Australian Politics Forum - spineless apologetics

sir prince duke alevine Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 23619 Gender:	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #2130 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 11:24pm Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 11:12pm: He's learning, FD. and you're still avoiding. Why is that, Karnal? Why do you expect people to provide you with responses and answers when you fail to do so yourself?
Back to top	Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of. IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 98973	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #2131 - Sep 29^th, 2017 at 12:16am sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 11:24pm: Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 11:12pm: He's learning, FD. and you're still avoiding. Why is that, Karnal? Why do you expect people to provide you with responses and answers when you fail to do so yourself? Do prawns feel pain?
Back to top	IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2132 - Sep 29^th, 2017 at 12:23am

Karnal wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 12:16am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 11:24pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 11:12pm:

He's learning, FD.

and you're still avoiding. Why is that, Karnal? Why do you expect people to provide you with responses and answers when you fail to do so yourself?

Do prawns feel pain?

simply dishonest.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

Lastone

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 310
Pakenham, Victoria, Australia
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2133 - Sep 29^th, 2017 at 4:33am

moses wrote on Sep 26^th, 2017 at 1:36pm:

Lastone wrote: Reply #1998 - Yesterday at 11:03pm

Quote:

Thank you that was exactly the answer that I was looking for. You have to look at the historical context and circumstances upon which the instance occurred.

Now apply the same standards you applied to the biblical instance I quoted to the Quran.

That would be a wrong, disingenuous attitude to use.

Both books / texts were written with a definite perspective in mind.

The chapters of the O.T. we are discussing, is compiled as a 4000 year old historical depiction(written in the past tense), of instructions to specific leaders to be carried out in a defined time and place, against a particular group of people.

There is absolutely nothing in these histories which explicitly states Jews must continually perpetrate these deeds against mankind in the future.

Conversely

The qur'an (written in the present and future tense) evokes all muslims to be the enemies of all non believers for all times.

It does not declare a defined location or put any time limits, on the atrocities that muslims may commit against the kafir / mushrikeen.

That is why today 2017 the muslims are a worldwide terrorist threat, they are obeying a timeless set of commandments to commit the foulest of deeds against their fellow man in the name of allah.

With respect you are wrong.

You wrote Quote:

The qur'an (written in the present and future tense) evokes all muslims to be the enemies of all non believers for all times.

Quaran 9.1
Quote:

A declaration of immunity from God and His Messenger to the polytheists with whom you had made a treaty.

Quran 9.4
Quote:

Except for those among the polytheists with whom you had made a treaty, and did not violate any of its terms, nor aided anyone against you. So fulfill the treaty with them to the end of its term. God loves the righteous.

Quran 9.6 and 9.7
Quote:

6. And if anyone of the polytheists asks you for protection, give him protection so that he may hear the Word of God; then escort him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know.

7. How can there be a treaty with the polytheists on the part of God and His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at the Sacred Mosque? As long as they are upright with you, be upright with them. God loves the pious.

The historical context of chapter 9

Quote:

The famous/ Infamous Sword verse – The Fifth Verse of Surah: Al-Tawbah

The fifth verse of the Surah rendered below, taken in isolation amounts to an open ended command to kill the pagans:

“But when the sacred months are past, kill the pagans wherever you find them,
and capture them, surround them, and watch for them in every lookout; but if
they repent and establish regular prayer and give charity, then let them go their
way, for God is Most Forgiving and Merciful.”

Surah: Al-Tawbah (Repentance) – Chapter: 9 – Verse: 5

However, the preceding and succeeding verses indicate that it was addressed to those pagan tribes who were repeatedly breaking the Hudaibiyyah Peace Treaty). This is, however, totally lost in their flat reading, whether in the original Arabic or translation. One must read the long opening passage (first fourteen verses) of this Surah in the thematic order as attempted below to comprehend its historical relevance and defensive character – none of which apply this day:

https://themindofthequran.wordpress.com/2015/07/01/the-historical-context-of-sur...

Meaning that you should also put the relevant parts of the Quran in their proper historical context.

Back to top

I am yet to see a trickle down lift anyone up

IP Logged

Frank Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 52945 Gender:	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #2134 - Sep 29^th, 2017 at 8:43am Historical context for the eternal, unchangeable, perfect and final words of Allah??? You speak like an apostate/kuffar.
Back to top	Estragon: I can’t go on like this. Vladimir: That’s what you think. IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2135 - Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:30am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 7:43pm:

What were you implying when you said the American government was 'moderate extremist' in response to my discussion about extremist catholics/protestants/jews? Mm?

Certainly not that said governments are some religious force killing in the name of religion - thats for sure. The issue is about why actual extremist christians and jews (which I'm hoping you don't deny exist) don't go around slaughtering non-christian/jews on the same scale as extremist muslims. My point, and I admit it was rather flippant and crass, was that they are happy to sit back and let their own governments do it for them. Of course there's more to it than that, but I think it gets my point across that extremist christians and jews don't hold much if any moral supremacy over their muslim counterparts. Principally, I would argue, the difference between extremist christians and jews and extremist muslims is that the christians and jews generally occupy a more privileged and powerful position in their respective societies. And one of the manifestations of this privileged position is that they get to see "their" side slaughter the "other" side on an industrial scale, and dominate and humiliate them. That must satiate their bloodlust to at least some degree.

Quote:

But you were indeed suggesting the American government itself is driven by religion, from the previous reply and also in talking about Bush and his discussion about god.

Wrong. Why on earth would they be swayed one way or another by a few crackpots? All I said was that the crackpots would presumably be pleased with the slaughter their government inflicts on the tinted people - the motivation of which obviously has nothing to do with religion. As for Bush's quote, I was not arguing that this was proof that his government was motivated by religion, I was pointing out the simple fact that to a very significant proportion of the American public, their government absolutely *IS* considered a religious institution. That is undeniable. Its why any US presidential candidate won't even begin to contemplate standing until they have their christian credentials well in order.

Quote:

And do you honestly believe no secular government should ever use force, if necessary, because the results may be celebrated by some religious nutjobs who want to see a spread of their religion?

No, thats a dumb reason. I would certainly hope that they should be deterred by the fact that the use of force never leads to anything good, and invariably leads to far more suffering and instability. And I note with interest your scoffing at Karnal for objecting to the Iraq war, with the usual tired 'you therefore must love Saddam' strawman. I would have thought the hundreds of thousands of dead, the few million displaced, the rise of ISIS and flow-on effects on Syria that happened because of the invasion, might have caused some circumspection. Apparently not. Apparently there is no lesson to be learned from committing what America's own Nuremburg prosecutor termed the "supreme crime" from which all other war crimes spawn from (ie aggressive invasion) - which is absolutely what the Iraq invasion was.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

moses

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6353

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2136 - Sep 29^th, 2017 at 3:06pm

Lastone Reply #2133 - Today at 4:33am

Quote:

With respect you are wrong. Quaran 9.1 Quran 9.4 Quran 9.6 and 9.7 The historical context of chapter 9

Meaning that you should also put the relevant parts of the Quran in their proper historical context.

I don't even have to read chapter nine to get the gist of the qur'an.

Here's a quick selection of verses from 13 other chapters all urging the muslims to hate and kill unbelievers and hypocritical muslims.

qur'an 2.216, qur'an 2.218, qur'an 2.244, qur'an 3.142, qur'an 3.151, qur'an 3.157, qur'an 3.158, qur'an 3.169, qur'an 3.195, qur'an 4.74, qur'an 4.76, qur'an 4.89, qur'an 4.95, qur'an 4.100, qur'an 5.32, qur'an 5.33, qur'an 5.35, qur'an 5.54, qur'an 8.55, qur'an 8.65, qur'an 8.67, qur'an 8.72, qur'an 8.74, qur'an 8.75, qur'an 22.58, qur'an 33.23, qur'an 33.73, qur'an 47.4, qur'an 47.35, qur'an 48.6, qur'an 48.17, qur'an 49.15, qur'an 61.4, qur'an 61.11, qur'an 66.9, qur'an 98.6.

Nothing in any of these (and others) name a particular place or time for these atrocities to occur.

Today 2017 there are literally hundreds of millions of muslims who disagree with you, they see the qur'an as the infallible unchangeable words of allah.

The commands to commit atrocities are timeless.

Why do you think the muslim world is the hotchpotch of backwardness and degeneracy it is today?

Are you going to use the tired old *they interpreted it wrong* excuse?

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2137 - Sep 29^th, 2017 at 9:55pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:30am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 7:43pm:

What were you implying when you said the American government was 'moderate extremist' in response to my discussion about extremist catholics/protestants/jews? Mm?

Certainly not that said governments are some religious force killing in the name of religion - thats for sure. The issue is about why actual extremist christians and jews (which I'm hoping you don't deny exist) don't go around slaughtering non-christian/jews on the same scale as extremist muslims. My point, and I admit it was rather flippant and crass, was that they are happy to sit back and let their own governments do it for them. Of course there's more to it than that, but I think it gets my point across that extremist christians and jews don't hold much if any moral supremacy over their muslim counterparts. Principally, I would argue, the difference between extremist christians and jews and extremist muslims is that the christians and jews generally occupy a more privileged and powerful position in their respective societies. And one of the manifestations of this privileged position is that they get to see "their" side slaughter the "other" side on an industrial scale, and dominate and humiliate them. That must satiate their bloodlust to at least some degree.

Quote:

But you were indeed suggesting the American government itself is driven by religion, from the previous reply and also in talking about Bush and his discussion about god.

Wrong. Why on earth would they be swayed one way or another by a few crackpots? All I said was that the crackpots would presumably be pleased with the slaughter their government inflicts on the tinted people - the motivation of which obviously has nothing to do with religion. As for Bush's quote, I was not arguing that this was proof that his government was motivated by religion, I was pointing out the simple fact that to a very significant proportion of the American public, their government absolutely *IS* considered a religious institution. That is undeniable. Its why any US presidential candidate won't even begin to contemplate standing until they have their christian credentials well in order.

Quote:

And do you honestly believe no secular government should ever use force, if necessary, because the results may be celebrated by some religious nutjobs who want to see a spread of their religion?

No, thats a dumb reason. I would certainly hope that they should be deterred by the fact that the use of force never leads to anything good, and invariably leads to far more suffering and instability. And I note with interest your scoffing at Karnal for objecting to the Iraq war, with the usual tired 'you therefore must love Saddam' strawman. I would have thought the hundreds of thousands of dead, the few million displaced, the rise of ISIS and flow-on effects on Syria that happened because of the invasion, might have caused some circumspection. Apparently not. Apparently there is no lesson to be learned from committing what America's own Nuremburg prosecutor termed the "supreme crime" from which all other war crimes spawn from (ie aggressive invasion) - which is absolutely what the Iraq invasion was.

Oh sure, extremism exists in all religions. But it isn't the same type of extremism. Extremist Christians and Jews don't go around slaughtering non-believers not because 'their government is doing it for them' but simply because they don't interpret their religion in that fashion anymore. And how do we know this? Because even before the US and allies committed themselves to wars, Christians and Jews weren't the ones running around bombing people on the basis of their religion. Are you telling me their bloodlust before the wars was fullfilled by something else? or perhaps you're just picking at straws? The IRA, despite what our friendly regressive Bwian tells us, wasn't because the Irish interpreted their religion to say 'kill all non-believers'. It was religious people ,but fighting for a political movement as opposed to a religious one. Extremist Muslims, on the other hand, (jihadists) are INDEED fighting on the basis that they literally believe and interpret their religion as telling them to do so. And how do we know this? Because they tell us. And they don't retract after they've told us. Despite all the nonsense that the regressives have us believe, western governments don't force jihadists to go about killing people wiht trucks. No, Islam does that. So, sorry, but your argument that there is no moral supremacy is not quite there. Simply because extremism, which exists everywhere, is not the same.

As for Saddam, it's very nice to try and stay academically moral about wars. No one wants a war. I don' twant a war. But I accept that wars must always be an option. And in the case of Iraq, the question that no regressive has ever been able to answer is, if not the war, then how does one get rid of Saddam Hussain, where diplomacy clearly failed, sanctions clearly failed, and transition of power would've gone to his sadistic sons? Sure, the war had terrible outcomes for people. But so did Saddam. And sitting around letting 2 million get slaughtered by him, MILLIONS displaced too, Millions starving to death, is NOT an option.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 52945
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2138 - Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:18pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:30am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 7:43pm:

What were you implying when you said the American government was 'moderate extremist' in response to my discussion about extremist catholics/protestants/jews? Mm?

Certainly not that said governments are some religious force killing in the name of religion - thats for sure. The issue is about why actual extremist christians and jews (which I'm hoping you don't deny exist) don't go around slaughtering non-christian/jews on the same scale as extremist muslims. My point, and I admit it was rather flippant and crass, was that they are happy to sit back and let their own governments do it for them. Of course there's more to it than that, but I think it gets my point across that extremist christians and jews don't hold much if any moral supremacy over their muslim counterparts. Principally, I would argue, the difference between extremist christians and jews and extremist muslims is that the christians and jews generally occupy a more privileged and powerful position in their respective societies. And one of the manifestations of this privileged position is that they get to see "their" side slaughter the "other" side on an industrial scale, and dominate and humiliate them. That must satiate their bloodlust to at least some degree.

Quote:

But you were indeed suggesting the American government itself is driven by religion, from the previous reply and also in talking about Bush and his discussion about god.

Wrong. Why on earth would they be swayed one way or another by a few crackpots? All I said was that the crackpots would presumably be pleased with the slaughter their government inflicts on the tinted people - the motivation of which obviously has nothing to do with religion. As for Bush's quote, I was not arguing that this was proof that his government was motivated by religion, I was pointing out the simple fact that to a very significant proportion of the American public, their government absolutely *IS* considered a religious institution. That is undeniable. Its why any US presidential candidate won't even begin to contemplate standing until they have their christian credentials well in order.

Quote:

And do you honestly believe no secular government should ever use force, if necessary, because the results may be celebrated by some religious nutjobs who want to see a spread of their religion?

No, thats a dumb reason. I would certainly hope that they should be deterred by the fact that the use of force never leads to anything good, and invariably leads to far more suffering and instability. And I note with interest your scoffing at Karnal for objecting to the Iraq war, with the usual tired 'you therefore must love Saddam' strawman. I would have thought the hundreds of thousands of dead, the few million displaced, the rise of ISIS and flow-on effects on Syria that happened because of the invasion, might have caused some circumspection. Apparently not. Apparently there is no lesson to be learned from committing what America's own Nuremburg prosecutor termed the "supreme crime" from which all other war crimes spawn from (ie aggressive invasion) - which is absolutely what the Iraq invasion was.

TODAY, you Muslims are far more murderous in the name of Allah than Jews or Christians have been for centuries.

Speak to that - why are you Muslims so blood thirsty in the 21st century, in the name of Allah and Mohamed? And why are you showing NO sign of getting off the 7th century BS dogma?

Why are you, alone among religions, still persecuting relgiously motivated mass murder in 2017?

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Brian Ross Gold Member Offline Representative of me Posts: 44684	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #2139 - Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:19pm Frank wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:18pm: Why are you, alone among religions, still persecuting relgiously motivated mass murder in 2017? Interesting how you appear to have forgotten the Burmese Buddhists, Soren. Don't they fit into your world view? Tsk, tsk.
Back to top	It seems that I have upset a Moderator and are forbidden from using memes. So much for Freedom of Speech. Tsk, tsk, tsk... IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98973

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2140 - Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:22pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 9:55pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:30am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 7:43pm:

What were you implying when you said the American government was 'moderate extremist' in response to my discussion about extremist catholics/protestants/jews? Mm?

Certainly not that said governments are some religious force killing in the name of religion - thats for sure. The issue is about why actual extremist christians and jews (which I'm hoping you don't deny exist) don't go around slaughtering non-christian/jews on the same scale as extremist muslims. My point, and I admit it was rather flippant and crass, was that they are happy to sit back and let their own governments do it for them. Of course there's more to it than that, but I think it gets my point across that extremist christians and jews don't hold much if any moral supremacy over their muslim counterparts. Principally, I would argue, the difference between extremist christians and jews and extremist muslims is that the christians and jews generally occupy a more privileged and powerful position in their respective societies. And one of the manifestations of this privileged position is that they get to see "their" side slaughter the "other" side on an industrial scale, and dominate and humiliate them. That must satiate their bloodlust to at least some degree.

Quote:

But you were indeed suggesting the American government itself is driven by religion, from the previous reply and also in talking about Bush and his discussion about god.

Wrong. Why on earth would they be swayed one way or another by a few crackpots? All I said was that the crackpots would presumably be pleased with the slaughter their government inflicts on the tinted people - the motivation of which obviously has nothing to do with religion. As for Bush's quote, I was not arguing that this was proof that his government was motivated by religion, I was pointing out the simple fact that to a very significant proportion of the American public, their government absolutely *IS* considered a religious institution. That is undeniable. Its why any US presidential candidate won't even begin to contemplate standing until they have their christian credentials well in order.

Quote:

And do you honestly believe no secular government should ever use force, if necessary, because the results may be celebrated by some religious nutjobs who want to see a spread of their religion?

No, thats a dumb reason. I would certainly hope that they should be deterred by the fact that the use of force never leads to anything good, and invariably leads to far more suffering and instability. And I note with interest your scoffing at Karnal for objecting to the Iraq war, with the usual tired 'you therefore must love Saddam' strawman. I would have thought the hundreds of thousands of dead, the few million displaced, the rise of ISIS and flow-on effects on Syria that happened because of the invasion, might have caused some circumspection. Apparently not. Apparently there is no lesson to be learned from committing what America's own Nuremburg prosecutor termed the "supreme crime" from which all other war crimes spawn from (ie aggressive invasion) - which is absolutely what the Iraq invasion was.

Oh sure, extremism exists in all religions. But it isn't the same type of extremism. Extremist Christians and Jews don't go around slaughtering non-believers not because 'their government is doing it for them' but simply because they don't interpret their religion in that fashion anymore. And how do we know this? Because even before the US and allies committed themselves to wars, Christians and Jews weren't the ones running around bombing people on the basis of their religion. Are you telling me their bloodlust before the wars was fullfilled by something else? or perhaps you're just picking at straws? The IRA, despite what our friendly regressive Bwian tells us, wasn't because the Irish interpreted their religion to say 'kill all non-believers'. It was religious people ,but fighting for a political movement as opposed to a religious one. Extremist Muslims, on the other hand, (jihadists) are INDEED fighting on the basis that they literally believe and interpret their religion as telling them to do so. And how do we know this? Because they tell us. And they don't retract after they've told us. Despite all the nonsense that the regressives have us believe, western governments don't force jihadists to go about killing people wiht trucks.

Good points. All true. But "Islam" does not do that. The imams and community leaders are completely united on this. We've all had the chance to discuss the texts here. The Koran does not say that either.

But you do spruik war, Alevine. You've been pretty clear on your views in this thread. By your own rationale here, what ISIS does is not illegal.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 52945
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2141 - Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:28pm

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:19pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:18pm:

Why are you, alone among religions, still persecuting relgiously motivated mass murder in 2017?

Interesting how you appear to have forgotten the Burmese Buddhists, Soren. Don't they fit into your world view? Tsk, tsk. Roll Eyes

No.

They are keeping out the Muslims just as everyone with any brain or insight has been trying to keep them out since the 7th century. They are bad news.

Islam is a mailgnant force even you don't like. Even you say that you like nothing about it.

So stop its spreading.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2142 - Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:34pm

Karnal wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:22pm: