surely shall be judged". Maybe it doesn't mean what it says, eh? Good try at guile Karnal, but it won't cut it here. if you want to quote examples set by Christ then I give you: Matthew 4:5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, Matthew 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. Matthew 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Now you want me to cast myself down before an evil hoard of satan worshipers (muslims) who believe that they have the right rape torture and murder non believers. (they become the highest grade of muslim if they embark on this course) So do I have to love the evilness of islam? No I don't Karnal,  it's  still Matthew 4:7 as the common sense reaction to the utter evilness of islam / allah / muhammad / qur'an.

Yes we are allowed to hate evil in every form and call it what it is.

Islam is evil a product of Satan.

Ashley wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 2:47pm:

moses wrote on May 10th, 2016 at 1:53pm: Karnal wrote Reply #62 - Yesterday at 2:33pm: Quote: I'm curious. How do you interpret a statement like "thou shalt not tempt thy God" as a religious duty to hate the Muselman? When Yeheshua was dying on the cross, he asked his Father to forgive those who put him up there for their ignorance. This is the most compelling example of the new "covenant" you've described, Moses. Not only does Yeheshua do away with the eye-for-an-eye rhetoric, he taught - and practiced - forgiveness, tolerance and love for all. No exceptions. In fact, he even tells followers what to do if hurt by an enemy - don't fight back, turn the other cheek. Those who love their enemies receive God's peace. Those who don't, as Yehesua said, are not true disciples. He made this clear too: "not all who go in my name will enter the Kingdom of heaven". Yehesua taught his followers to leave judgement to God. He did not make an exception for those who follow different belief systems. The New Testament is clear. "Judge not, as ye surely shall be judged". Maybe it doesn't mean what it says, eh? Good try at guile Karnal, but it won't cut it here. if you want to quote examples set by Christ then I give you: Matthew 4:5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, Matthew 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. Matthew 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Now you want me to cast myself down before an evil hoard of satan worshipers (muslims) who believe that they have the right rape torture and murder non believers. (they become the highest grade of muslim if they embark on this course) So do I have to love the evilness of islam? No I don't Karnal,  it's  still Matthew 4:7 as the common sense reaction to the utter evilness of islam / allah / muhammad / qur'an. Yes we are allowed to hate evil in every form and call it what it is. Islam is evil a product of Satan.

That's right, you've become a Christian too, Matty. Bless you.

How come we non-Christians need to keep telling you guys what your religion is?

Oh, that's right - it doesn't mean what it says. We just read the Bible for what it says.

You interpret it.

It is a jolly world, no?

Karnal wrote:


Quote:

No, Moses, you have to love your neighbor as you love thyself. If you preach the opposite, there is no way you can call yourself a Christian. Jesus being tempted in the desert has nothing to do with the Muselman. You know this. Have you ever thought of becoming baptized in the Holy Spirit?

Well 2 Corinthians says differently 

2 CORINTHIANS 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

2 CORINTHIANS 6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

2 CORINTHIANS 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

2 CORINTHIANS 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

So once again the common sense approach was taught.

Keep well clear of the evil in the world.

My belief is that islam is a satanic concept.

The actions of muslims themselves around the globe bear testimony to my perceptions.

I can't see anything which forces Christians to love satanism / islam.

moses wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 3:10pm:

Karnal wrote: Quote: No, Moses, you have to love your neighbor as you love thyself. If you preach the opposite, there is no way you can call yourself a Christian. Jesus being tempted in the desert has nothing to do with the Muselman. You know this. Have you ever thought of becoming baptized in the Holy Spirit? Well 2 Corinthians says differently  2 CORINTHIANS 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

Sorry, Moses, that just tells you not to get too attached to them. It doesn't say anything about hating them, banning them, killing them.

You must have missed 1 Corinthians. Here's the most important part:


Quote:

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

It is a jolly world, no?

Where does it say to love evil?

Karnal wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 2:36pm:

moses wrote on May 10th, 2016 at 1:53pm: Karnal wrote Reply #62 - Yesterday at 2:33pm: Quote: I'm curious. How do you interpret a statement like "thou shalt not tempt thy God" as a religious duty to hate the Muselman? When Yeheshua was dying on the cross, he asked his Father to forgive those who put him up there for their ignorance. This is the most compelling example of the new "covenant" you've described, Moses. Not only does Yeheshua do away with the eye-for-an-eye rhetoric, he taught - and practiced - forgiveness, tolerance and love for all. No exceptions. In fact, he even tells followers what to do if hurt by an enemy - don't fight back, turn the other cheek. Those who love their enemies receive God's peace. Those who don't, as Yehesua said, are not true disciples. He made this clear too: "not all who go in my name will enter the Kingdom of heaven". Yehesua taught his followers to leave judgement to God. He did not make an exception for those who follow different belief systems. The New Testament is clear. "Judge not, as ye surely shall be judged". Maybe it doesn't mean what it says, eh? Good try at guile Karnal, but it won't cut it here. if you want to quote examples set by Christ then I give you: Matthew 4:5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, Matthew 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. Matthew 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Now you want me to cast myself down before an evil hoard of satan worshipers (muslims) who believe that they have the right rape torture and murder non believers. (they become the highest grade of muslim if they embark on this course) So do I have to love the evilness of islam? No I don't Karnal,  it's  still Matthew 4:7 as the common sense reaction to the utter evilness of islam / allah / muhammad / qur'an. No, Moses, you have to love your neighbor as you love thyself. If you preach the opposite, there is no way you can call yourself a Christian. Jesus being tempted in the desert has nothing to do with the Muselman. You know this. Have you ever thought of becoming baptized in the Holy Spirit?

I guess moses just has to make sure none of his neighbours are muslim right?

moses wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 3:21pm:

Where does it say to love evil?

It says to love sinners, Moses. Why are you trying to get out of this?

The N.T. also tells Christians to abhor evil

Romans 12:9 Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.

Abhor means?

Find repugnant, to loathe.

Then we have part of the the Lords prayer:

Matthew 6:13 lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil.

Christians most certainly would not be commanded to love evil, then have to pray to be delivered from it.

I still can see nothing which says Christians must love the utter evilness of islam.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 3:52pm:

Karnal wrote on May 10th, 2016 at 2:36pm: moses wrote on May 10th, 2016 at 1:53pm: Karnal wrote Reply #62 - Yesterday at 2:33pm: Quote: I'm curious. How do you interpret a statement like "thou shalt not tempt thy God" as a religious duty to hate the Muselman? When Yeheshua was dying on the cross, he asked his Father to forgive those who put him up there for their ignorance. This is the most compelling example of the new "covenant" you've described, Moses. Not only does Yeheshua do away with the eye-for-an-eye rhetoric, he taught - and practiced - forgiveness, tolerance and love for all. No exceptions. In fact, he even tells followers what to do if hurt by an enemy - don't fight back, turn the other cheek. Those who love their enemies receive God's peace. Those who don't, as Yehesua said, are not true disciples. He made this clear too: "not all who go in my name will enter the Kingdom of heaven". Yehesua taught his followers to leave judgement to God. He did not make an exception for those who follow different belief systems. The New Testament is clear. "Judge not, as ye surely shall be judged". Maybe it doesn't mean what it says, eh? Good try at guile Karnal, but it won't cut it here. if you want to quote examples set by Christ then I give you: Matthew 4:5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, Matthew 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. Matthew 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Now you want me to cast myself down before an evil hoard of satan worshipers (muslims) who believe that they have the right rape torture and murder non believers. (they become the highest grade of muslim if they embark on this course) So do I have to love the evilness of islam? No I don't Karnal,  it's  still Matthew 4:7 as the common sense reaction to the utter evilness of islam / allah / muhammad / qur'an. No, Moses, you have to love your neighbor as you love thyself. If you preach the opposite, there is no way you can call yourself a Christian. Jesus being tempted in the desert has nothing to do with the Muselman. You know this. Have you ever thought of becoming baptized in the Holy Spirit? I guess moses just has to make sure none of his neighbours are muslim right?

Well yes - neighbors or enemies. You're meant to love them too.

So does the NT cover all humans, good, bad, evil, retarded etc - that must be loved, or is there some escape clause that could allow moses to hate muslims?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 4:10pm:

So does the NT cover all humans, good, bad, evil, retarded etc - that must be loved, or is there some escape clause that could allow moses to hate muslims?

That's what I asked him. Moses appears to be saying that the NT has been rescinded - you know, like the OT.

Gud keeps changing His mind and putting out all these Ts. Moses is currently waiting for the updated one that tells you to hate the Muselman.

The N.T. also tells Christians to abhor evil

Romans 12:9 Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.

Abhor means?

Find repugnant, to loathe.

Then we have part of the the Lords prayer:

Matthew 6:13 lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil.

Christians most certainly would not be commanded to love evil, then have to pray to be delivered from it.

I still can see nothing which says Christians must love the utter evilness of islam.

islam, allah, muhammad and the qura'n all evil so abhor their evilness, pray to be delivered from their evilness

moses wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 3:55pm:

The N.T. also tells Christians to abhor evil Romans 12:9 Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good. Abhor means? Find repugnant, to loathe. Then we have part of the the Lords prayer: Matthew 6:13 lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil. Christians most certainly would not be commanded to love evil, then have to pray to be delivered from it. I still can see nothing which says Christians must love the utter evilness of islam.

your trying to shift the goalposts moses.

You are commanded to love your enemies - enemies are people, ie muslims.

Evil, is a force that emanates from satan or 'unGodliness' or some such. I'd be surprised if christian doctrine would conceive of a human who is "evil incarnate". No, from your point of view, Islam is the force of evil, but muslims (ie actual people) are your enemy, who (rather sadly) have fallen to the force of evil. And as your enemy, you are commanded to love them.

Rather sneaky of you to try and conflate "muslims" and "Islam" - or from your POV, 'enemies' and 'evil'

moses wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 3:55pm:

The N.T. also tells Christians to abhor evil. Romans 12:9 Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good

You missed out the rest of the passage, Moses.


Quote:

9Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. 10Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. 11Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. 12Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. 13Share with the Lord’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality. 14Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position.c Do not be conceited. 17Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”d says the Lord. 20On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”e 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

It doesn't mean what it says, right?

Gandalf wrote

Quote:

your trying to shift the goalposts moses. You are commanded to love your enemies - enemies are people, ie muslims. Evil, is a force that emanates from satan or 'unGodliness' or some such. I'd be surprised if christian doctrine would conceive of a human who is "evil incarnate". No, from your point of view, Islam is the force of evil, but muslims (ie actual people) are your enemy, who (rather sadly) have fallen to the force of evil. And as your enemy, you are commanded to love them. Rather sneaky of you to try and conflate "muslims" and "Islam" - or from your POV, 'enemies' and 'evil'

muslims are part and parcel of the overall package.

Just like Christians and Christianity, Buddhists and Buddhism, etc.

They all practice the tenets of their various faiths, if the doctrine of the faith is evil (as in islam), the practitioners become an inextricable  component of the evilness. 

moses wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 4:26pm:

muslims are part and parcel of the overall package. Just like Christians and Christianity, Buddhists and Buddhism, etc. They all practice the tenets of their various faiths, if the doctrine of the faith is evil (as in islam), the practitioners become an inextricable  component of the evilness.

So tell me moses, who are your enemies, if not those who practice evil? Is there another category of humans worse than enemies?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 4:16pm:

moses wrote on May 10th, 2016 at 3:55pm: The N.T. also tells Christians to abhor evil Romans 12:9 Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good. Abhor means? Find repugnant, to loathe. Then we have part of the the Lords prayer: Matthew 6:13 lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil. Christians most certainly would not be commanded to love evil, then have to pray to be delivered from it. I still can see nothing which says Christians must love the utter evilness of islam. your trying to shift the goalposts moses. You are commanded to love your enemies - enemies are people, ie muslims. Evil, is a force that emanates from satan or 'unGodliness' or some such. I'd be surprised if christian doctrine would conceive of a human who is "evil incarnate". No, from your point of view, Islam is the force of evil, but muslims (ie actual people) are your enemy, who (rather sadly) have fallen to the force of evil. And as your enemy, you are commanded to love them. Rather sneaky of you to try and conflate "muslims" and "Islam" - or from your POV, 'enemies' and 'evil'

Well yes, but Moses sees it as his religious duty to hate apologists too. You know, all those Christians who want to feed the enemy or give him something to drink -

Kill them.

Mind you, I'd be interested to hear from moses what actual words he himself would use to describe his attitude towards muslims - would he openly say he 'hates' them, or advocate their annhialation? Well he's come close - he has expressed optimism that soon they will be bred out of existence. He may be studiously avoiding such language directly, and that might be his escape clause.

But somehow I can't see him agreeing that he must 'love' them.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 4:43pm:

Mind you, I'd be interested to hear from moses what actual words he himself would use to describe his attitude towards muslims - would he openly say he 'hates' them, or advocate their annhialation? Well he's come close - he has expressed optimism that soon they will be bred out of existence. He may be studiously avoiding such language directly, and that might be his escape clause. But somehow I can't see him agreeing that he must 'love' them.

Hate them. It's the new covenant.

Jesus died so that we may hate them.

amen

polite_gandalf wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 4:50pm:

amen

Exactly. Forgive us our trespasses so that we may forgive others who trespass against us, deliver us from evil, ban them, kill them, nuke them.

Amen.

Karnal wrote on May 9^th, 2016 at 2:33pm:

moses wrote on May 9th, 2016 at 2:07pm: Karnal wrote:Reply #56 - Yesterday at 6:22pm Quote: Have I missed something in Christian theology? Did your prophet tell you to love everybody as you love yourself, including your enemies, but give you an out for Mohammedans? Please explain. Chapter and verse, thanks. Glad to Karnal Matthew 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.  Luke 4:12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. I'm curious. How do you interpret a statement like "thou shalt not tempt thy God" as a religious duty to hate the Muselman? When Yeheshua was dying on the cross, he asked his Father to forgive those who put him up there for their ignorance. This is the most compelling example of the new "covenant" you've described, Moses. Not only does Yeheshua do away with the eye-for-an-eye rhetoric, he taught - and practiced - forgiveness, tolerance and love for all. No exceptions. In fact, he even tells followers what to do if hurt by an enemy - don't fight back, turn the other cheek. Those who love their enemies receive God's peace. Those who don't, as Yehesua said, are not true disciples. He made this clear too: "not all who go in my name will enter the Kingdom of heaven". Yehesua taught his followers to leave judgement to God. He did not make an exception for those who follow different belief systems. The New Testament is clear. "Judge not, as ye surely shall be judged". Maybe it doesn't mean what it says, eh?

Karnal do you think that this discredits those who use the "fulfill the law of moses" verse to make Christianity look similar to, or worse than Islam?

freediver wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 5:04pm:

Karnal wrote on May 9th, 2016 at 2:33pm: moses wrote on May 9th, 2016 at 2:07pm: Karnal wrote:Reply #56 - Yesterday at 6:22pm Quote: Have I missed something in Christian theology? Did your prophet tell you to love everybody as you love yourself, including your enemies, but give you an out for Mohammedans? Please explain. Chapter and verse, thanks. Glad to Karnal Matthew 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.  Luke 4:12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. I'm curious. How do you interpret a statement like "thou shalt not tempt thy God" as a religious duty to hate the Muselman? When Yeheshua was dying on the cross, he asked his Father to forgive those who put him up there for their ignorance. This is the most compelling example of the new "covenant" you've described, Moses. Not only does Yeheshua do away with the eye-for-an-eye rhetoric, he taught - and practiced - forgiveness, tolerance and love for all. No exceptions. In fact, he even tells followers what to do if hurt by an enemy - don't fight back, turn the other cheek. Those who love their enemies receive God's peace. Those who don't, as Yehesua said, are not true disciples. He made this clear too: "not all who go in my name will enter the Kingdom of heaven". Yehesua taught his followers to leave judgement to God. He did not make an exception for those who follow different belief systems. The New Testament is clear. "Judge not, as ye surely shall be judged". Maybe it doesn't mean what it says, eh? Karnal do you think that this discredits those who use the "fulfill the law of moses" verse to make Christianity look similar to, or worse than Islam?

Can you rephrase your question, FD?

Karnal wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 3:55pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 10th, 2016 at 3:52pm: Karnal wrote on May 10th, 2016 at 2:36pm: moses wrote on May 10th, 2016 at 1:53pm: Karnal wrote Reply #62 - Yesterday at 2:33pm: Quote: I'm curious. How do you interpret a statement like "thou shalt not tempt thy God" as a religious duty to hate the Muselman? When Yeheshua was dying on the cross, he asked his Father to forgive those who put him up there for their ignorance. This is the most compelling example of the new "covenant" you've described, Moses. Not only does Yeheshua do away with the eye-for-an-eye rhetoric, he taught - and practiced - forgiveness, tolerance and love for all. No exceptions. In fact, he even tells followers what to do if hurt by an enemy - don't fight back, turn the other cheek. Those who love their enemies receive God's peace. Those who don't, as Yehesua said, are not true disciples. He made this clear too: "not all who go in my name will enter the Kingdom of heaven". Yehesua taught his followers to leave judgement to God. He did not make an exception for those who follow different belief systems. The New Testament is clear. "Judge not, as ye surely shall be judged". Maybe it doesn't mean what it says, eh? Good try at guile Karnal, but it won't cut it here. if you want to quote examples set by Christ then I give you: Matthew 4:5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, Matthew 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. Matthew 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Now you want me to cast myself down before an evil hoard of satan worshipers (muslims) who believe that they have the right rape torture and murder non believers. (they become the highest grade of muslim if they embark on this course) So do I have to love the evilness of islam? No I don't Karnal,  it's  still Matthew 4:7 as the common sense reaction to the utter evilness of islam / allah / muhammad / qur'an. No, Moses, you have to love your neighbor as you love thyself. If you preach the opposite, there is no way you can call yourself a Christian. Jesus being tempted in the desert has nothing to do with the Muselman. You know this. Have you ever thought of becoming baptized in the Holy Spirit? I guess moses just has to make sure none of his neighbours are muslim right? Well yes - neighbors or enemies. You're meant to love them too.

What I believe Karnal is trying to say, in his ineffective way: love the sinner, hate the sin. Perhaps he is deliberately leaving the second part out.

Quote:

Can you rephrase your question, FD?

No. Why?


Karnal wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 4:20pm:

moses wrote on May 10th, 2016 at 3:55pm: The N.T. also tells Christians to abhor evil. Romans 12:9 Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good You missed out the rest of the passage, Moses. Quote: 9Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. 10Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. 11Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. 12Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. 13Share with the Lord’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality. 14Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position.c Do not be conceited. 17Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”d says the Lord. 20On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”e 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. It doesn't mean what it says, right?

In other words, give the Iraqis freedom and democracy, for it will really piss them off.

karnal wrote:


Quote:

9Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good

islam is evil, muslims who practice islamic evil such as beheading, mass murder, burning people alive, raping little girls etc. etc. to directly obey islamic doctrine are evil.

muslims who claim to be innocent but revere the satanic doctrine which sanctifies atrocities as divinely perfect never to be changed, are just as evil, they venerate the sataic doctrine, thus they support the atrocities spawned by this evilness.

The whole show is evil, Christians are told to loathe evil 

gandalf wrote;


Quote:

So tell me moses, who are your enemies, if not those who practice evil? Is there another category of humans worse than enemies?

I don't believe that an enemy has to necessarily be evil.

Your enemy is your foe or opposition.

Two differing positions don't automatically equate to one being evil.

There are many types of criminals, however the ones who commit the most inhumane of deeds against a helpless victim (Anita Corbys, Sian Kinghis murderers spring to mind, there are many more) they would in my mind belong in the evil class.

So I believe that evil people are the inhumanely worst of the worst.


Quote:

Mind you, I'd be interested to hear from moses what actual words he himself would use to describe his attitude towards muslims - would he openly say he 'hates' them, or advocate their annhialation? Well he's come close - he has expressed optimism that soon they will be bred out of existence. He may be studiously avoiding such language directly, and that might be his escape clause. But somehow I can't see him agreeing that he must 'love' them.

My attitude is islam is evil, the deeds of islamists are evil, the veneration of the doctrine which causes islamic atrocities is evil. The qur'an is evil, allah is evil, muhammad is evil.

If you inbred yourselves out of existence I don't care.

muslims will be their own undoing, you don't have a hope in hell of sorting out islam, to do so will be the death knell, we all know that.

So the blood shed will continue until the world gets sick of you.

Then it will be a terrible time gandi.

The ball's in your court, you can keep going the way you are, or change.

But how are you going to change something that is immutably perfect and can never be changed?

You're between the rock and the hard place gandi.

moses wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 5:28pm:

karnal wrote: Quote: 9Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good islam is evil, muslims who practice islamic evil such as beheading, mass murder, burning people alive, raping little girls etc. etc. to directly obey islamic doctrine are evil. muslims who claim to be innocent but revere the satanic doctrine which sanctifies atrocities as divinely perfect never to be changed, are just as evil, they venerate the sataic doctrine, thus they support the atrocities spawned by this evilness. The whole show is evil, Christians are told to loathe evil

Oh, I know.

You think they’d be taught to love, no?

It doesn’t mean what it says, Moses. You’re an OT prophet, yes?

freediver wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 5:11pm:

Karnal wrote on May 10th, 2016 at 3:55pm: polite_gandalf wrote on May 10th, 2016 at 3:52pm: Karnal wrote on May 10th, 2016 at 2:36pm: moses wrote on May 10th, 2016 at 1:53pm: Karnal wrote Reply #62 - Yesterday at 2:33pm: Quote: I'm curious. How do you interpret a statement like "thou shalt not tempt thy God" as a religious duty to hate the Muselman? When Yeheshua was dying on the cross, he asked his Father to forgive those who put him up there for their ignorance. This is the most compelling example of the new "covenant" you've described, Moses. Not only does Yeheshua do away with the eye-for-an-eye rhetoric, he taught - and practiced - forgiveness, tolerance and love for all. No exceptions. In fact, he even tells followers what to do if hurt by an enemy - don't fight back, turn the other cheek. Those who love their enemies receive God's peace. Those who don't, as Yehesua said, are not true disciples. He made this clear too: "not all who go in my name will enter the Kingdom of heaven". Yehesua taught his followers to leave judgement to God. He did not make an exception for those who follow different belief systems. The New Testament is clear. "Judge not, as ye surely shall be judged". Maybe it doesn't mean what it says, eh? Good try at guile Karnal, but it won't cut it here. if you want to quote examples set by Christ then I give you: Matthew 4:5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, Matthew 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. Matthew 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Now you want me to cast myself down before an evil hoard of satan worshipers (muslims) who believe that they have the right rape torture and murder non believers. (they become the highest grade of muslim if they embark on this course) So do I have to love the evilness of islam? No I don't Karnal,  it's  still Matthew 4:7 as the common sense reaction to the utter evilness of islam / allah / muhammad / qur'an. No, Moses, you have to love your neighbor as you love thyself. If you preach the opposite, there is no way you can call yourself a Christian. Jesus being tempted in the desert has nothing to do with the Muselman. You know this. Have you ever thought of becoming baptized in the Holy Spirit? I guess moses just has to make sure none of his neighbours are muslim right? Well yes - neighbors or enemies. You're meant to love them too. What I believe Karnal is trying to say, in his ineffective way: love the sinner, hate the sin. Perhaps he is deliberately leaving the second part out.

Do you love Muslims, Moses?

I know, I know, it’s ridiculous. I’m just clarifying for FD.

Karnal wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 3:09pm:

That's right, you've become a Christian too, Matty. Bless you.

Name calling again ::), I guess I must have struck a nerve again. :)


Karnal wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 3:09pm:

How come we non-Christians need to keep telling you guys what your religion is?

Your stupid ?, You're on repeat ? Upset as usual ? I don't know.


Karnal wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 3:09pm:

Oh, that's right - it doesn't mean what it says. We just read the Bible for what it says.

The bible means exactly what it says. That's why you ignore Jesus and His teachings that make an utter ass of islamic intolerance and abuse.


Karnal wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 3:09pm:

You interpret it.

Not really that's been done already in most translations and overall they all agree with each other.


Karnal wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 3:09pm:

It is a jolly world, no?

Does your vocabulary allow for any other response with an IQ less than 81 ?

Looks like you have a protege, FD.

You’ve trained him well.

It is a jolly world, no? ::)

Ashley wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 8:38pm:

It is a jolly world, no? ::)

Absolutely.

Absolutely , No ? ::)

Pakistan seems like a jolly place, no?

More than 500 people are killed in Pakistan each year in so-called “honour killings”, usually carried out by members of the victim’s family meting out punishment for bringing “shame” on the community.http://tribune.com.pk/story/1099692/pakistans-jirgas-in-spotlight-after-brutal-honour-killing/

Best not to pork them, Gordy. You might get away with a Persian, but a Paki is too much trouble.

Karnal wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 8:56pm:

Best not to pork them, Gordy. You might get away with a Persian, but a Paki is too much trouble.

Isn't that a rather glib response about such a horrible issue?

GordyL wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 9:01pm:

Karnal wrote on May 10th, 2016 at 8:56pm: Best not to pork them, Gordy. You might get away with a Persian, but a Paki is too much trouble. Isn't that a rather glib response about such a horrible issue?

Oh, sorry about that.

Let’s have a minute of silence, okay?

Right after we blame Islam.

Karnal wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 10:25pm:

Right after we blame Islam.

Not ban it. Just ensure its irrelevance?

GordyL wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 10:45pm:

Karnal wrote on May 10th, 2016 at 10:25pm: Right after we blame Islam. Not ban it. Just ensure its irrelevance?

How do you do that by posting articles about dastardly Mexicans, Curries and Lebs?

Warming into the Muselman, are you?

GordyL wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 10:45pm:

Karnal wrote on May 10th, 2016 at 10:25pm: Right after we blame Islam. Not ban it. Just ensure its irrelevance?

By constantly bitching about it? Yup should work  ;D

polite_gandalf wrote on May 11^th, 2016 at 12:32pm:

GordyL wrote on May 10th, 2016 at 10:45pm: Karnal wrote on May 10th, 2016 at 10:25pm: Right after we blame Islam. Not ban it. Just ensure its irrelevance? By constantly bitching about it? Yup should work  ;D

Islam is irrelevant to our society. Its just something we need to take out with the trash, obviously it has no place or benefit here given what it produces.

Karnal wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 11:02pm:

GordyL wrote on May 10th, 2016 at 10:45pm: Karnal wrote on May 10th, 2016 at 10:25pm: Right after we blame Islam. Not ban it. Just ensure its irrelevance? How do you do that by posting articles about dastardly Mexicans, Curries and Lebs? Warming into the Muselman, are you?

Although I have the ear of the PM, I wouldn't say my posts here are about to change public policy. better out than in tho eh?

At least I'm not Jihading, no?

Karnal wrote Reply #104 - Yesterday at 8:10pm


Quote:

Oh, I know.

Oh I wouldn't say so


Quote:

You think they’d be taught to love, no?

Err that's your job to love evil (and you apologists excel at it I must say), however Christians were told to loathe it.

moses wrote on May 11^th, 2016 at 4:10pm:

Karnal wrote Reply #104 - Yesterday at 8:10pm Quote: Oh, I know. Oh I wouldn't say so [quote]You think they’d be taught to love, no?

Err that's your job to love evil (and you apologists excel at it I must say), however Christians were told to loathe it.

[/quote]

Is that all you learned in Sunday School? What about loving sinners?

What does the Holy Spirit move you to give testament to, Moses?

Love or hate?

GordyL wrote on May 11^th, 2016 at 3:09pm:

Karnal wrote on May 10th, 2016 at 11:02pm: GordyL wrote on May 10th, 2016 at 10:45pm: Karnal wrote on May 10th, 2016 at 10:25pm: Right after we blame Islam. Not ban it. Just ensure its irrelevance? How do you do that by posting articles about dastardly Mexicans, Curries and Lebs? Warming into the Muselman, are you? Although I have the ear of the PM, I wouldn't say my posts here are about to change public policy. better out than in tho eh? At least I'm not Jihading, no?

Jihading means striving against the evil in yourself, Gordy.

You don’t have to Jihad.You’re free to produce and consume.

It is a jolly world, as I’m sure you’ll agree.

Karnal wrote on May 11^th, 2016 at 8:50pm:

GordyL wrote on May 11th, 2016 at 3:09pm: Karnal wrote on May 10th, 2016 at 11:02pm: GordyL wrote on May 10th, 2016 at 10:45pm: Karnal wrote on May 10th, 2016 at 10:25pm: Right after we blame Islam. Not ban it. Just ensure its irrelevance? How do you do that by posting articles about dastardly Mexicans, Curries and Lebs? Warming into the Muselman, are you? Although I have the ear of the PM, I wouldn't say my posts here are about to change public policy. better out than in tho eh? At least I'm not Jihading, no? Jihading means striving against the evil in yourself, Gordy. You don’t have to Jihad.You’re free to produce and consume. It is a jolly world, as I’m sure you’ll agree.

Others dont use jihad in the same way. I am sure you know that, but being an apologist you prefer not to acknowledge that. 

Jolly world yes. 

I most certainly do, Secret, but that’s just me.

I’m an.Apologist . Every Muslim.I’ve discussed Jihad with says just that.

Feel free to disagree.

Karnal wrote on May 11^th, 2016 at 9:04pm:

I most certainly do, Secret, but that’s just me. I’m an.Apologist . Every Muslim.I’ve discussed Jihad with says just that. Feel free to disagree.

I don't disagree, apologists will emphasise the inner struggle bit ignoring or preferring not to mention that many of the brothers mean jihad to kill kaffur. 

Secret Wars wrote on May 11^th, 2016 at 9:10pm:

Karnal wrote on May 11th, 2016 at 9:04pm: I most certainly do, Secret, but that’s just me. I’m an.Apologist . Every Muslim.I’ve discussed Jihad with says just that. Feel free to disagree. I don't disagree, apologists will emphasise the inner struggle bit ignoring or preferring not to mention that many of the brothers mean jihad to kill kaffur.

Which brothers, Secret? I haven’t met any. You?

Karnal wrote Reply #122 - Yesterday at 8:45pm:


Quote:

What about loving sinners?

Sin doesn't automatically equate to evilness karnal.

There are sins which would just come under the heading of antisocial wrongful objectionable misbehaviour, they are a long way short of being evil.

My perception of evil is the deliberately shocking acts of utterly inhumane cruelety and malevolence. 


Quote:

Love or hate?

Love the sinner that is not evil.

Hate evilness in whatever shape and form it arises.


Reply #127 - Yesterday at 11:04pm

Quote:

Which brothers, Secret? I haven’t met any. You?

The news is full of them all around the globe.

Surely you've noticed, or has your constant apologizing turned you into a brain dead zombie, in a self induced trance, totally believing your own pro muslim fallacious propaganda?

moses wrote on May 12^th, 2016 at 3:15pm:

Love the sinner that is not evil.

Can you quote a scripture to support this, Moses? I can't find one in my Bible quote searching.

Can you?

Karnal wrote:
Quote:

Can you quote a scripture to support this, Moses? I can't find one in my Bible quote searching. Can you?

We all know there are numerous lines saying to hate evil.

We all know there are numerous lines saying to love a sinner.

You as an apologist for islam will have great difficulty in connecting these two, we also all know this.

Now unless you're trying to say that all wrongdoers are evil people, like are you telling us that the bloke down the street who defrauded $10,000 out of the post office, is intrinsically evil like the murderers of Anita Corby?

If you are I think you need help.

The rest of us can readily differentiate between a run of the mill sin and utterly evil sin.

Therefore Christians have no difficulty in loving a sinner while hating evil.

moses wrote on May 12^th, 2016 at 5:26pm:

Karnal wrote: Quote: Can you quote a scripture to support this, Moses? I can't find one in my Bible quote searching. Can you? We all know there are numerous lines saying to hate evil. We all know there are numerous lines saying to love a sinner. You as an apologist for islam will have great difficulty in connecting these two, we also all know this. Now unless you're trying to say that all wrongdoers are evil people, like are you telling us that the bloke down the street who defrauded $10,000 out of the post office, is intrinsically evil like the murderers of Anita Corby? If you are I think you need help. The rest of us can readily differentiate between a run of the mill sin and utterly evil sin. Therefore Christians have no difficulty in loving a sinner while hating evil.

And yet, you can’t post one quote.

How does "love thine enemy as ye love thyself" go down as your prophet supporting hate, Moses?

Read your Bible, take your time. If you can’t back up your claim in scripture, you’re done.

Karnal wrote on May 11^th, 2016 at 11:04pm:

Secret Wars wrote on May 11th, 2016 at 9:10pm: Karnal wrote on May 11th, 2016 at 9:04pm: I most certainly do, Secret, but that’s just me. I’m an.Apologist . Every Muslim.I’ve discussed Jihad with says just that. Feel free to disagree. I don't disagree, apologists will emphasise the inner struggle bit ignoring or preferring not to mention that many of the brothers mean jihad to kill kaffur.  Which brothers, Secret? I haven’t met any. You?

Rigggghnhhtt. Apologism 101.  Ignore inconvenient truths by appealing to a personal anecdote. You have never personally heard any Islamists interpreting jihad to mean an armed struggle so therefore in your mind it doesn't happen. 

To answer your question nor have I.

There ya go, between the two of us we have proved there are no religion of peace cultists who interpret jihad as an armed struggle. 

Wallow happily.  ::)

Secret Wars wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 8:39am:

Karnal wrote on May 11th, 2016 at 11:04pm: Secret Wars wrote on May 11th, 2016 at 9:10pm: Karnal wrote on May 11th, 2016 at 9:04pm: I most certainly do, Secret, but that’s just me. I’m an.Apologist . Every Muslim.I’ve discussed Jihad with says just that. Feel free to disagree. I don't disagree, apologists will emphasise the inner struggle bit ignoring or preferring not to mention that many of the brothers mean jihad to kill kaffur.  Which brothers, Secret? I haven’t met any. You? Rigggghnhhtt. Apologism 101.  Ignore inconvenient truths by appealing to a personal anecdote. You have never personally heard any Islamists interpreting jihad to mean an armed struggle so therefore in your mind it doesn't happen.

Exactly. Every Muselman I've ever discussed this with emphasize the inner struggle. The Jihadist knuckleheads exist, but they're not following the right path.

Karnal wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 10:03am:

xactly. Every Muselman I've ever discussed this with emphasize the inner struggle.

google: taqqiya

Karnal wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 10:03am:

Every Muselman I've ever discussed this with emphasize the inner struggle. The Jihadist knuckleheads exist, but they're not following the right path.

Congratulations on a seamless transition to apologism 102.  They are not reaaaalllllyy Muslims. 

Secret Wars wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 12:59pm:

Karnal wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 10:03am: Every Muselman I've ever discussed this with emphasize the inner struggle. The Jihadist knuckleheads exist, but they're not following the right path. Congratulations on a seamless transition to apologism 102.  They are not reaaaalllllyy Muslims.

They're as Muslim as Moses is Christian.

As the prophet Yeheshua said, "not all who go in my name shall enter the Kingdom."

Spiritual laws are universal. Muhammed included multiple prophets. Krishna, Gautama Buddha, Moses, Yeheshua, all. Love and compassion are universal laws. All the prophets taught this, including Muhammed.

Karnal wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 1:41pm:

Secret Wars wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 12:59pm: Karnal wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 10:03am: Every Muselman I've ever discussed this with emphasize the inner struggle. The Jihadist knuckleheads exist, but they're not following the right path. Congratulations on a seamless transition to apologism 102.  They are not reaaaalllllyy Muslims.  They're as Muslim as Moses is Christian. As the prophet Yeheshua said, "not all who go in my name shall enter the Kingdom." Spiritual laws are universal. Muhammed included multiple prophets. Krishna, Gautama Buddha, Moses, Yeheshua, all. Love and compassion are universal laws. All the prophets taught this, including Muhammed.

Where did mohammed teach it and why did he contradict himself. Was mo the profit of a fake god confused ?

Mohamed must have been schizophrenic.

Secret Wars wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 12:59pm:

Karnal wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 10:03am: Every Muselman I've ever discussed this with emphasize the inner struggle. The Jihadist knuckleheads exist, but they're not following the right path. Congratulations on a seamless transition to apologism 102.  They are not reaaaalllllyy Muslims.

Yeah modern day muslims follow Quran V2.0 . It has a rainbow cover which sits well with the LGBTI Muslim community as well.

Karnal wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 1:41pm:

Secret Wars wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 12:59pm: Karnal wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 10:03am: Every Muselman I've ever discussed this with emphasize the inner struggle. The Jihadist knuckleheads exist, but they're not following the right path. Congratulations on a seamless transition to apologism 102.  They are not reaaaalllllyy Muslims.  They're as Muslim as Moses is Christian. As the prophet Yeheshua said, "not all who go in my name shall enter the Kingdom." Spiritual laws are universal. Muhammed included multiple prophets. Krishna, Gautama Buddha, Moses, Yeheshua, all. Love and compassion are universal laws. All the prophets taught this, including Muhammed.

WTF?

freediver wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 2:26pm:

Karnal wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 1:41pm: Secret Wars wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 12:59pm: Karnal wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 10:03am: Every Muselman I've ever discussed this with emphasize the inner struggle. The Jihadist knuckleheads exist, but they're not following the right path. Congratulations on a seamless transition to apologism 102.  They are not reaaaalllllyy Muslims.  They're as Muslim as Moses is Christian. As the prophet Yeheshua said, "not all who go in my name shall enter the Kingdom." Spiritual laws are universal. Muhammed included multiple prophets. Krishna, Gautama Buddha, Moses, Yeheshua, all. Love and compassion are universal laws. All the prophets taught this, including Muhammed. WTF?

Language, FD. They are separate sentences. I believe Muhammed named a precise number of prophets - in the hundreds, I think.

Falah and Abu have told you this many times. Indeed, Falah said that anyone with a spiritual faith is a Muslim.

Of course jihadists who suicide and/or kill civilians are acting against Islam. You know the rules. They have also been described to you many times. Nearly every Islamic teacher and leader in the world states this clearly.

don't crush FD's worldview K

freediver wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 2:26pm:

WTF?

Yeah well, <81 clearly. ::)

polite_gandalf wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 2:35pm:

don't crush FD's worldview K

I'll try, G. Still, I did mention Abu. That should cheer him up.

Karnal wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 2:35pm:

freediver wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 2:26pm: Karnal wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 1:41pm: Secret Wars wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 12:59pm: Karnal wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 10:03am: Every Muselman I've ever discussed this with emphasize the inner struggle. The Jihadist knuckleheads exist, but they're not following the right path. Congratulations on a seamless transition to apologism 102.  They are not reaaaalllllyy Muslims.  They're as Muslim as Moses is Christian. As the prophet Yeheshua said, "not all who go in my name shall enter the Kingdom." Spiritual laws are universal. Muhammed included multiple prophets. Krishna, Gautama Buddha, Moses, Yeheshua, all. Love and compassion are universal laws. All the prophets taught this, including Muhammed. WTF? Language, FD. They are separate sentences. I believe Muhammed named a precise number of prophets - in the hundreds, I think. Falah and Abu have told you this many times. Indeed, Falah said that anyone with a spiritual faith is a Muslim. Of course jihadists who suicide and/or kill civilians are acting against Islam. You know the rules. They have also been described to you many times. Nearly every Islamic teacher and leader in the world states this clearly.

Did he include Krishna among those 100s of prophets?

New FD spin-off thread in 5...4...3...

freediver wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 2:41pm:

Karnal wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 2:35pm: freediver wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 2:26pm: Karnal wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 1:41pm: Secret Wars wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 12:59pm: Karnal wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 10:03am: Every Muselman I've ever discussed this with emphasize the inner struggle. The Jihadist knuckleheads exist, but they're not following the right path. Congratulations on a seamless transition to apologism 102.  They are not reaaaalllllyy Muslims.  They're as Muslim as Moses is Christian. As the prophet Yeheshua said, "not all who go in my name shall enter the Kingdom." Spiritual laws are universal. Muhammed included multiple prophets. Krishna, Gautama Buddha, Moses, Yeheshua, all. Love and compassion are universal laws. All the prophets taught this, including Muhammed. WTF? Language, FD. They are separate sentences. I believe Muhammed named a precise number of prophets - in the hundreds, I think. Falah and Abu have told you this many times. Indeed, Falah said that anyone with a spiritual faith is a Muslim. Of course jihadists who suicide and/or kill civilians are acting against Islam. You know the rules. They have also been described to you many times. Nearly every Islamic teacher and leader in the world states this clearly. Did he include Krishna among those 100s of prophets?

He most certainly did not. He mentioned Christ, who is believed by some to be a manifestation of Krishna - hence the etymological similarity. Muhammed did not name them all, and nor did Yeheshua (Christ), who said that "more will come after" Him, just as there are those who came before Him. Yeheshua, for example, said that John the Baptist was the prophet Isiah reborn.

Karnal wrote:Reply #131 - Yesterday at 8:41pm

Quote:

And yet, you can’t post one quote. How does "love thine enemy as ye love thyself" go down as your prophet supporting hate, Moses? Read your Bible, take your time. If you can’t back up your claim in scripture, you’re done.

In Reply #130 - Yesterday at 5:26pm

I've already asked you if you consider all wrongdoers as evil you run away I see.

I've already explained to you that wrongdoers / sinners don't necessarily have to evil, therefore love for them is no big deal, yet you've run away once again.

Everybody knows the quotes relating to loving your neighbours etc. and hating evil, you've run from this as well I see.

If jihad is an inner struggle, why do muslims have to rape torture and carry our mass murder like they are doing around the globe to perform their inner struggle?

Karnal wrote Reply #136


Quote:

Spiritual laws are universal. Muhammed included multiple prophets. Krishna, Gautama Buddha, Moses, Yeheshua, all. Love and compassion are universal laws. All the prophets taught this, including Muhammed.

How many of them taught that the highest grade of believers had to slay and be slain Karnal?

qur'an 4.95: Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward

qur'an 9.111: Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph.

How many of them taught that a prophet had to be a blood crazed mass murderer Karnal?

qur'an 8.67: It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made a great slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise.

j
moses wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 8:11pm:

Karnal wrote:Reply #131 - Yesterday at 8:41pm Quote: And yet, you can’t post one quote. How does "love thine enemy as ye love thyself" go down as your prophet supporting hate, Moses? Read your Bible, take your time. If you can’t back up your claim in scripture, you’re done. In Reply #130 - Yesterday at 5:26pm I've already asked you if you consider all wrongdoers as evil you run away I see. I've already explained to you that wrongdoers / sinners don't necessarily have to evil, therefore love for them is no big deal, yet you've run away once again. Everybody knows the quotes relating to loving your neighbours etc. and hating evil, you've run from this as well I see.

Have you ever actually read the Bible?

Pakistani's are a great example of the filth the Quran teaches regarding abusing ones wife.

Karnal wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 5:53pm:

freediver wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 2:41pm: Karnal wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 2:35pm: freediver wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 2:26pm: Karnal wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 1:41pm: Secret Wars wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 12:59pm: Karnal wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 10:03am: Every Muselman I've ever discussed this with emphasize the inner struggle. The Jihadist knuckleheads exist, but they're not following the right path. Congratulations on a seamless transition to apologism 102.  They are not reaaaalllllyy Muslims.  They're as Muslim as Moses is Christian. As the prophet Yeheshua said, "not all who go in my name shall enter the Kingdom." Spiritual laws are universal. Muhammed included multiple prophets. Krishna, Gautama Buddha, Moses, Yeheshua, all. Love and compassion are universal laws. All the prophets taught this, including Muhammed. WTF? Language, FD. They are separate sentences. I believe Muhammed named a precise number of prophets - in the hundreds, I think. Falah and Abu have told you this many times. Indeed, Falah said that anyone with a spiritual faith is a Muslim. Of course jihadists who suicide and/or kill civilians are acting against Islam. You know the rules. They have also been described to you many times. Nearly every Islamic teacher and leader in the world states this clearly. Did he include Krishna among those 100s of prophets? He most certainly did not. He mentioned Christ, who is believed by some to be a manifestation of Krishna - hence the etymological similarity. Muhammed did not name them all, and nor did Yeheshua (Christ), who said that "more will come after" Him, just as there are those who came before Him. Yeheshua, for example, said that John the Baptist was the prophet Isiah reborn.

The hundreds that he named, were they all from the Bible and Torah? Or did throw in a bunch of random names as well?

freediver wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 7:50am:

Karnal wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 5:53pm: freediver wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 2:41pm: Karnal wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 2:35pm: freediver wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 2:26pm: Karnal wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 1:41pm: Secret Wars wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 12:59pm: Karnal wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 10:03am: Every Muselman I've ever discussed this with emphasize the inner struggle. The Jihadist knuckleheads exist, but they're not following the right path. Congratulations on a seamless transition to apologism 102.  They are not reaaaalllllyy Muslims.  They're as Muslim as Moses is Christian. As the prophet Yeheshua said, "not all who go in my name shall enter the Kingdom." Spiritual laws are universal. Muhammed included multiple prophets. Krishna, Gautama Buddha, Moses, Yeheshua, all. Love and compassion are universal laws. All the prophets taught this, including Muhammed. WTF? Language, FD. They are separate sentences. I believe Muhammed named a precise number of prophets - in the hundreds, I think. Falah and Abu have told you this many times. Indeed, Falah said that anyone with a spiritual faith is a Muslim. Of course jihadists who suicide and/or kill civilians are acting against Islam. You know the rules. They have also been described to you many times. Nearly every Islamic teacher and leader in the world states this clearly. Did he include Krishna among those 100s of prophets? He most certainly did not. He mentioned Christ, who is believed by some to be a manifestation of Krishna - hence the etymological similarity. Muhammed did not name them all, and nor did Yeheshua (Christ), who said that "more will come after" Him, just as there are those who came before Him. Yeheshua, for example, said that John the Baptist was the prophet Isiah reborn. The hundreds that he named, were they all from the Bible and Torah? Or did throw in a bunch of random names as well?

Muslims use a precise number - far more than the prophets in the Bible. I forget what this number is.

Krishna taught of one God, so there is every chance Muhammed, who had the Archangel Gabriel as his source, had Krishna in.mind too.

Muhammed - and Islam - is part of a spiritual tradition that goes back tens of thousands of years. It is pre-Biblical. It includes the mystery traditions of at least two empires, Babylon and Egypt, and goes back to the origin of farming and civilisation.

The Bible and Koran hold that monotheism represents social evolution from the older religions. The purpose of prayer, fasting and meditation, however, is oneness - the experience of God.

Those who fetishize the process over this product do so at their peril. Muhammed was a spiritual teacher - a prophet, and one of many before and since.

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2016 at 6:18pm:

https://www.rt.com/news/336025-pakistan-womens-law-unislamic/ A new law protecting women from abuse in domestic situations has been denounced by at least 35 religious groups in Pakistan. The Muslim bodies, made up entirely of men, called on the government in their country’s largest province, Punjab, to reverse the law, calling it un-Islamic and part of a Western conspiracy to destroy Pakistan’s constitution. The Women’s Protection Act was passed in February to safeguard women from domestic, psychological, and sexual violence. Along with setting up a free helpline, women’s shelters, and local panels to investigate incidents of abuse, the law also calls for offenders to be tracked with GPS bracelets. Women’s groups have hailed the law as a progressive step, while conservative clerics said it goes against the Quran.

Apologism 102, in the same way the brothers who think jihad is armed struggle not reaaallly Muslims are conservative clerics not reaaallly Muslims?

Karnal wrote Reply #136


Quote:

Spiritual laws are universal. Muhammed included multiple prophets. Krishna, Gautama Buddha, Moses, Yeheshua, all. Love and compassion are universal laws. All the prophets taught this, including Muhammed.

How many of them taught that the highest grade of believers had to slay and be slain Karnal?

qur'an 4.95: Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward

qur'an 9.111: Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph.

How many of them taught that a prophet had to be a blood crazed mass murderer Karnal?

qur'an 8.67: It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made a great slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise.

Bump

Did Muhammed actually name them all, or just say there have been X number of them?

freediver wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 3:29pm:

Did Muhammed actually name them all, or just say there have been X number of them?

Just a number, FD. You remember. Abu used to go on about it.

Do you just forget all this stuff?

moses wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 2:26pm:

Karnal wrote Reply #136 Quote: Spiritual laws are universal. Muhammed included multiple prophets. Krishna, Gautama Buddha, Moses, Yeheshua, all. Love and compassion are universal laws. All the prophets taught this, including Muhammed. How many of them taught that the highest grade of believers had to slay and be slain Karnal? Bump

Krishna, King David and quite a few others, Moses. Your own quote has Muhammed referencing the Old and New Testaments. Did you read this? Does it mean what it says?

You're also missing the point about slaying and being slain. Have you read the Bhagavad Gita?

According to one hadith, God sent 124 thousand prophets throughout history. I don't think there is any figure in the Quran though.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 6:19pm:

According to one hadith, God sent 124 thousand prophets throughout history. I don't think there is any figure in the Quran though.

And Mohammed was the last one, of course.


Perfection.



Seriously - that precision - 124 thousand - is the mark of Islam's madness. Not 125, not 123, but 124 thousand.  It's these minute semblances or pretences of rationality are the give-away of the utter madness of the creed.

.

Karnal wrote Reply #158 - Yesterday at 6:09pm


Quote:

Krishna, King David and quite a few others, Moses. Your own quote has Muhammed referencing the Old and New Testaments. Did you read this? Does it mean what it says? You're also missing the point about slaying and being slain. Have you read the Bhagavad Gita?

Where did muhammad reference the old and new testaments in these particular commands?

Can you expand? where did they say the highest grade of a believer had to slay and be slain?

Did any of them teach that a prophet had to be a mass murderer?

You're making claims with no references. Why?

moses wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 2:00pm:

Karnal wrote Reply #158 - Yesterday at 6:09pm Quote: Krishna, King David and quite a few others, Moses. Your own quote has Muhammed referencing the Old and New Testaments. Did you read this? Does it mean what it says? You're also missing the point about slaying and being slain. Have you read the Bhagavad Gita? Where did muhammad reference the old and new testaments in these particular commands? Can you expand? where did they say the highest grade of a believer had to slay and be slain? Did any of them teach that a prophet had to be a mass murderer? You're making claims with no references. Why?

Read your Muhammed quote. I could list dozens of Torah  passages that tell God’s chosen people to slay and be slain.

The fact that Muhammed references the New Testament tells me he means something other than killing people when he says to slay and be slain.

Go back and give it a read and a ponder, Moses. Be curious. Open your mind and your heart.

This is how the Holy Spirit enters, Moses. Love thy neighbour as thou love thyself.

Allah Uakbar.

Karnal wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 2:11pm:

moses wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 2:00pm: Karnal wrote Reply #158 - Yesterday at 6:09pm Quote: Krishna, King David and quite a few others, Moses. Your own quote has Muhammed referencing the Old and New Testaments. Did you read this? Does it mean what it says? You're also missing the point about slaying and being slain. Have you read the Bhagavad Gita? Where did muhammad reference the old and new testaments in these particular commands? Can you expand? where did they say the highest grade of a believer had to slay and be slain? Did any of them teach that a prophet had to be a mass murderer? You're making claims with no references. Why? Read your Muhammed quote. I could list dozens of Torah  passages that tell God’s chosen people to slay and be slain. The fact that Muhammed references the New Testament tells me he means something other than killing people when he says to slay and be slain. Go back and give it a read and a ponder, Moses. Be curious. Open your mind and your heart. This is how the Holy Spirit enters, Moses. Love thy neighbour as thou love thyself. Allah Uakbar.

In 2016, which religion is actually quoting their own book for justification for stuff like this?

Quote:

The fact that Muhammed references the New Testament tells me he means something other than killing people when he says to slay and be slain.

Either that, or he never actually read it. What do you think he meant?

GordyL wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 2:13pm:

Karnal wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 2:11pm: moses wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 2:00pm: Karnal wrote Reply #158 - Yesterday at 6:09pm Quote: Krishna, King David and quite a few others, Moses. Your own quote has Muhammed referencing the Old and New Testaments. Did you read this? Does it mean what it says? You're also missing the point about slaying and being slain. Have you read the Bhagavad Gita? Where did muhammad reference the old and new testaments in these particular commands? Can you expand? where did they say the highest grade of a believer had to slay and be slain? Did any of them teach that a prophet had to be a mass murderer? You're making claims with no references. Why? Read your Muhammed quote. I could list dozens of Torah  passages that tell God’s chosen people to slay and be slain. The fact that Muhammed references the New Testament tells me he means something other than killing people when he says to slay and be slain. Go back and give it a read and a ponder, Moses. Be curious. Open your mind and your heart. This is how the Holy Spirit enters, Moses. Love thy neighbour as thou love thyself. Allah Uakbar. In 2016, which religion is actually quoting their own book for justification for stuff like this?

Some Muslims, Gordy, it can’t be denied. I invite you to say why.

And quite a few Christians too. Many evangelicals in the US supported the invasion of Iraq as the culmination of Biblical prophecy. Many see the state of Israel as a sign of the impending End Times, and support Israel accordingly. American Christian volunteers pour into Israel to support its occupied territories. They see the conflict between God’s chosen people and "Babylon" as divine prophecy, and aid the Jews with billions. When a US politician like Trump supports Israel, he is not only apealling to the Jewish vote, but the Bible Belt.

Christians support the banning, killing and nuking of Muslims everywhere - just take the words of Christians like Moses. He’s taken the Bible to new realms of interpretive fancy, arguing that Jesus really meant you to spend your days drumming up.hatred for the Muselman. So yes, while they prefer conventional or nuclear forms of warfare, quite a few Christians justify the terrorizing of Muslims using their religion.

Now why do you think the Muselman has experienced an upsurge in the justification of violence? I’m keen to hear what you think.

Ooh I know the answer. It's America's fault.

freediver wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 2:22pm:

Quote: The fact that Muhammed references the New Testament tells me he means something other than killing people when he says to slay and be slain. Either that, or he never actually read it. What do you think he meant?

He meant putting your all into spiritual striving and submitting to God. What did you think he meant?

freediver wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 2:35pm:

Ooh I know the answer. It's America's fault.

Aha. I’d say that, and the rise of the Saudis.

What do you think, Gordy?

I think he meant to slay and be slain.

Karnal wrote


Quote:

Read your Muhammed quote. I could list dozens of Torah  passages that tell God’s chosen people to slay and be slain. The fact that Muhammed references the New Testament tells me he means something other than killing people when he says to slay and be slain. Go back and give it a read and a ponder, Moses. Be curious. Open your mind and your heart. This is how the Holy Spirit enters, Moses. Love thy neighbour as thou love thyself. Allah Uakbar.

Where are the passages which tell the Jews that the highest grade of believer is the one who slays and is slain?

Where did muhammad reference the N.T. when making this quote?

How many other non muslim prophets taught that a prophet had to be a mass murderer?

You're running away Karnal, Why?

freediver wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 2:40pm:

I think he meant to slay and be slain.

You don’t think his definition of fighting "in the way of Allah" puts his words into a spiritual dimension?

Strange. This is what Muslims believe. It doesn’t mean what it says, eh?

It says to slay and be slain.

Karnal wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 2:33pm:

GordyL wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 2:13pm: Karnal wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 2:11pm: moses wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 2:00pm: Karnal wrote Reply #158 - Yesterday at 6:09pm Quote: Krishna, King David and quite a few others, Moses. Your own quote has Muhammed referencing the Old and New Testaments. Did you read this? Does it mean what it says? You're also missing the point about slaying and being slain. Have you read the Bhagavad Gita? Where did muhammad reference the old and new testaments in these particular commands? Can you expand? where did they say the highest grade of a believer had to slay and be slain? Did any of them teach that a prophet had to be a mass murderer? You're making claims with no references. Why? Read your Muhammed quote. I could list dozens of Torah  passages that tell God’s chosen people to slay and be slain. The fact that Muhammed references the New Testament tells me he means something other than killing people when he says to slay and be slain. Go back and give it a read and a ponder, Moses. Be curious. Open your mind and your heart. This is how the Holy Spirit enters, Moses. Love thy neighbour as thou love thyself. Allah Uakbar. In 2016, which religion is actually quoting their own book for justification for stuff like this? Some Muslims, Gordy, it can’t be denied. I invite you to say why. And quite a few Christians too. Many evangelicals in the US supported the invasion of Iraq as the culmination of Biblical prophecy. Many see the state of Israel as a sign of the impending End Times, and support Israel accordingly. American Christian volunteers pour into Israel to support its occupied territories. They see the conflict between God’s chosen people and "Babylon" as divine prophecy, and aid the Jews with billions. When a US politician like Trump supports Israel, he is not only apealling to the Jewish vote, but the Bible Belt. Christians support the banning, killing and nuking of Muslims everywhere - just take the words of Christians like Moses. He’s taken the Bible to new realms of interpretive fancy, arguing that Jesus really meant you to spend your days drumming up.hatred for the Muselman. So yes, while they prefer conventional or nuclear forms of warfare, quite a few Christians justify the terrorizing of Muslims using their religion. Now why do you think the Muselman has experienced an upsurge in the justification of violence? I’m keen to hear what you think.

Lets just set one thing straight. By far the majority of the suffering of Muselmen is at the hands of other Muselmen.

Now we've got that sorted...

Yes I think the Saudi have a lot to do with it. But I also think if any faction of Muselman had been anointed with the wealth of the oil riches, they'd have also pushed their batshitzcrazy faction down the throats of the rest of the Muselman world.

So big picture, why are Muselman across the globe taking their book so literally? I reckon they just haven't had a gradual and linear build up to modernity and democracy.

The flirtations with modernity in the 60s/70s in Iran, Afghanistan were transplanted their from the west which is ultimately why they failed. They didn't belong there yet.

I've never read either book, but the reviews I've read indicate both are full of enough good gear (particularly the Old Testy and the Koran) to make Steven King blush. But the Koran, I'm told, has a few extra trip wires that make it harder for secularism and modernity to flourish if the book is really dwelt upon.

I also think the major factor is that the K book is loved in parts of he world with backwards cultures, and the culture justifies the book and the book justifies the culture, and it's hard for them to break out.

Evidence of this is when just a few Muselman move to modern secular countries they tend to dissolve into society pretty well, but just like when you pour the salt in too fast, it clumps and can't dissolve, and you get stories like Muselman whipping each other with electrical cords for drinking alcohol or your girlfriends Egyptian next door neighbors daughter turning up with a broken arm because she came home with a midriff top and a belly piercing and the family went batshitcrazy.

Hope this helps, but if it makes you feel better, we can just blame the Yids.

Quote:

So big picture, why are Muselman across the globe taking their book so literally? I reckon they just haven't had a gradual and linear build up to modernity and democracy. The flirtations with modernity in the 60s/70s in Iran, Afghanistan were transplanted their from the west which is ultimately why they failed. They didn't belong there yet. I also think the major factor is that the K book is loved in parts of he world with backwards cultures, and the culture justifies the book and the book justifies the culture, and it's hard for them to break out.

The parts of the world captured by the first Islamic State had the most advanced cultures for most of human history. They were 'the west.'

freediver wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 2:48pm:

It says to slay and be slain.

So did Yeheshua. I come not to.bring peace but a sword - to turn sons against their fathers,  to be born again.

Muhammed is saying spirituality is not just about sitting at home, praying. It’s about social justice. It’s about action. Allah likes those best who are prepared to take risks - this is the meaning of the passage.

Gandhiji referenced it in his own teachings. Gandhiji carried out what Muhammed was getting at - he was slain for  campaigning for peace.

You can blame an inbred Muselman for that, so that should keep you happy.

Karnal wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 7:46pm:

freediver wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 2:48pm: It says to slay and be slain. So did Yeheshua. I come not to.bring peace but a sword - to turn sons against their fathers,  to be born again. Muhammed is saying spirituality is not just about sitting at home, praying. It’s about social justice. It’s about action. Allah likes those best who are prepared to take risks - this is the meaning of the passage. Gandhiji referenced it in his own teachings. Gandhiji carried out what Muhammed was getting at - he was slain for  campaigning for peace. You can blame an inbred Muselman for that, so that should keep you happy.

Yet the sword was the word of god not a sword dufus like the pedophile mohammed.

Surely you aren't mentally this thick seriously.

moses wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 2:42pm:

Karnal wrote Quote: Read your Muhammed quote. I could list dozens of Torah  passages that tell God’s chosen people to slay and be slain. The fact that Muhammed references the New Testament tells me he means something other than killing people when he says to slay and be slain. Go back and give it a read and a ponder, Moses. Be curious. Open your mind and your heart. This is how the Holy Spirit enters, Moses. Love thy neighbour as thou love thyself. Allah Uakbar. Where are the passages which tell the Jews that the highest grade of believer is the one who slays and is slain? Where did muhammad reference the N.T. when making this quote? How many other non muslim prophets taught that a prophet had to be a mass murderer? You're running away Karnal, Why?

When Muhammed references the Gospels, Moses, he’s quoting what you call the NT.

And not Paul’s letters or any of that, the Gospels. Muhammed was specific: the teachings of your prophet.

Ever get the feeling you’ve been cheated?

Storm wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 8:04pm:

Karnal wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 7:46pm: freediver wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 2:48pm: It says to slay and be slain. So did Yeheshua. I come not to.bring peace but a sword - to turn sons against their fathers,  to be born again. Muhammed is saying spirituality is not just about sitting at home, praying. It’s about social justice. It’s about action. Allah likes those best who are prepared to take risks - this is the meaning of the passage. Gandhiji referenced it in his own teachings. Gandhiji carried out what Muhammed was getting at - he was slain for  campaigning for peace. You can blame an inbred Muselman for that, so that should keep you happy. Yet the sword was the word of god not a sword dufus like the pedophile mohammed. Surely you aren't mentally this thick seriously.

I most certainly am, Matty. You - and the knucklehead jihadists - got Muhammed wrong.

You’re in good company, yes?

Karnal wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 7:46pm:

freediver wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 2:48pm: It says to slay and be slain. So did Yeheshua. I come not to.bring peace but a sword - to turn sons against their fathers,  to be born again. Muhammed is saying spirituality is not just about sitting at home, praying. It’s about social justice. It’s about action. Allah likes those best who are prepared to take risks - this is the meaning of the passage. Gandhiji referenced it in his own teachings. Gandhiji carried out what Muhammed was getting at - he was slain for  campaigning for peace. You can blame an inbred Muselman for that, so that should keep you happy.

So it does not mean what it says?

freediver wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 8:43pm:

Karnal wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 7:46pm: freediver wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 2:48pm: It says to slay and be slain. So did Yeheshua. I come not to.bring peace but a sword - to turn sons against their fathers,  to be born again. Muhammed is saying spirituality is not just about sitting at home, praying. It’s about social justice. It’s about action. Allah likes those best who are prepared to take risks - this is the meaning of the passage. Gandhiji referenced it in his own teachings. Gandhiji carried out what Muhammed was getting at - he was slain for  campaigning for peace. You can blame an inbred Muselman for that, so that should keep you happy. So it does not mean what it says?

Have you read it? Moses hasn’t, and he posted it.

Cunning, no?

Read the quote, come back, and we’ll have a little chat, shall we?

Karnal wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 8:16pm:

Storm wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 8:04pm: Karnal wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 7:46pm: freediver wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 2:48pm: It says to slay and be slain. So did Yeheshua. I come not to.bring peace but a sword - to turn sons against their fathers,  to be born again. Muhammed is saying spirituality is not just about sitting at home, praying. It’s about social justice. It’s about action. Allah likes those best who are prepared to take risks - this is the meaning of the passage. Gandhiji referenced it in his own teachings. Gandhiji carried out what Muhammed was getting at - he was slain for  campaigning for peace. You can blame an inbred Muselman for that, so that should keep you happy. Yet the sword was the word of god not a sword dufus like the pedophile mohammed. Surely you aren't mentally this thick seriously. I most certainly am, Matty. You - and the knucklehead jihadists - got Muhammed wrong. You’re in good company, yes?

I must have struck a nerve for you to go into matty mode. ;D

Thanks for your honesty about your mental capacity. Yes all muslims get the quran right.

Karnal wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 8:12pm:

moses wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 2:42pm: Karnal wrote Quote: Read your Muhammed quote. I could list dozens of Torah  passages that tell God’s chosen people to slay and be slain. The fact that Muhammed references the New Testament tells me he means something other than killing people when he says to slay and be slain. Go back and give it a read and a ponder, Moses. Be curious. Open your mind and your heart. This is how the Holy Spirit enters, Moses. Love thy neighbour as thou love thyself. Allah Uakbar. Where are the passages which tell the Jews that the highest grade of believer is the one who slays and is slain? Where did muhammad reference the N.T. when making this quote? How many other non muslim prophets taught that a prophet had to be a mass murderer? You're running away Karnal, Why? When Muhammed references the Gospels, Moses, he’s quoting what you call the NT. And not Paul’s letters or any of that, the Gospels. Muhammed was specific: the teachings of your prophet. Ever get the feeling you’ve been cheated?

Mohammed never wrote anything so he doesn't refer to anything actually. Ever get the feeling you don't have a leg to stand on ;D .

Karnal wrote Reply #177 - Yesterday at 8:12pm


Quote:

When Muhammed references the Gospels, Moses, he’s quoting what you call the NT. And not Paul’s letters or any of that, the Gospels. Muhammed was specific: the teachings of your prophet. Ever get the feeling you’ve been cheated?

You're running away again Karnal.

Where did muhammad make reference to the N.T. when he preached that the highest grade of muslims were the ones who slay and are slain?

Where did muhammad make reference to the N.T. when he preached that you had to be a mass murderer in order to be an islamic prophet?

Didn't muhammad say the bible was corrupted?

Narrated Ubaidullah:  "Ibn 'Abbas said, "Why do you ask the people of the scripture about anything while your Book (Quran) which has been revealed to Allah's Apostle is newer and the latest? You read it pure, undistorted and unchanged, and Allah has told you that the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians) changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, 'It is from Allah,' to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything? No, by Allah, we have never seen any man from them asking you regarding what has been revealed to you!"  (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Holding Fast to the Qur'an and Sunnah, Volume 9, Book 92, Number 461)"

qur'an 2.79: So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.

So you're now telling us muhammad used the corrupted scriptures to back his murder your fellow man teachings?

moses wrote on May 16^th, 2016 at 2:05pm:

Where did muhammad make reference to the N.T. when he preached that the highest grade of muslims were the ones who slay and are slain?

Sahih International:

a true promise upon Him in the Torah, and the Gospel and the Qur'an

The Gospel in arabic = إنجيل (injeel):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_in_Islam

So where did Christ preach that the highest grade of believer had to slay and be slain?

Where did Jesus preach that a prophet had to be a mass murderer?

Were the scriptures corrupted by the Jews and Christians?

moses wrote on May 16^th, 2016 at 2:31pm:

So where did Christ preach that the highest grade of believer had to slay and be slain?

When he said you have to hate the Muselman, silly.

Now you read your own quotes you keep showing us and have a nice lie down. We’ll talk when you’ve read all those things that don’t mean what they say.

Karnal wrote on May 16^th, 2016 at 4:10pm:

moses wrote on May 16th, 2016 at 2:31pm: So where did Christ preach that the highest grade of believer had to slay and be slain? When he said you have to hate the Muselman, silly. Now you read your own quotes you keep showing us and have a nice lie down. We’ll talk when you’ve read all those things that don’t mean what they say.

Then again maybe you should take 2 bex and have a lie down love and do some learning if at all possible. Posting about stuff you know nothing about is a bit silly.

Karnal wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 10:03am:

Secret Wars wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:39am: Karnal wrote on May 11th, 2016 at 11:04pm: Secret Wars wrote on May 11th, 2016 at 9:10pm: Karnal wrote on May 11th, 2016 at 9:04pm: I most certainly do, Secret, but that’s just me. I’m an.Apologist . Every Muslim.I’ve discussed Jihad with says just that. Feel free to disagree. I don't disagree, apologists will emphasise the inner struggle bit ignoring or preferring not to mention that many of the brothers mean jihad to kill kaffur.  Which brothers, Secret? I haven’t met any. You? Rigggghnhhtt. Apologism 101.  Ignore inconvenient truths by appealing to a personal anecdote. You have never personally heard any Islamists interpreting jihad to mean an armed struggle so therefore in your mind it doesn't happen.  Exactly. Every Muselman I've ever discussed this with emphasize the inner struggle. The Jihadist knuckleheads exist, but they're not following the right path.

They're following a different path.  If it's wrong a lot of Muslims have been reading their Koran upside down