[ The thrilling debate between goldenhawk786 and the atheists of Reason Project continued:
Goldenhawk's replies in bold black.]
____________________________________
Round II - Questions for goldenhawk786
Author: Bruce Burleson
Posted: 12 February 2010 12:22 PM
Bruce Burleson:
In your opinion, what was the content of the Injil of Isa, or the gospel of Jesus, referred to in the Qur’an?
goldenhawk786:
if this is going to be a muslim christian debate, then i want all the athiests to stay out of it. i will meet you in your own zoology debates in other threads and defeat you there. This debate is for human beings who beleive in god.
the Gospel of Jesus (not mark, mathew, luke or john) is in the perfect harmony with the Quran.
the content of orignal injeel was only to preach against the astray jews who had diverted from original pure teachings of Moses and Abraham and lost most of the spiritual and moral teachings of God’s prophets. Injeel of Jesus restored contents of all previous divine books. When Quran came down from God it for the final time, restored and put right all teachings of previous books from God.
Where can the original content of the injeel (I’ll use your spelling) be found? Was it ever written? Or was it only in oral form? Did Muhammad have access to it?
it cannot be found anywhere as the injeel was the words spoken by jesus (AS) and only remained in oral form. of course the holy prophet muhammad (S) knew what jesus preached. all prophets prior to prophet muhammad (S) preached about god, but it was only to their people, not universally like the last prophet (S) of islam. jesus (AS) himself said in the bible that he came only to the lost sheep of israel and told his followers; Go not into the way of the Gentiles.
How did it restore the content of the previous divine books? One of those books was the Tawrat or Torah. How did the Injeel affect the Torah?
as jesus (AS) himself said that “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” so he was sent (as i have mentioned before) to tell the jews where they were going wrong in the torah and also expose their hypocrisy as they were not following the true teachings of moses (AS).
have to go sleep now. its getting late in the UK so good night and god bless.
-
You and I will disagree about the content of the gospel. But that is to be expected. Again, I live in an area where disagreements about theology can be discussed over a cup of coffee and then everyone goes back home. Nobody gets hurt.
that’s what i want. i want to have a civilised discussion. its healthy for the mind and also promotes understanding and diversity.
I note that you quote the written gospels when it fits your theology. You admit that what is written in the gospels contains at least some of the statements of Jesus. Of course, when it does not fit with your Islamic theology (such as when Jesus states that he is the Son of the Blessed), then you will say that this is not part of the original injeel. For me, Jesus is the Son of God. After the Son of God, there is no need for another universal prophet. Of course, I know that you disagree with this.
well i am only quoting YOUR sources to back up my claim. if i quoted quran, i am sure it will not be accepted as evidence because for you, the holy quran is not your authority. but the bible is. therefore i a limiting my evidence only from what you may accept so that my argument may be complete. as for your mentioning about jesus being the son of god, i accept that in the metaphorical sense. we are all sons of gods who do righteous deeds as mentioned in the bible. in the bible, many people were called sons of god. it does not mean in the literal sense. otherwise that could open a can of worms. islam position is clear as al mentions in the holy quran that he does not beget nor was be begotten. also you say that since you beleive in jesus being the son of god, therefore there was no need to send another prophet. well then this contradicts what jesus says in the gospel of john. he says to his disciples and i quote: ““I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into ALL truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.” this statement clearly indicates that there will be someone else who will guide them unto al truth. now we can discuss who this person is but that can be discussed at another time. we say that this person is the holy prophet muhammad (S). al says in the holy quran that this person does not speak out of his own desire and only speaks when commanded by al just like jesus confirmed.
The real issue is how we live. For me, the real injeel relates to faith in God and love for one another. That was the message of Jesus. I don’t see why I need anything else beyond that. If I love other people, I will never do harm to them. If I have faith in God, I will walk in his ways. I see no reason to make it any more complicated than this.
i agree with you that the real injeel does relate to having faith in god as jesus himself said in the gospel of john that to have internal life, one must believe in jesus and in god as stated” they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent”. also somebody asks jesus in the gospel of mathew about how to achieve eternal life. jesus responds that he must keep the commandments so having faith in jesus alone and god is not sufficient. one must also keep the commandments of moses. [quote author=“goldenhawk786” date=“1266032258”> as jesus (AS) himself said that “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” so he was sent (as i have mentioned before) to tell the jews where they were going wrong in the torah and also expose their hypocrisy as they were not following the true teachings of moses (AS).
Here again, you have quoted the written gospels when they support your position. I agree that Jesus came to the Jews. But he clearly intended his message to apply to everyone. As he said in Matthew 28:19, “make disciples of all nations.”
i beleive that the nations meaning here is meant abot the tribes of the jews. there were many tribes. otherwise if jesus did mean nations (as in the whole world), then he would be contradicting himself be saying go not unto the gentiles.
Christians and Muslims have a violent history. It doesn’t really matter who is to blame - both sides share in that. Christians say that Jesus is the prince of peace. Muslims say that Islam is a religion of peace. The entire world would probably thank us if both of us lived up to what we claim about our own faiths. But Muslims and Christians don’t even get along with their own brethren. Catholics and Protestants have been killing each other for centuries, as have Shiites and Sunnis. I can’t blame people for not believing in either or any religion. Historically, both Christians and Muslims have been absolute hypocrites, bringing shame to the name of God.
i agree with you. it is a real shame that people who beleive in islam and Christianity should behave contrary to there beliefs. but then again, they are not true muslim or christians and most are hypocrites. al says in the quran that the grateful are only a few. so i totally agree with you on this one.
So, I’ll live at peace with you if you will with me. There has been too much killing.
i would rather have you living as my neighbour than a hypocrite muslim. so i would live at peace with you also.
Dennis Campbell :
Difference between a Bruce and Goldenhawk is that if someone disagrees with Bruce, he says in effect “how sad,” and continues on his way. Disagree with Goldenhawk, and planes fly into buildings.
Dennis
what an idiot you really are. tell me, how much is fox news paying you to say and beleive in this sort of stuff ? also why are you guys in this thread? this is a debate between me and bruce. who invited you ? if you want monkey vs human debate, then start up a new thread and i will talk you guys in there. stop trying to derail this thread you apes.
Bruce Burleson:
As usual, these threads descend into incivility.
you are damn right there bruce. me and you were talking just fine until these chimps starting rattling their cages and got loose. whats the number so i can have them locked up? its to dangerous to let these baboons roam freely in here.
-
all this insulting could have been avoided. bruce asked me to engage in a civilised debate regarding the two faiths and we were talking just fine until goodygraydrab threw a banana at me from his cage. so dont turn it all around and play the victim card like the USA.
goodgraydrab:
You should be at peace, you have the same god. I’m an ape who belongs in the zoo.
WOOOOOOW ! I actually agree with this statement. see guys? this proves i am not brianwashed. i do agree from time to time when someone talks sense. Truth does come eventually ! LOL
-
i will challenge any athiest here in a civilised debate in a DIFFERENT thread, but not this one. can’t you guys just leave me alone or are you glutton for punishment? just because i have beaten you in the other threads, does not mean you can start your swinging in here. Mr Bruce, why are you allowing these un-beleivers the opportunity to derail this thread? if you cant stop them then can you get me some tranqilizers? i need to put these apes to sleep as i can think properely with all their cages rattling.
-
Bruce Burleson:
Back to the original discussion while we are also having the civility discussion:
Christians believe that the Spirit of truth is the Holy Spirit, who lives within the believer. It does not refer to a man, such as a prophet.
i dont believe it is the spirit of truth as you say. if it was the spirit of truth, then it was dwelling with the disiples at the time of jesus, so there was no need for jesus to say “if i dont go, he wont come”. also you need to look further at john 16:13 carefully. jesus says” But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.” this shows it was something OTHER than the spirit of truth dwelling in man because there jesus places a condition. the condition is clear, if i dont go, he wont come. also jesus mentions, that the spirit of truth (by the way, spirit also means prophet in the bible) will only speak what he hears from god. this can be meaning only that there was someone who would receive revelation from god and convey the message. furthermore, jesus says that he will guide you into ALL truth. i am asking, what NEW thing has the spirit of truth given you what jesus could not.
Jesus told his disciples to go to the Jews, not to the Gentiles, because the Jews had to hear the message first. After they had heard it (and largely rejected it), the “great commission” was for the disciples to go to all the nations, which is what Christianity has done.
how have you deduced that jesus wanted to give then message to the jews first and then afterwards to everyone ? why not preach to all regardless of jews or not ?
There is much that Muhammad taught that is consistent with what Jesus taught. Even if we disagree (and we will) about who Jesus was and who Muhammad was, there is enough that is consistent between the two faiths to allow both to live together in harmony, unless some of the adherents to either faith don’t want there to be peace.
i 100% agree with you. if only more people were like you bruce. if you read the biography about the holy prophet (S), you will see that he allowed the Christians to debate with him and allow them live peacefully in the land.
Now, the atheists on this forum say that they believe in reason. It would certainly seem reasonable to want peace. So if atheists want peace based on reason, and Christians and Muslims want peace based on the teachings of their respective faiths, it would seem that we all desire the same goal, at least for this life. So, let there be peace.
i dont think they want peace, its their arrogant nature and always looking down upon believers which have led them to behave in this way.
-
@bruce...i am up for your suggestion. but i dont think it will last due to their hatred for me. they want to ban me. banning me would be an honour for me. i cant wait to show your posts to myfriends to show when you atheists are beaten fair and square, you resort to cowards tactics like intimidation and violence just like the US government does with their drone strikes.
go ahead ban me, this would be an intellectual martyrdom for me. when they cant win, they want to gag me. this must be a smaller version of guantanamo bay. i bet given a chance you atheists would water-board me and torture me. your cordial behavior is at stake here. your so called “great” secular values are being displayed here.
this all started when some members started to insult my God and my Prophet. they said really really derogatroy terms. really bad stuff. how do you expect me to react.
that is also one of the reason why i have put some of them on ignore.
-
Dennis Campbell :
The message is we have to be tolerant and patient with GH’s posts, but we must never run the risk of even seeming to criticize his or him.
Dennis
I dont mind criticism, to tell you the truth i welcome it. hearing it makes be a better person. but when i criticise you atheists, you seems to go berserk. maybe you think im going to take your banana from you. I am not. I am not cruel to deny you your favourite food.
-
like i said, me and bruce were talking fine until one of your lot came and spoiled everything. then you have the nerve and said it was my fault ? is this your way of dealing fairly? is it reasonable?
-
@bruce….see i told you. you cant take seriously. forget 50 posts, they cant last just 5 without haiving at go at us. this should not be called reason project, it should be called something else.
-
ok, i will give you guys the benefit of the doubt. although this thread was originally intended for bruce only, but i will bend over backwards to display my fairness and willing to engage in a civilized debate. although english is not my first language, i will try my best to respond clearly as possible. also another note to remember is, the english i use will be the British version. it is slightly different to the american english.
just remember, i dont mind you criticizing me or my faith. i can accept that and would welcome it. however, there is a difference between criticizing and insulting like other members have done. again, i must clearly emphasize this point; if you all start insulting me again, or if this starts to become a slagging match, then i reserve the right to respond.
as for goodgraydrab and w.collins, i won’t answer them because they said very bad things about my god and my holy prophet (S), therefore unless they retract their words and apologise, they will remain on ignore.
so do you ALL agree?
-
W. Collins:
The Qu’ran specifically stated that Muhammad raped a 9 year old girl (9 year old girls cannot consent). All I did was use the word “pedophile” when I was referring to a pedophile.
this is what you call plain ignorance! you guys claim to be reasonable and fair? i am sure all reasonable people should have some sort of evidence BEFORE opening their mouth when you attack islam or the holy prophet (S). the problem is you dont bother checking and go of hearsay. i can understand if it was sheba who was stating the above quote, but this is coming from unbiased and “thinking” people. if this was in a court of law, not only would your case be dismissed, but you would be actually fined for wasting the courts time !
i give you once example and i rest my case on this. if i am proven wrong, then i will stop posting in this forum forever. if i am right then you should have the decency to at least apologise and admit you have made a mistake.
the above quote about is stated that it is in the holy quran. show me it and i will leave islam. this is a blatant lie and NOWHERE does it say this in the quran. i am very surprised. if this is the level of iignorance, then i wonder where i can begin with you guys?
eudemonia:
As I posted way back in one of these threads, Muhammed also had people murdered. I am sure that is probably not in the Koran either but, it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Muslims still have to account for that, as pedophilia may be able to be explained away because of the era, but surely not murder. Unless Allah told him to do it of course.
where does it say he murdered people? this is another example how you accuse someone without evidence. i am truly amazed. you say that just because it is not in the quran, it must have happened and murdered people ? is this your reasoning? does your logic and reason remind you that a person is Innocent until PROVEN guilty? or does this principle of justice cease to exist when it comes to muslims? this shows your prejudice when it comes to islam. what is truly disturbing, you did not provide any evidence whatsoever, even a phony evidence. you just assumed he was guilty. even today you would be done for libel in a court of law.
according to your reasoning, i may as well say richard dawkins has murdered people, and then say although i cannot find this in his book but surely he must have murdered someone! does this sound reasonable or absurd to you? what would a judge say to that kind of statement? i will leave that to the viewer to decide.
-
first of all, let’s get things clear. i still stand by my statement. the marriage event to aisha is not mentioned in the holy quran. the holy quran for me is an authority. everything in there is true. what you guys have quoted me, is from a weak hadith which is found in sahih bukhari. there is a bing difference. if you all think that sahih bukhari and the quran hold the same authority, then you really need to study islam further. sahih bukhari was written over 100 years AFTER the holy prophet (S) passed away. there are many fake hadith (sayings) attributed to the prophet (S) found in sahih bukhari. the quran is the criterion of truth. if a hadith contradicts the quran, then the hadith is false. i hope i have made this point clear to you as i dont want to keep repeating myself when you keep mentioning this point.
so at what age did aisha get married ? some historians mention that she was 14 years old. i am for this view. you may wonder that this still may be to young. what you have to remember is that in islam, a 14 year old is quite capable to getting married. its only NOW that in the western world, sex is allowed at 18. however, even in the usa, a few decades ago, there were states that allowed a woman to get married before 16. also there are many reports even in the western world where girls got married before 16.you really need to research into this before pointing fingers at us. its your politicians that keep changing their minds about what age is right to get married. in my view, once a girl starts puberty, then she can get married. Hope that answers the question.
as for johny1999, dont worry, i havent forgotton about your question. i just thought that this was a priority. i will deal with your question next when i get the time. god willing so please be patient.
-
johnnyb1999 :
I’ll post a few questions first. Goldenhawk, recent surveys have found that 23% or so of UK Muslims aged 18-25 would advocate violence, including suicidal violence, in defence of Islam. Do you agree with this view? What is your opinion on this? Secondly, going back as far as the fatwa imposed on Salman Rushdie in 1989, on to the 9/11 attacks and the 7/7 bombings, why is the reaction from the moderate Muslim community so muted? In all these cases, the moderate Muslim community should have reacted in horror at these event, but remained very quiet. Is this acceptable in your view? Could you explain your answer either way?
i have given a similar answer in a different thread. however, i will give a brief response here. english is not my first language so please try to understand what i am trying to say.
first of all, i don’t know where you got the 23% figure from. perhaps you would like to give me the link? I live in the uk so i can’t speak for muslim in the USA, but for muslim living in europe and particularly in the UK, the majority are peaceful law abiding citizens. there are no extremists or moderates. th the image you are receiving and are being brainwashed by it. there is only ONE islam and ONE way of life. you must realise that people of different faiths regularly murder people, all they need is an excuse. if people carry out atrocities in the name of religion, then they dont belong to that religion. why cant you guys understand this point? also if there is such a thing as moderates, then what can they do? what can you do about your hawks in the republican who launched an illegal invasion or iraq? who murdered and killed innocent men, women and children? who condoned rendition flights, who dick cheney said torture (such as water boarding) is acceptable.
i am aware and do acknowledge that there is a small minority. this minority (which exists in all groups of people), who do murder in the name of islam, they are brainwashed by some hate preachers leading them to believe that they are dong a good act. however, although i am not taking their side, they do have some valid points, but it does not mean they should go out and kill innocent people. I condemn in the most strongest terms WHOEVER kills innocent people. i always say to people that they must judge islam or any religion by it’s teachings and not the people. can i say all a are bad because of stalin, MAO or any other leader? can i christianity is bad because of the inquisition or because of the foreign policy of the US ?
i am a very devout muslim, belonging to the shia faith of islam. as i have mentioned before, english is not my first language. i have no hostility to the western people in general. but i hate the decades old US foreign policy which has terrorised and kill innocent men, women and children and still continue to do so. why dont you condemn the west and their hostile stance against the muslim? decades of US foreign policy against muslim lands have led to people frustrated and angered. some resort to the extremism of blowing up innocent people which i disagree and condemn but i can understand their frustration. although i am against them, these people are using religion to justify their heinous crimes. these people could have been any other religion or no religion at all. however, playing the devils advocate and from th point of view, they claim that west is at war with islam and the USA is the biggest terrorist ever. when they see on the news every day that the US has murdered more innocent muslim, how would you expect them to react? what would you do if some countries begins a war on a and starts to kill them indiscriminately?
what did you liberal minded people do to stop the republicans invading iraq illegally? Nothing ! or is might always right ? who is in the majority in your country? liberals or the extremists who like war? if it is the extremists, then you should fix your “own house” first. if it was the liberals then why not force a change through democracy? in fact you re-elected bush again ! even george bush (who has an IQ of 0) made a good statement for once in his life. although he still stuttered and could not formulate a sentence correctly, but the idiot did manage to say, and i quote: “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”. so your people re-elected bush twice knowing what kind of person he and his neocons were. i wonder where the real shame lies ? the government or the people ?
to conclude, i emphasize again, islam totally rejects killing innocent people. there are so many versus in the holy quran that support this view. from the survey recently taken regarding muslim stance on terrorism, a over-whelming majority were against the bombings and other terror related incidents. read the link below for further proof. below is a section relating to terrorism. this is my reliable shia website where most of my faith is explained.
i suggest you read the link below thoroughly and carefully.
http://www.al-islam.org/dilp_statement.html
please read carefully all what i have said above, because i hate repeating myself when people dont read my posts carefully.
Dennis Campbell:
GH,
Is the following quote out of context: “Fight and slay the unbelievers wherever ye find them?” Quran, Sura 9.5.
Dennis
yes and you know it is. i am surprised that the verse you have quoted is coming from a “thinker”. people like you usually quote this verse out of context with the intention of finding faults or having pre-conceived ideas. you will never reach the truth with this approach.
In order to understand the context, you need to read from verse 1 of this chapter and a few verses after the quote you gave. If you bother to read carefully and if you were well acquainted with some historical background, then you would have figured it out. however, i will do the homework for you just this once because i am feeling in a good mood today!
to summarize, It says that there was a peace treaty between the Muslims and the unbelievers (the pagans) of Mecca. This treaty was violated by the unbelievers of Mecca. A period of 4 months was then given to the unbelievers of mecca to make amends (e.g. repent). Otherwise it was cleat that war would be declared against them.
i am sure you that if any country breaks a treaty, then there will be consequences for that nation. what the consequences are would depend on the nature of the violation and treaty.
Dennis Campbell:
GH,
Your kindness is breathtaking.
is that sarcastic statement ?
Seemed to me the quote was worth asking about, so you’re saying it is in a limited historical context and does not apply to a broader generality or present times. If so, you’re also saying that Islamic, and, for that matter, many Christian texts, either have no modern applicability or they have to be interpreted so as to adapt to modern times. The crux then, is in the interpretation, as opposed to a literal application.My follow-up question is why do so many avowed Islamics who kill others who’re not an immediate threat, such as prisoners or hostages, do so citing their Islamic beliefs as justification?
some verses are literal and have no context nor an interpretation is required. however the quran can be a complicated book for those who are not well rooted in islamic traditions and history. to truly appreciate and gain an understanding of the quran, one must undertake a comprehensive research of the verses as every verse was there for a reason. its when people just take some versus out of context to justify their argument or action.
Appreciate I hope accurately your reply, I will await your replies to other questions as well, particulary those relating to your views on Western civil laws as in my #114 post above.
you going to have to be patient dennis. i just about answered jhonyb1999 question which he asked a few days ago. so i can’t possibly reply to all atheist questions. i dont do it deliberately, i forget as there are lots questions and there are more of you and i only have one pair of hands. also i am on different forums and trying to answer their questions. os what i try to do is prioritize according to importance of the question. i am not saying your questions are insignificant, but i reply to what I think is most important. plus the fact i am working and have a family life. i am sure you understand if i have missed your and other people’s questions
Dennis Campbell :
GH,
I agree that such quotes I cited above are often used by people as a basis for criticizing Islam, and they may be unfair, incomplete and out of context as you suggest. However, when Islamic public media shows some captive, male and female, being be-headed while the executioners are yelling “God is great!,” and when a Danish cartoonist is condemned to death for depicting a face or people are executed in Iran for criticizing god, you I hope will agree that such kind of scenes and acts tend to create a negative image of Islam in most of the western world.
i agree with you. yes it does create a negative image in the western world. but media is supposed to be un-biased. therefore they are entitled to display graphical images ot people being killed if they want to. according to the media, these killings are not carried out because they want to show the world what islam is about but they are carried out for JUSTICE by islamic individuals as a deterrent for future criminals. similarly, if someone was guilty in the USA and the media wanted to publicly display an electric chair execution for the purpose to deter the criminals, then by all means they are entitled to it.
It is not, by and large, Western, secular people who’re using their religious beliefs as justification for killing or harming others; that has been done more by some Islamic people. I’ve no particular interest at all in religion, I’m one of the “unbelievers,” except when some religion is issued as a basis and justification for imposing control over others and for killing them. No one here arguing that Western countries and governments are innocent of behaving in a questionable manner towards other countries, or that we’re always somehow perfect and blameless. I do not hear anywhere near that degree of self or national criticism being expressed by self-proclaimed Islamic representatives.
But, as you kindly implied, I’m obviously not a “thinker,” so I defer to your superior wisdom if you’ll be so kind as to correct my deficiencies or mistakes.
where is you evidence that “islamic” people are commiting the most attocoties? was Hitler, Stalin, MAO all muslim? are russia and china who have murdered hundereds of their own citizens muslim ? remember the The Tiananmen Square masscare shown on TV where china bought out tanks to kill their own students. were they muslims? is the US war machine (who are indiscriminately killing INNOCENT muslim on a DAILY basis ) muslim? whats most disturbing is that in the run up to the illegal iraq invasion, americans were told that saddam had used chemical weapons and that he needed to be stopped. i cant beleive the nerve for the US government to say this when it was the US who supplied and armed saddam with the same weapons. it was the US who overthrew the democratically elected governement in iran back in the 1950’s.
on the contrary, more muslim have been killed by non-muslim since 9/11. more muslim women, children have been killed than the those who died on 9/11. israel since 1948 have slaughtered muslim, flouted UN resolutions, are occupying illegally. invaded other countries, used illegal weapons etc. unless US takes it’s big nose and stops interfering in the muslim countries, then there shall be no peace in the middle east. i really need a whole new thread to fully make my case on the actions of US foreign policy and israel. no wonder the muslims are frustrated and angered by the western aggression. you really should look into these factors first and then weigh them up and evaluate yourself on who the real terrorists are. as the saying goes…“dont throw stones if you are living in a glass house”
Dennis Campbell :
GH,
If you wish to portray Islam as a peaceful religion, your arguments are made somewhat difficult by these broadcast images and condemnations.
i agree it does not help by these people committing murders in the name of islam. i always say you should judge the teachings by the book and not by the people, otherwise no one will have a leg to stand on. if an atheist committed crimes, i will say that this atheist is bad and not all athiests, unless its in your teachings. but then again you dont have a universal moral code book do you? its all about individual opinions and this is why, i believe, atheism is so dangerous. but we can discuss this at a later stage.
This a thread discussing the allegedy superior moral attributes of Islam.
in due course, step by step, god willing, i will prove my case that islam not only has the best morals, but has the only morals which man should live by. i have to go now as its getting late in the UK. peace !
@teuchter....I actually agree with MOST of your last post. however, you said on post 127 and i quote “If you are Muslim, and you believe that the conduct of suicide bombers, for example, is wrong, then you cannot merely announce that the suicide bombers must not really be Muslims. It is your responsibility to speak out against it. Silence is complicity.”
have you not read my post number 116 where i have condemned the killing of Innocent people. i have given you a link to read. you should really have read my post before commenting. i have posted the link below AGAIN now so please read before saying anything else.
http://www.al-islam.org/dilp_statement.html
also most of you are also guilty or not doing enough or remaining silent. why is the world silent on gaza? its a virtual prison. a strict blockade. hardly any electric, no gas, no clean water. how can you sleep at night knowing all this? ok, you may not agree with hamas (although they were democratically elected), but what about the innocent women and children who are denied the basics of life and stripped of all thier dignity? what have you done? i cant see the US government looking into this. i dont see them changing their policy about gaza. i cant see the us telling israel to stop the illegal settlements. all you guys are doing is avoiding or concealing this issue and diverting it to islam.
Dennis Campbell :
This man is a “true believer,” one of the more frightening kinds of people running about, and he is totally unable to distinguish himself from his theistic beliefs, to admit of any question or doubt, or that he can be questioned in his efforts to impose his beliefs on everyone else. To use GGD’s comment, he is a theological “spammer.”
Bruce Burleson :
Remember, Dennis, the goal was to go 50 posts without anyone calling anyone names. You are coming close to the line here.
johnnyb1999:
Bruce, please stop looking for problems where there are none. The brief for this ‘conversation’ was for people to not pull any punches. Dennis was doing that perfectly well without crossing any line of decorum. Compared to previous topics and posts on this topic, we now have an oasis of civility and mature conversation.
@johnnyb1999…i do feel there is something boiling as attempts to break the deal have come close by some of these posts. i am sticking to my side of the deal, but i feel this thread may not last long due long. by the way, i have replied to your questions.
Dennis Campbell:
GH,
You said: “all you guys are doing is avoiding or concealing this issue and diverting it to islam.”
Obviously, I and almost everyone posting in reply to you here, was under the distinct impression it was you who has been advancing the superior morality of Islam, so I guess I do not understand your complaint about “diverting it to Islam.”
yes i want to discuss this, that was one of the reasons why i came to this forum in the first place to try to educate you lot and remove misconceptions regarding islam.
To repeat an earlier post (#114), what do you propose Islam’s superior morality would advocate with regard to such issues as:
1. Same sex marriages
2. Women seeking divorces
3. People being free from state sanctions in speaking against state and/or theistic authorities
4. Women having the same legal rights and priveleges as men
5. The right of a population to freely elect representatives that is not limited by religious proscriptions
6. The right to freely practice or not practice any religious beliefs, as long as they do not seek to impose by force those beliefs on others
7. The right of women to seek abortions
8. The primacy of secular laws derived from a democratic process over theological laws in the governance of a society
There are a few dozen more, but for the moment, these will do for now for your reply.
Dennis
below are the quick brief answers to your questions. by all means, we can debate all of these in depth later.
1. Totally out of the question. No sex marriages should be allowed because it is immoral.
2. That’s allowed in islam. in fact, only recently (about 60 years) , it has been accepted in the west as something acceptable. while in islam, this was allowed 1400 years ago.
3. as long as you your grievance is within the law of the land, there is no punishment for you. however, if you are trying to revolt, cause mischief or try to destabalize an islamic state (like the US is trying to do with iran), then your will he held accountable.
4. did you know islam had given more freedom to women long before the west ever did ? so of course women are given equal rights to men, but not in all situations. for example, women cant be head of state or cant become a genreal like a man. for the obvious physical and mental reasons. (men can endure more, physcially and mentaly when the going gets tough). women are emotional creatures, they cant handle pressure, they are incapable of making tough decisions. before you start blowing your top, his has been proven and i will be more than happy to discuss this with you further.
5. if the population wants to vote an idiot like george bush, then it will be their stupidity and loss. look what happened when you guys voted for him. you really think it did your country any good?
6. you are allowed to worship the devil if you want, as long as you dont impose this on others or start making trouble in society. so you atheists are welcome to remain as infidels. however, your going to be in deep trouble in the next life.
7. this would NOT be allowed. you have no right to kill a life, expect by justice or if your life is threatened. life is sacred. does not matter if the age is only a few weeks or 60 years old.
8. this question would not arise as muslims would not vote for secular law in favour of god’s law. why would i want to choose man made laws, which are full of flaws, that will lead to my destruction ultimately ?
you may agree or disagree with me but i am being honest and i wont be apologetic when it comes to my religion or try to please you. i will call a spade a spade whether you like it or not.
again please remember, i may miss your posts or forget to answer your queries. there are lots of you guys but only one of me. also am on different forums and do have a life other than the internet one. so be patient
-
I beleive, Islam is a religion which gives freedom of life, ideas and thought. It has forbidden tension and conflict among people, even to the extent of having negative thoughts about another individual without any reason (like you guys have do to me).
Islam does not only forbid terror and violence, but also even the slightest imposition of any idea on another human being. I quote you a verse from the holy quran:
There is no compulsion in religion. Right guidance has become clearly distinct from error. Anyone who rejects false gods and believes in God has grasped the Firmest Handhold, which will never give way. God is All-Hearing, All-Knowing. (Surat al-Baqara: 256)
So remind, you need only to remind. You cannot compel them to believe. (Surat al-Ghashiyah: 22)
To force anyone to believe in a religion or to practice it, is against the spirit and essence of Islam. I hope i have made this point clear. Because it is necessary that faith be accepted with free will and conscience. Of course, Muslims may urge one another to keep the moral precepts taught in the Qur’an, but they never use force. In any case, an individual cannot be induced to the practice of religion by either threat or offering him a worldly privilege.
ok, let us imagine a completely opposite model of society. let me give you guys an example. imagine a world in which people are forced by law to practice religion. i beleive such a model of society is completely contrary to Islam because faith and worship have value only when they are directed toward God. so if there were a system that forced people to believe and worship, people would be religious only out of fear of the system. what is acceptable from the point of view of religion is that religion should be practiced in an environment where freedom of conscience is permitted, and that it be practiced only for the approval of God and worship is only accepted with sincerity and free will, not out of fear.
-
this is an article given to me by my friend and i wanted to share this with you lot. i have posted this on another thread of mine in this forum but i wanted to post this here. anyway, i was shocked when i read this. this shows what lengths and to what extent these desperate evolutionists can do to deceive people.
In 1949, Kenneth Oakley, from the British Museum’s Paleontology Department, attempted to use “fluorine testing,” a new test used for determining the date of fossils. A trial was made on the fossil of Piltdown man. The result was astonishing. During the test, it was realized that the jawbone of Piltdown man did not contain any fluorine. This indicated that it had remained buried no more than a few years. The skull, which contained only a small amount of fluorine, showed that it was only a few thousand years old.
It was determined that the teeth in the jawbone, belonging to an orangutan, had been worn down artificially and that the “primitive” tools discovered with the fossils were simple imitations that had been sharpened with steel implements. In the detailed analysis completed by Joseph Weiner, this forgery was revealed to the public in 1953. The skull belonged to a 500-year-old man, and the jaw bone belonged to a recently deceased ape! The teeth had been specially arranged in a particular way and added to the jaw, and the molar surfaces were filed in order to resemble those of a man. Then all these pieces were stained with potassium dichromate to give them an old appearance. These stains began to disappear when dipped in acid.
Sir Wilfred Le Gros Clark, who was in the team that uncovered the forgery, could not hide his astonishment at this situation, and said: “The evidences of artificial abrasion immediately sprang to the eye. Indeed so obvious did they seem it may well be asked-how was it that they had escaped notice before?“234 In the wake of all this, “Piltdown man” was hurriedly removed from the British Museum where it had been displayed for more than 40 years"
i wonder what else you guys are hiding….
johnnyb1999:
As the great Irish comedian Dara O’Briain said ‘....people say, “ah, well science can’t tell us the answers to everything”. Well, that’s why it’s feckin’ well called science. If we knew everything, it would be called ‘fact’ or ‘knowledge’ instead’, (probably not a word for word exact quote, but close enough).
i dont know everything about islam, no muslim today would claim this. its all about research. thats one of the beauty of islam, it encourages research, not just on islam itself, but on different faiths and ideas. that’s why i am here. but evolutionists like people in this forum are generally arrogant. they “think” they know it all and look down upon religion which is wrong although they only follow a theory and not a fact. so how can one who is incomplete in understanding the origin of life, mock or ridicule those have an alternative answer to them and simple dismiss the idea?
I could copy and paste similar stories about the Turin Shroud, or the thousands of supposed ‘fragments of the cross’ or pieces of the Ark etc etc.
of course you may find many religious faiths who may be hiding the truth. but religion is a deception in itself according to you guys so why should one be surprised if fraud in religion has been found? but to deceive people in evolution, which you believe to be accurate, well thats just shameful. for example, if a persistent theif steals something, it will still be condemned. but a police officer who is there as a representative of the law steals, well that would be more condemn-worthy.
goodgraydrab :
So what’s the verdict? Where’s Bruce? Johnny? I say the test failed. Examine all the other threads that reveal continued insults and incivility. Being restrictive to this one thread only would be hypocritical. I agree with sheba. I’m done. In my opinion, this is one sick dude and he’s not the worst of them. Just shows you what we’re up against.
Bruce Burleson:
It went well. I was just teaching you how to have a civil conversation, and other than the profane rantings of that heathen bastard Dennis it worked out just fine.
Seriously, maybe civility didn’t get us anywhere, but it got us just as far as we would have gotten without civility. So, all things being equal, civility is better. Besides, it challenges the intellect to learn how to rip people without using four letter words.
see i told you bruce. they are getting annoyed because they thought i wouldnt live up to the deal and this is frustrating them badly. anyway like i said, i am sticking to my side of the deal in THIS thread, but if they break the deal first, then it will show…...
well, i will leave that upto you to decide. by the way, you guys should read this article. it gives you a good idea about the US policy. in case you guys think it may be biased, i think the author’s name will give it away on whether he is muslim or not.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger155.html
i have to go now. i am in a hurry. peace
-
why you athiests gone all quiet ? i was just watching sam harris (your hero) giving a lecture on youtube. although he is an idiot and thinks he knows about islam, he is just a grunt. also he said you guys should not call yourselves atheist. must be ashamed of himself giving that label. its like asking a homosexual, not to call yourself gay. why not ? you ashiests should be proud of it. i know his reason why he does not want to be called an atheist or to be labeled as one, but that’s for you guys to figure out. check it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KG5s_-Khvg&feature=player_embedded
Dennis Campbell:
As but an ignorant supplicant seeking whatever enlightenment you might honor me by providing, you might look at Bruce v. GH—ding ding ding ding ding
where we all await your wisdom with due humility.
i have briefly visited the thread. i know bruce but who is this mario? from the posts, i gather he is a christian like bruce but from a different sect? i dont want to spoil that thread, because i am brutal in my beliefs and i wont hold back. there is be war if i start participating. it wont be my fault as they wont be able to handle the truth therefore i will observe from the touch lines.
Please, by all that is Holy, do not restrain yourself from conferring on all of us the honor of your wisdom. Our lives would not be the same without it. Brother Mario and you have a great deal in common.
@dennis...i want to take part but i know there will be trouble from all sides and it will just get ugly. so whats the point? they or you guys cant handle me when the going gets tough. simple as that.
W. Collins:
Yeah he might call us monkeys or point us to a list of long ago debunked Christian creationist apologetic myths. Everyone must be terrified.
you guys are really a bunch of idiots, with clearly nothing better to do. if only i was there when your parents were giving birth to you lot. i would have arrested them. the charge would be “Disturbance of the Peace”. Trying to explain something to you lot is like trying to give a fish a bath !
rays:
goldenhawk786,
Has Dennis Campbell ever held a one to one direct debate with you in a new thread where no one else interfered ?
On another thread [Delusions of Atheists], I asked the Crazy Curerer and, he claims he has.
no he has not and cannot and will not, because deep in him primitive mind, he does not have intellectual capability to debate with me on either, Islam, evolution, morals etc… not only him, but the rest of the apes can’t hold a 1 to 1 debate. they rely on other apes to gang up on me and as always, when they know i am on top of the debate, they always derail the thread. classic primate manoeuvre.
Ok. Thanks goldenhawk786. The matter is clear now. Dennis Campbell simply lied.
Dennis told me that he had held such a debate with you. He went on to accuse me of not noticing it.
Its ok. I can understand why the crazy doc did that. Its natural for him.
As God told us in the Quran 1400 years ago, Atheists have no morals, even the so-called “educated” ones.
-
hey goldenhawk,
Atheists are asking you more about their own evolution. You seem to know a bit about the primates.
Jefe said you dont come on that thread anymore:
“Evolution and God”:
like i said, i am willing to deal with one primate at a time. one 2 one debate means NOBODY should join in. its very simple but maybe once their brains are more “evolved” then they may understand the meaning of the definition and respect my conditions. but like allah says in the quran, some of these people are deaf dumb and blind. i would personally like to add stupid hell dwelling, rebellious ignorant fools also.
Lets make it clear for everyone here:
So, you goldenhawk786, are always up for an agreed debate with any Atheist on this forum, as long as no other, to use your term, “monkey” interferes in your discussion?
Is that right?
that is correct. is that to much to ask ray ? why cant the rest of the apes just sit and watch at the sidelines? how difficult can it be? in fact, lets not talk about islam, because i would win easily. i want to talk about their favourite topics (evolution and general atheism). i think i would find that more challenging, but it looks like they are running away from those subjects now ! well i am not surprised at this. their “faith” on evolution makes as much sense as dawkins believing that aliens may have started life on this planet. i think he has been watching to many science fiction movies. i mean come on! the 1950’s sci fi era is over ! this is the age of reason and logic. or maybe thats just wishful thinking with these hairy baboons.
-
burt:
Okay, looks like we can forget this thread, it’s degenerated into two ninnies jerking each other off. Thought that sort of behavior was frowned on in Islam.
listen you atheist, who invited you to the “humans and believers only” conference? you get back and talk to your fellow apes and have a good banana fight. the only two people i am can reasonably talk to is ray and Gila Guerilla. at least they can hold a decent conversation without resorting to insults and are not prejudice like most of you guys. anyway what the hell is a ninni ? and how is my behaviour frowned upon in islam ?
--
[ debate continues... 13 ]
____________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please leave your email for replies.