- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 21 2009,17:30) Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 21 2009,10:43) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 21 2009,07:40) BD if all the atmospheric oxygen disappeared we would be in danger instantly. If all bodies of water vanished we would be in strife pretty soon. A lack of food would begin to kill us within weeks. If love and human company deserted us we would also begin to suffer in short order. These are all things we would need back as essential components of living as a human. If islam disappeared this afternoon, could you make a compelling case for needing to reinvent it?
Stuart
Yes, If I am to believe that God created this world then I would need to consume the oxygen, water and food that was created for our benefit as well as human company. I would go to God in Peace(Islam) and ask him to no beg for him to bless us with what we were already blessed with.You seem to think I see God only in the terms of a certain religion but the greatest “Book” is the creation and nature itself it speaks volumes for God. The whole universe already submits to God willingly or unwillingly the whole Universe ia a MUSLIM/Submitter.
Even you will bow at death just like you entered life bowing and prostrated with tears!
And the other thing I did was to kind of beg the question, that islam would even need to be invented by humans, that it is not a divine inspiration.What you write is all your own assertion, which is fair enough as that is all god-believer have anyway, however perhaps I could re-ask the question in this way (taking the bits about oxygen, food and love as read):
Once you had enjoyed the restoration of food, water, human companionship and love, why is there any particular reason to go out of your way to spend time and energy to form a 'relationship' with your god? Why submit to it? Why not just be indifferent or neutral about it?
Stuart
Well as you already know it is quite natural for Humans to have a desire to interact with their surroundings.We like to acquire plants and pets for our homes although these are already in ample supply all around them and we like to connect to others just as me and you are doing right now, but the bigger question is how do you think we are connecting?
I sit here typing on a keyboard 3000 miles away from someone I only know as Stu, Stu need not even be a human Stu could be a program designed to communicate but somehow I get satisfaction interacting with “Stu” My point is I don't even know if Stu exists.
Now, when it comes to God the accumalation of the experience of God has made me realize there is a God. Now suppose I spoke to you on the phone, you mailed me a letter, you put a video on you tube addressing me and others say they have also interacted with Stu in these sorts of ways wouldn't I then have reason to believe that “Stu” exists?
Now, why should I submit to God? Well let's see what submit means:
sub·mit (sb-mt) KEY
VERB:
sub·mit·ted, sub·mit·ting, sub·mits
VERB:
tr.To yield or surrender (oneself) to the will or authority of another.
To subject to a condition or process.
To commit (something) to the consideration or judgment of another. See Synonyms at propose.
To offer as a proposition or contention: I submit that the terms are entirely unreasonable.
VERB:
intr.To give in to the authority, power, or desires of another. See Synonyms at yield.
To allow oneself to be subjected to something.——————————————————————————–
ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English submitten, from Latin submittere, to set under : sub-, sub- + mittere, to cause to goNow considering all those definitions and seeing the etymology of the word wouldn't submitting myself to The One who has everything in His command be the Most beneficial way to live?
What happens in school when students don't submit themselves to the process of education or the authority of the instructor? They Fail! But not only do they fail, that failure effects others long after the school failure it may even affect the children of the person.
Re apostacy as an ethical move: I think your examples illustrate what I was claiming:. I think a teacher who feels the school system is corrupt SHOULD stop being a teacher! Or do something pretty active to change it. We could debate the ethics of Henry VIII but essentially he didn’t like it so he let his feet do the talking. It was done for political and selfish reasons, but I think that particular schism could be argued more widely (whether it was his thinking or not) as a morally right thing for him to do. The Catholic church is a great example: A Catholic who feels that it is a travesty of justice that his church, guilty of covering up child rape, should be allowed to just basically just carry on, should really consider his membership of that organisation. Of course that is not the way of religions: they claim you for life and react badly when you decide to ‘switch provider’. In fact, one of them famously passes death sentences for the crime of making personal religious choices.
Re killing non-believers: I really can’t see the difference made by claiming that killing happens during war, and I am not convinced that 4:89 applies specifically to war anyway. However, where is the credibility in a religion changing its principles during wartime? There is the fourth article of the Geneva Convention that forbids 4:89 in warfare! If is suddenly becomes OK to treat non-believers specifically in this way, then I think you might have an explanation for why islam’s borders are soaked with blood. Islam is in a perpetual state of war with the rest of the world!
Re genetics:
The argument that the first replicating molecule was not created does not depend on what it was. The corollary is illogical though, and a common mode of thinking for the creationist: ‘you can’t explain it therefore it must have been my god that did it’. The problem there is that the creationist has done no explaining either. As for the god he asserts did something, there is no more clarity on that point.Regarding the templates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_pair#Hydrogen_bonding_and_stabilityRe god:
Anselm and Aquinas made arguments far more pathetic than mine!You have not really argued against god, have you. It is more a description of possible effects of god belief.
Stuart
The difference between my existence and the existence of your god is that there must be something (calling itself Stu) encoding concepts in a common language. The probablility of the internet just putting up random letters and chancing upon sentences that are on the same subject as your sentences is just too astronomical for you to accept it. While I think we could agree that there is no other reasonable interpretation than I am something that exists, I think we could have very different interpretations of the experiences you claim leads you to the islamic god. For one, did you chance upon this god without reference to any members of your family or community? Did you just go to the library, read up on this unknown god, or listen to your intuition, or do some other solitary activity and conclude the truth of this god over all the others? I would hazard a guess that your experiences include quite a lot of social pressure.
Incidentally, madness lies this way for the believer: you do not know that I am not your god posting here, looking for tiny chinks in your faith that indicate you are worthy of hell fire (I’m not, by the way!).
Now to the point: I don’t see why there is anything beneficial about submitting to a god. If you agree that this particular god could be viewed as brutal toward humans (surely Jews must acknowledge that at least!) then shouldn’t you be actually opposing it? That is even more in the nature of humans. The economics of energy use mitigate against it: time and energy spent in worshipping the god (think tithing, spending hours of valuable lifetime in church services, five acts of stopping work to pray each day, or the emotional drain of worrying about whether one is worthy) is time and energy that is not used to find better food and better shelter and form better relationships with others. The only rationale I can see is that there is indeed a greater evolutionary advantage in the uniting effect of religious belief that justifies its energy cost.
Aside from the obvious point of allowing other students to learn, I don’t think students should submit to the ‘authority’ of the instructor. They should question things all the time, not only as a means of more effective learning but for the greater good of the society they will inherit.
I remain unconvinced that there is any reason to submit to gods of any kind.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 22 2009,06:58) Re apostacy as an ethical move: I think your examples illustrate what I was claiming:. I think a teacher who feels the school system is corrupt SHOULD stop being a teacher! Or do something pretty active to change it. We could debate the ethics of Henry VIII but essentially he didn’t like it so he let his feet do the talking. It was done for political and selfish reasons, but I think that particular schism could be argued more widely (whether it was his thinking or not) as a morally right thing for him to do. The Catholic church is a great example: A Catholic who feels that it is a travesty of justice that his church, guilty of covering up child rape, should be allowed to just basically just carry on, should really consider his membership of that organisation. Of course that is not the way of religions: they claim you for life and react badly when you decide to ‘switch provider’. In fact, one of them famously passes death sentences for the crime of making personal religious choices. Re killing non-believers: I really can’t see the difference made by claiming that killing happens during war, and I am not convinced that 4:89 applies specifically to war anyway. However, where is the credibility in a religion changing its principles during wartime? There is the fourth article of the Geneva Convention that forbids 4:89 in warfare! If is suddenly becomes OK to treat non-believers specifically in this way, then I think you might have an explanation for why islam’s borders are soaked with blood. Islam is in a perpetual state of war with the rest of the world!
Re genetics:
The argument that the first replicating molecule was not created does not depend on what it was. The corollary is illogical though, and a common mode of thinking for the creationist: ‘you can’t explain it therefore it must have been my god that did it’. The problem there is that the creationist has done no explaining either. As for the god he asserts did something, there is no more clarity on that point.Regarding the templates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_pair#Hydrogen_bonding_and_stabilityRe god:
Anselm and Aquinas made arguments far more pathetic than mine!You have not really argued against god, have you. It is more a description of possible effects of god belief.
Stuart
Quote Re apostacy as an ethical move: I think your examples illustrate what I was claiming:. I think a teacher who feels the school system is corrupt SHOULD stop being a teacher! Or do something pretty active to change it. We could debate the ethics of Henry VIII but essentially he didn’t like it so he let his feet do the talking. It was done for political and selfish reasons, but I think that particular schism could be argued more widely (whether it was his thinking or not) as a morally right thing for him to do. The Catholic church is a great example: A Catholic who feels that it is a travesty of justice that his church, guilty of covering up child rape, should be allowed to just basically just carry on, should really consider his membership of that organisation. Of course that is not the way of religions: they claim you for life and react badly when you decide to ‘switch provider’. In fact, one of them famously passes death sentences for the crime of making personal religious choices. If it were the case that a teacher would do such a thing, that would put the whole institution of teaching in the state of demise and possible extinction. Therefore apostasy is never for the benefit of a system. The logic you are using would mean it is best to commit suicide then to be a member of the human race that would be the ultimate Apostasy.
Quote Re killing non-believers: I really can’t see the difference made by claiming that killing happens during war, and I am not convinced that 4:89 applies specifically to war anyway. However, where is the credibility in a religion changing its principles during wartime? There is the fourth article of the Geneva Convention that forbids 4:89 in warfare! If is suddenly becomes OK to treat non-believers specifically in this way, then I think you might have an explanation for why islam’s borders are soaked with blood. Islam is in a perpetual state of war with the rest of the world! Actually there is no changing principles during war time the fact is “Thou shalt not kill” is a civil and communal command it is clear in the scriptures that the Israelites went to war with and killed many, many people. It is best to live among people as civil and peaceful as possible but to the extent that people outside of your community attempt to suppress or oppress that community it is a moral imperative to protect those in your care even from the standpoint of the Theory of evolution this is best.
(2) And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.
( Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #191)You are going to have to make up your mind if you believe in evolution then you would have to consider what occurs to be going in the direction it must go in. Are you also mad at the process of evolution?
Quote Re genetics:
The argument that the first replicating molecule was not created does not depend on what it was. The corollary is illogical though, and a common mode of thinking for the creationist: ‘you can’t explain it therefore it must have been my god that did it’. The problem there is that the creationist has done no explaining either. As for the god he asserts did something, there is no more clarity on that point.If this is your view then it is not something that can be argued. Actually, there is much that leads to creation over evolution, do you think the Gag reflex evolved? Do you think gestation evolved? Conception evolved?
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 22 2009,07:20) The difference between my existence and the existence of your god is that there must be something (calling itself Stu) encoding concepts in a common language. The probablility of the internet just putting up random letters and chancing upon sentences that are on the same subject as your sentences is just too astronomical for you to accept it. While I think we could agree that there is no other reasonable interpretation than I am something that exists, I think we could have very different interpretations of the experiences you claim leads you to the islamic god. For one, did you chance upon this god without reference to any members of your family or community? Did you just go to the library, read up on this unknown god, or listen to your intuition, or do some other solitary activity and conclude the truth of this god over all the others? I would hazard a guess that your experiences include quite a lot of social pressure. Incidentally, madness lies this way for the believer: you do not know that I am not your god posting here, looking for tiny chinks in your faith that indicate you are worthy of hell fire (I’m not, by the way!).
Now to the point: I don’t see why there is anything beneficial about submitting to a god. If you agree that this particular god could be viewed as brutal toward humans (surely Jews must acknowledge that at least!) then shouldn’t you be actually opposing it? That is even more in the nature of humans. The economics of energy use mitigate against it: time and energy spent in worshipping the god (think tithing, spending hours of valuable lifetime in church services, five acts of stopping work to pray each day, or the emotional drain of worrying about whether one is worthy) is time and energy that is not used to find better food and better shelter and form better relationships with others. The only rationale I can see is that there is indeed a greater evolutionary advantage in the uniting effect of religious belief that justifies its energy cost.
Aside from the obvious point of allowing other students to learn, I don’t think students should submit to the ‘authority’ of the instructor. They should question things all the time, not only as a means of more effective learning but for the greater good of the society they will inherit.
I remain unconvinced that there is any reason to submit to gods of any kind.
Stuart
To submit does not mean not to question in-fact submission requires constant inquiry for the benefit of the proper application of knowledge.You seem to think that Submission is a sort of blindness but instead it is for proper Guidance, it is always those who do not submit to knowledge that are blind and deaf to truth
Who is better off fixing your car a person who has submitted himself to proper learning and application who receives guidance from the right sources or someone trying to fix your car without guidance and refusal to submit themselves to proper learning and application?
People do resign on principle, and institutions do not collapse. What kind of situation would require you to see all of humanity as unworthy of your assert?
Regarding protection of community, is the first equation in your head protecting community = killing outsiders? That would seem to be the attitude of the islamist, to judge by the way so many islamic communities relate to their neighbours. We are a million miles from the ideals of Gandhi here, aren’t we.
The theory of evolution by natural selection does not contain the words ‘should’ or ‘it would be best to…’.
Why would I not think that reflexes, pregnancy and conception evolved?
Stuart
Quote To submit does not mean not to question in-fact submission requires constant inquiry for the benefit of the proper application of knowledge. You seem to think that Submission is a sort of blindness but instead it is for proper Guidance, it is always those who do not submit to knowledge that are blind and deaf to truth
Who is better off fixing your car a person who has submitted himself to proper learning and application who receives guidance from the right sources or someone trying to fix your car without guidance and refusal to submit themselves to proper learning and application?
I think you are painting submission as the appeal to authority. That has been the model in the islamic world since when? The ninth century? On the other hand the preeminent society of scientists, the Royal Society, has the motto Nullius in verba meaning take no one’s word for it. This makes for a much better epistemology: the appeal to evidence. The mechanic working on my car did become qualified about cars, but if there was no one qualified, then I would take my broken car to an intelligent practical person who might take it apart and work out how to fix it. The point is, your concept of submission only works with a god that knows everything, because it must always be able to have more knowledge than you. Apart from the repugnance of 24 hours a day surveillance by such a god, you also have the problem of how you get the knowledge from the god, and how you verify that it is indeed god-knowledge.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 22 2009,12:54) People do resign on principle, and institutions do not collapse. What kind of situation would require you to see all of humanity as unworthy of your assert? Regarding protection of community, is the first equation in your head protecting community = killing outsiders? That would seem to be the attitude of the islamist, to judge by the way so many islamic communities relate to their neighbours. We are a million miles from the ideals of Gandhi here, aren’t we.
The theory of evolution by natural selection does not contain the words ‘should’ or ‘it would be best to…’.
Why would I not think that reflexes, pregnancy and conception evolved?
Stuart
I did not say kill outsiders, I said that if someone seeks to oppress and suppress faith through violence it is prescribed to fight them to defend your community and self. Non-violence is often very violent imagine taking a position of nonviolence with Hitler, Pol pot, Idi amin, ….etc.what do you think a Gandhi would have accoplished against a Saddam Hussein? It is interesting to note that in America racism was so out of control it took a concerted effort of the Non-violent(Martin Luther King) and those who took a stand (Malcolm X) and those who were outright violent(The FBI)
The FBI were killing the most hardcore racists in all out fights and that caused them to backdown while those who were non-violent only made it clear exactly how vehemently violent the racists actually were and how it must not be permitted and how it must be stopped as in the words of MALCOLM X: “By all means necessary”
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 22 2009,13:03) Quote To submit does not mean not to question in-fact submission requires constant inquiry for the benefit of the proper application of knowledge. You seem to think that Submission is a sort of blindness but instead it is for proper Guidance, it is always those who do not submit to knowledge that are blind and deaf to truth
Who is better off fixing your car a person who has submitted himself to proper learning and application who receives guidance from the right sources or someone trying to fix your car without guidance and refusal to submit themselves to proper learning and application?
I think you are painting submission as the appeal to authority. That has been the model in the islamic world since when? The ninth century? On the other hand the preeminent society of scientists, the Royal Society, has the motto Nullius in verba meaning take no one’s word for it. This makes for a much better epistemology: the appeal to evidence. The mechanic working on my car did become qualified about cars, but if there was no one qualified, then I would take my broken car to an intelligent practical person who might take it apart and work out how to fix it. The point is, your concept of submission only works with a god that knows everything, because it must always be able to have more knowledge than you. Apart from the repugnance of 24 hours a day surveillance by such a god, you also have the problem of how you get the knowledge from the god, and how you verify that it is indeed god-knowledge.
Stuart
What do you mean how do you get the knowledge from God? You study the creation just like you are doing now:I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
Psalm 139:13-15You were equipped with the perfect hands to study with and the perfect inquiring mind to study with but yet you take these things for granted and remain ungrateful
(4) Allah doth wish to lighten your (difficulties): For man was created weak (in flesh).
( An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #28)(9) It is He Who gave you life, will cause you to die, and will again give you life: Truly man is a most ungrateful creature!
( Al-Hajj, Chapter #22, Verse #66)BD
Quote What do you mean how do you get the knowledge from God? You study the creation just like you are doing now:
Well that knowledge, gained from ‘studying the creation’ says that Darwin was right. You must have some other source of god knowledge that says he was wrong. This is not a matter of interpretation, it is a matter of fact that evolution happened by natural selection. It is a fact in the sense that it is so well established that it would be perverse to deny it.What is your other source of god knowledge?
Quote I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
Psalm 139:13-15You were equipped with the perfect hands to study with and the perfect inquiring mind to study with but yet you take these things for granted and remain ungrateful
(4) Allah doth wish to lighten your (difficulties): For man was created weak (in flesh).
( An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #28)
Mindless, anti-human, anti-intellectual nonsense. I am expected to only find knowledge that does not contradict this god, and if I do find such what? Presumably it is a demonstration of my ingratitude. Islam has bloody borders and most islamic countries brutalise their citizenry. This is part of the reason this happens. BD can you not see the inconsistencies starting to appear in the body of your arguments?Quote (9) It is He Who gave you life, will cause you to die, and will again give you life: Truly man is a most ungrateful creature!
( Al-Hajj, Chapter #22, Verse #66)So you feel gratitude to this monster that commands that you kill me?
You might understand me not sharing your sentiment.
Stuart
I don’t know what Gandhi might have accomplished against Saddam Hussein. He was assassinated befire the question arose. Who knows what might have happened if the war criminals Bush and Blair had allowed the UN to continue in their process? They didn’t exactly give diplomacy a chance to run its course, did they? Your religion fatuously calls itself the “religion of peace” and here you are justifying warfare, no less as a means to stop people attacking your faith! Your WHAT? You want to be allowed to kill people just because they attacked the ideas you carry in your head?
Your two-pronged violence and non-violence approach has just one flaw: it necessitates the use of violence, it doesn’t just leave it as an absolute last resort.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 22 2009,14:19) BD Quote What do you mean how do you get the knowledge from God? You study the creation just like you are doing now:
Well that knowledge, gained from ‘studying the creation’ says that Darwin was right. You must have some other source of god knowledge that says he was wrong. This is not a matter of interpretation, it is a matter of fact that evolution happened by natural selection. It is a fact in the sense that it is so well established that it would be perverse to deny it.What is your other source of god knowledge?
Quote I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
Psalm 139:13-15You were equipped with the perfect hands to study with and the perfect inquiring mind to study with but yet you take these things for granted and remain ungrateful
(4) Allah doth wish to lighten your (difficulties): For man was created weak (in flesh).
( An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #28)
Mindless, anti-human, anti-intellectual nonsense. I am expected to only find knowledge that does not contradict this god, and if I do find such what? Presumably it is a demonstration of my ingratitude. Islam has bloody borders and most islamic countries brutalise their citizenry. This is part of the reason this happens. BD can you not see the inconsistencies starting to appear in the body of your arguments?Quote (9) It is He Who gave you life, will cause you to die, and will again give you life: Truly man is a most ungrateful creature!
( Al-Hajj, Chapter #22, Verse #66)So you feel gratitude to this monster that commands that you kill me?
You might understand me not sharing your sentiment.
Stuart
There is no command to kill you Stu unless you are killing and attacking believers which I assume you are not in NZ doing that.You seem to not understand NS yourself, do you recall the Darwin rock pigeon experiment? To say that a species will adapt has nothing to do with God not haveing created that species in-fact it further backs up the idea that species were created with the ability to adapt which is not due to random mutations bout genetic programming.
You seem to be at a lost to this very basic fact.
Are mutations random or not?
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 22 2009,14:33) I don’t know what Gandhi might have accomplished against Saddam Hussein. He was assassinated befire the question arose. Who knows what might have happened if the war criminals Bush and Blair had allowed the UN to continue in their process? They didn’t exactly give diplomacy a chance to run its course, did they? Your religion fatuously calls itself the “religion of peace” and here you are justifying warfare, no less as a means to stop people attacking your faith! Your WHAT? You want to be allowed to kill people just because they attacked the ideas you carry in your head? Your two-pronged violence and non-violence approach has just one flaw: it necessitates the use of violence, it doesn’t just leave it as an absolute last resort.
Stuart
You seem to not understand that violence is far less harmful than oppression.If a people were enslaved would you support their peaceful acceptance of their condition or would you urge them to fight against oppression?
Oppression and injustice is worse than slaughter but you can't understand that.
would you allow the people you love to be raped, humiliated, …etc when you have the capacity to defend them? If You would then by your own understanding of evolution you are not fit to survive.
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 22 2009,14:19) BD Quote What do you mean how do you get the knowledge from God? You study the creation just like you are doing now:
Well that knowledge, gained from ‘studying the creation’ says that Darwin was right. You must have some other source of god knowledge that says he was wrong. This is not a matter of interpretation, it is a matter of fact that evolution happened by natural selection. It is a fact in the sense that it is so well established that it would be perverse to deny it.What is your other source of god knowledge?
Stuart
Hi Stuart,Faith as described in the Bible is a belief in God.
No faith as described in the Bible, is faith in something else.Gene mutations are “always” deleterious, 'never' positive.
Evolution is 'fictitious' needing 'brain bondo' to believe.
You Stuart, have faith in a lie. That is Atheist, not Agnostic.You also turn your back on the many “proofs” I offer,
that suggests the existence of God, an Agnostic would not do that.Believers in God say so, not because someone else told them so,
but because they have had personal experiences that have removed all doubts.When will you at least take them seriously?
God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgEd, when you know what you are talking about, why not get back to us. You know nothing about biology and nothing about numerology. What do you know about?
Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 22 2009,16:04) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 22 2009,14:19) BD Quote What do you mean how do you get the knowledge from God? You study the creation just like you are doing now:
Well that knowledge, gained from ‘studying the creation’ says that Darwin was right. You must have some other source of god knowledge that says he was wrong. This is not a matter of interpretation, it is a matter of fact that evolution happened by natural selection. It is a fact in the sense that it is so well established that it would be perverse to deny it.What is your other source of god knowledge?
Quote I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
Psalm 139:13-15You were equipped with the perfect hands to study with and the perfect inquiring mind to study with but yet you take these things for granted and remain ungrateful
(4) Allah doth wish to lighten your (difficulties): For man was created weak (in flesh).
( An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #28)
Mindless, anti-human, anti-intellectual nonsense. I am expected to only find knowledge that does not contradict this god, and if I do find such what? Presumably it is a demonstration of my ingratitude. Islam has bloody borders and most islamic countries brutalise their citizenry. This is part of the reason this happens. BD can you not see the inconsistencies starting to appear in the body of your arguments?Quote (9) It is He Who gave you life, will cause you to die, and will again give you life: Truly man is a most ungrateful creature!
( Al-Hajj, Chapter #22, Verse #66)So you feel gratitude to this monster that commands that you kill me?
You might understand me not sharing your sentiment.
Stuart
There is no command to kill you Stu unless you are killing and attacking believers which I assume you are not in NZ doing that.You seem to not understand NS yourself, do you recall the Darwin rock pigeon experiment? To say that a species will adapt has nothing to do with God not haveing created that species in-fact it further backs up the idea that species were created with the ability to adapt which is not due to random mutations bout genetic programming.
You seem to be at a lost to this very basic fact.
Are mutations random or not?
There is always an out-clause, isn't there. Killing is wrong…unless… and then the unless is so poorly defined that anyone could interpret it how he wishes.Muslims ARE killing others, and passing death sentences on apostates in parts of the world that take the koran seriously.
I suppose they are not real muslims.
Regarding natural selection, I'm sorry I did not read a disproof of Darwin there. Do you have one? You know, actual evidence that shows he cannot possibly be right, or are you going to continue to regale me with your own incredulity and assertions that you cannot substantiate? I will require more than just what you recon!
Stuart
Quote You seem to not understand that violence is far less harmful than oppression.
No, violence IS more harmful than oppression.Quote If a people were enslaved would you support their peaceful acceptance of their condition or would you urge them to fight against oppression?
Fight yes. Fight with violence? No.Quote Oppression and injustice is worse than slaughter but you can't understand that.
I think you are wrong, and worse you are advocating an excuse for suicide bombing.Quote would you allow the people you love to be raped, humiliated, …etc when you have the capacity to defend them?
No. I thought we were talking about oppression. You are talking about violence now.Quote If You would then by your own understanding of evolution you are not fit to survive.
Have you been taking lessons in logic from Ed?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 22 2009,16:40) Quote You seem to not understand that violence is far less harmful than oppression.
No, violence IS more harmful than oppression.Quote If a people were enslaved would you support their peaceful acceptance of their condition or would you urge them to fight against oppression?
Fight yes. Fight with violence? No.Quote Oppression and injustice is worse than slaughter but you can't understand that.
I think you are wrong, and worse you are advocating an excuse for suicide bombing.Quote would you allow the people you love to be raped, humiliated, …etc when you have the capacity to defend them?
No. I thought we were talking about oppression. You are talking about violence now.Quote If You would then by your own understanding of evolution you are not fit to survive.
Have you been taking lessons in logic from Ed?Stuart
Would you let others be violent towards your loved ones without responding VIOLENTLY?Would you let others Oppress your your loved ones such as forbidding them to go to school or marry or own a business?
Quote Would you let others be violent towards your loved ones without responding VIOLENTLY?
If I could, yes. Why wouldn't you?Quote Would you let others Oppress your your loved ones such as forbidding them to go to school or marry or own a business?
I do not live in an islamic republic, so the problem has never arisen for me.Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
