Man opens fire on White House vol. God told me to do it

[mo matik]

This is going no where. You can't kill based on ideology. You can't rape kids or steal. The religion would not have 1.4 billion followers if this was the case, because then 1.4 billion people wouldn't have empathy for kids, or nonbelievers. Which they do because people by in large are moral.

I have nothing else to say. Me as a person who has read the texts and has examined the faith, and accepted it due to that examination, is telling you that your understanding is false. I edited my previous post on the questions and included this:

These are GOOD reasonable and important questions-but they cannot be answered with a meme and a few sentences. They require you to learn and consider everything altogether. My point is that Islam has answers to these questions; and it's answers to questions like these that make me believe Islam is the right path.


The very same questions you have are the very same points that lead to me to this faith. But whereas I examined and considered my religion, the logic in the answers to tough questions like these (in part) led me to the faith. You on the other hand refuse to give the Islam that legitimate opportunity. So be it.

 

[curbyourenthusiasm]

WHY DO YOU MORONS COME INTO POSTS WHERE CONVERSATION IS BEING EXCHANGED AND COMPLAIN ABOUT THE DISCUSSION?

IS YOUR LIFE THAT UNFULLFILLING?

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

This is going no where. You can't kill based on ideology. You can't rape kids or steal. The religion would not have 1.4 billion followers if this was the case, because then 1.4 billion people wouldn't have empathy for kids, or nonbelievers. Which they do because people by in large are moral.

BINGO.


So you already can invalidate the bad stuff out of the Quran because you know its genuinely bad, whether or not god tells you to do it.




You've proven that you can THINK FO YOURSELF.




Having 1.4 Billion Followers doesn't make it REAL, TRUE, or VALID. 




As you said, people do bad things because people do bad things. Not because god is "absent" The same with "good" things. Good people do good things. Thats it.




There is no god in that equation and you just showed that.




This conflicts with your earlier point that god wouldn't agree to do anything "bad"...BUT THATS IN THE QURAN!




And you said the Quran is god's word!

I have nothing else to say. Me as a person who has read the texts and has examined the faith, and accepted it due to that examination, is telling you that your understanding is false. I edited my previous post on the questions and included this:
My understanding is false? Maybe you should explain yourself because my "understanding" has come from your attempts to defend yourself. If you can't express yourself and promote your stance then yes, my understanding is as bad as you will let it be. 



Lets see if your circular logic says the quran is true because it says its true and we say its true because god says its true and we know know god exists because god is in the quran...




Its an endless cycle that doesnt PROVE anything it asserts. Its mindless drivel of those who are intellectually dishonest enough to think its a valid argument. 

Tell me whats wrong with this argument: Harry Potter is true because its in the book. The book is true because the book says its true. We know the book is true because harry potter is in the book. 




But you haven't even answered the questions posed to you. 




You have concluded that you do NOT know if god spoke to this man and you would never know...




You have concluded that you can't even prove god exists.




What is your reason for supporting any claim that you have over any other claim? 




By this notion if islam is true, then so is christianity, judaism, hinduism, jainism, wicca, roman mythology, buddhisim, bahai, or shinto

These are GOOD reasonable and important questions-but they cannot be answered with a meme and a few sentences. They require you to learn and consider everything altogether. My point is that Islam has answers to these questions; and it's answers to questions like these that make me believe Islam is the right path.

You haven't addressed or offered any answers to support your claim.



Merely saying "I believe it" doesn't prove anything. 




You know it too because you said you can't prove that god exists. 




So you know the importance of evidence, you just feel like skipping over it. 




How honest of you. 

The very same questions you have are the very same points that lead to me to this faith. But whereas I examined and considered my religion, the logic in the answers to tough questions like these (in part) led me to the faith. You on the other hand refuse to give the Islam that legitimate opportunity. So be it.

You can't accuse me of not giving islam a chance when as a representative of islam you do poorly in defending it.



Don't cry foul and play the victim card when your stance is continually exposed and holes are widened.




If you want to address something, FEEL FREE TO DO SO. 




Until then don't whine and complain you didn't get a fair shot because your stance fell apart under scrutiny. 




You as of yet have not substantiated any evidence for any of your claims besides "the book says its true so its true" 

 

[mo matik]

What have I been saying since the beginning? That to understand Islam you have to consider everything in-toto. You have yet to even read the Qur'an once. Instead you argue that a religion should only be proven by evidence outside of the theology.

But I showed you how that would destroy the theology altogether. So we go back to the sources we have. How can you tell me that I haven't provided you with the proper argument? Especially when every time I try to improve your understanding, you disregard it? Your asking questions about LIFE man. Why is there suffering? Are you serious? I don't have time to write out a response that would give justice to the question.

As I've said before, the evidence and the sources are in front of you; you just refuse to consider it. These are the only sources we have that attempt to explain these legitimate questions. You are making the active choice to ignore it completely when you assume that, because it does not include scientific evidence, it must be false.

 

[theword]

^Your avy is the best reply.

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

What have I been saying since the beginning? That to understand Islam you have to consider everything in-toto. You have yet to even read the Qur'an once.

I've read over half the Quran. 



I don't have the stomach for it as I have reason to debunk most of what I've read. But have I read the whole thing? No.




Imagine how little sleep you lose over christianity.




Thats how I feel about every other religion.  

Instead you argue that a religion should only be proven by evidence outside of the theology.

 Oh really? Are these not your words from this post here :



"to clearly lay this out-the issue here is that you are looking for verifiable evidence for God's existence. But as I've pointed out before around here, theology would not be theology any longer if God's existence was verifiable."







By your standards, what else can we judge the validity of your religion on then? 


Next point.

But I showed you how that would destroy the theology altogether.

Let me get this straight. Evidence for god existing would destroy the theology used to show that god exists? 



So you'd rather guess about whether or not god exists with half-thought out responses rather than just seek absolute evidence whether or not god exists?

Yeah, that makes COMPLETE sense. 

So we go back to the sources we have. How can you tell me that I haven't provided you with the proper argument? Especially when every time I try to improve your understanding, you disregard it?

You haven't proven your claims.




Using the quran to prove that the quran is true does not prove that the quran is true.




I showed you how circular arguments are logical fallacies.




You admitted that you committed this fallacy in this post here: 




"Wow. Yes it's a circular argument, but that's why I said "from the Islamic perspective."



If this is your proof then you have none. 

Your asking questions about LIFE man. Why is there suffering? Are you serious? I don't have time to write out a response that would give justice to the question.
 Well the honest thing to do is to say "I DONT KNOW" instead of asserting something that clearly doesn't cover all the bases. 



Your "theology" or islamic apologetics or whatever do not address the situations posed to you, nor do they stand on their own.




They are contradictory phrases that assert "morality," most of which was stolen from existing traditions prevalent in existing areas. 


Islam, nor any other religion "created" any concepts. They arose from their surrounding cultures and adopted existing traditions. Thats why christians use xmas trees and jews have menorahs. 

As I've said before, the evidence and the sources are in front of you; you just refuse to consider it.

BECAUSE YOUR EVIDENCE CONTRADICTS ITSELF.



Saying "islam is true because the quran says its true." DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE. You have to independently prove why the quran is valid aside from all the other possibilities.




If its that easy to say the quran is true then the bible and the vedas are ALSO true. 




Believing something doesn't make it true.




If thats the case, i'm the most gangsta dude on the street and I believe I can fly. 

These are the only sources we have that attempt to explain these legitimate questions. You are making the active choice to ignore it completely when you assume that, because it does not include scientific evidence, it must be false.

"Scientific evidence" doesnt mean test-tubes and beakers or chemistry and physics.




Its simply if you assert something.




BACK. IT. UP. 




If I say hey, I can fly, the burden of proof is on ME to prove that I can fly.




If I accuse you of a crime the burden of proof is on ME to prove that you did the crime. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. 




You assert that adopting islam is valid.




You must support that assertion otherwise the conclusion does NOT stand. 




In your next reply, substantiate your top 3-5 reasons, or how ever many you want as to why islam is valid. I'll read each and every thing and reply to you. But it has to be of reasonable length. I'm still at work here. 



As a person of faith you clearly believe in something.




If you can't substantiate why you believe in something then its no fault but your own to state your case as to why they should believe you over all the other options.




Thats what science is. If I have a hypothesis, i have to prove it and back it up with verifiable and replicable evidence.




Evidence is the ONLY thing that matters...without it EVERY THING ELSE IS A MERELY SPECULATION.




Without proof its as likely that there is a god in the islamic form as there is a pink tea pot on the other side of the sun.  Anything is possible, right? 

 

[mo matik]

Read the whole thing before responding rather than 1 line at a time.

It's not a matter of choosing religion over absolute evidence. It's that there is no absolute evidence. Science is neutral on the subject of God's existence. So where else do we turn to for discussion of God? Theology, philosophy, etc.

And when I say scientific evidence, I don't mean "beakers and test tubes." I'm talking about beyond doubt- quantifiable proof within a high confidence interval. Because there is plenty of evidence that theists point to, and they interpret as evidence for God. But it's not beyond doubt. Things are not black and white-there are different degrees of evidence, different degrees of proof.

So from the scientific community for example, the discovery of the "God" or "spiritual" part of our brains became a big deal. Theists look at this and see evidence for their beliefs. Scientists and evolutionary biologists see it as a possible community building adaptation.

And from theology for example, a lot of Muslims point to scientific accuracies in the Qur'an. That the Qur'an correctly cites light from the moon as reflected light from the sun and not as a producer of it's own light. Muslims point to this and say "how could an illiterate man 1400 years ago in Arabia have known this?" Same case with the Earth being cited as round and not rectangular as in the Bible. But it's not evidence beyond doubt of course. You could come up with a host of possibilities-maybe it's just a coincidence, maybe it was added later, etc.

But most importantly, it's not enough to convince someone to adopt the religion. Because it's a minor point overall. In the large scheme of things, with religion you're talking about a model by which to live your life- so examine that aspect of it. Not the minor points. That's why the idea of listing out 3 reasons that Islam is valid is pointless-you could come up with a ton of possibilities. It's everything considered altogether that supports the religion.

This is getting all jumbled. When I admitted to the circular argument, I was talking about the points about knowing whether or not God was talking to the White House shooter. If I ask you "Did your friend Joe talk to you today?" I'm assuming you have a friend named Joe and he currently exists. That has to be established before your friend Joe (the object) can perform an action (talk). The action that is in the question. That is what was happening.

As I've said before, the evidence and the sources are in front of you; you just refuse to consider it.

BECAUSE YOUR EVIDENCE CONTRADICTS ITSELF.

Saying "islam is true because the quran says its true." DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE. You have to independently prove why the quran is valid aside from all the other possibilities.


We've already discussed independent proof of God not being possible within the religion. So that's established. But the idea that using the Qur'an as proof of Islam is not a circular argument because it's not that the book itself states that it's the truth-it's the evidence presented within it. If I say to you that communism is a better model than capitalism, and point to Marx writings as evidence, is that a circular argument? No of course not- it's what you're supposed to do. Examine the evidence, consider important and relevant questions, and form a position. Instead you have formed your position without examining the evidence fully.

^Your avy is the best reply.

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

Read the whole thing before responding rather than 1 line at a time.

It's not a matter of choosing religion over absolute evidence. It's that there is no absolute evidence. Science is neutral on the subject of God's existence. So where else do we turn to for discussion of God? Theology, philosophy, etc.

And when I say scientific evidence, I don't mean "beakers and test tubes." I'm talking about beyond doubt- quantifiable proof within a high confidence interval. Because there is plenty of evidence that theists point to, and they interpret as evidence for God. But it's not beyond doubt. Things are not black and white-there are different degrees of evidence, different degrees of proof.

So from the scientific community for example, the discovery of the "God" or "spiritual" part of our brains became a big deal. Theists look at this and see evidence for their beliefs. Scientists and evolutionary biologists see it as a possible community building adaptation.

And from theology for example, a lot of Muslims point to scientific accuracies in the Qur'an. That the Qur'an correctly cites light from the moon as reflected light from the sun and not as a producer of it's own light. Muslims point to this and say "how could an illiterate man 1400 years ago in Arabia have known this?" Same case with the Earth being cited as round and not rectangular as in the Bible. But it's not evidence beyond doubt of course. You could come up with a host of possibilities-maybe it's just a coincidence, maybe it was added later, etc.

But most importantly, it's not enough to convince someone to adopt the religion. Because it's a minor point overall. In the large scheme of things, with religion you're talking about a model by which to live your life- so examine that aspect of it. Not the minor points. That's why the idea of listing out 3 reasons that Islam is valid is pointless-you could come up with a ton of possibilities. It's everything considered altogether that supports the religion.

This is getting all jumbled. When I admitted to the circular argument, I was talking about the points about knowing whether or not God was talking to the White House shooter. If I ask you "Did your friend Joe talk to you today?" I'm assuming you have a friend named Joe and he currently exists. That has to be established before your friend Joe (the object) can perform an action (talk). The action that is in the question. That is what was happening.

As I've said before, the evidence and the sources are in front of you; you just refuse to consider it.

BECAUSE YOUR EVIDENCE CONTRADICTS ITSELF.

Saying "islam is true because the quran says its true." DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE. You have to independently prove why the quran is valid aside from all the other possibilities.

We've already discussed independent proof of God not being possible within the religion. So that's established. But the idea that using the Qur'an as proof of Islam is not a circular argument because it's not that the book itself states that it's the truth-it's the evidence presented within it. If I say to you that communism is a better model than capitalism, and point to Marx writings as evidence, is that a circular argument? No of course not- it's what you're supposed to do. Examine the evidence, consider important and relevant questions, and form a position. Instead you have formed your position without examining the evidence fully.

^Your avy is the best reply.

I read the entire post in one sitting.
But you're STILL not making any sense. 




Of course science is neutral on the existence of god. This has always been my point. People who believe in god CLAIM god does various things...yet when we explain how they're done, there is NO god involved. 




So based on the evidence people use to support their god, NONE of it stands on its own to support its conclusion.




Thus based on the evidence the conclusion that there is a god is NOT supported. 




Science is just understanding how stuff works. Its not a thing. Its a process to arrive a  more accurate conclusion. And it doesn't discriminate against "god." It doesn't eliminate something that cant even prove it self. 




Do we know everything? No.




There very well could be unicorns riding on rainbows on another planet...but until you can assert evidence within a frame of reference that WE CAN UNDERSTAND then its ALL SPECULATION and that makes ANYTHING possible. 




There was no discovery of the "god" part of our brains. It simply showed that there was possibly an evolutionary benefit for people to imagine that a god exists for social development...




that being said...the key part is here...IN YOUR BRAIN. You make all this stuff up. None of that exists outside of your own reality. 

In the middle of your explanation you literally STOPPED making a point because it got too complicated for you to even continue. 

I understand the gray/grey scale of evidence and the degree of reliability when it comes to making conclusions. 

I know statistics. 

Its funny because if you know this then you must admit that you're still taking a massive leap to even reach your conclusions.

You don't even weight islam on the same level as other religions. 

The only valid part of anything you said was that islam was a way of life...which I can see and agree with. It has rules and for SOME reason you choose to follow them...but the thing is, you don't even follow ALL of those rules. You literally pick and choose which ones you like to follow. So don't call islam a set of rules when you in fact do NOT even subscribe to all of the principles required. If this is your reason for believing in everything else you're told then you're foolish. 

But that doesn't mean that when muhammad died that he and his horse ascended straight up to heaven as the religion claims.

It doesn't mean that god ever spoke to him.

It doesn't mean muhammad has special healing powers. etc. 

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. It STILL doesn't mean that everything the koran says is right. Knowing a SCIENTIFIC FACT doesn't make everything that comes out that person's mouth to be the truth or a valid statement. Issac Newton was an alchemist, a laughable endeavor, but this is the same man who brought us calculus and the beginnings of physics. The Nazi's were bad but that didn't stop the US from importing those scientists and using them to develop our technology after WWII. 

The conclusions must be independently assessed from the person making them.

Is your mother always right?  Is your teacher alwys right? 

No. The point being made is assessed INDEPENDENTLY. 

"they had water back when the quran was written! so that means islam is true!"... 

If god isn't possible within the religion then why claim that god is the basis of your religion???




Now...i'm not calling YOU stupid...but this is an incredibly stupid statement.




Are you saying that the book itself is different from whats in the book? 

Surprise. Still a circular and non-confirmable argument.




The evidence in the book says "the koran is true because muhammad is right and muhammad is right because the quran says muhammad is right" 




ROUND AND ROUND WE GO!




This is your problem. Again. You want for islam to be true SO MUCH that you are willing to some how always conclude that islam is true. 




You've been shown areas where it logically fails and yet you cling to it because you've been trained to reflexively defend it even in the face of detractors. 




I don't have to convince you of anything...you've already done it to yourself and admitted to the fallacies you've committed... yet again you refuse to acknowledge that this argument doesn't make sense. 

 

[sillyputty]

 

[sillyputty]

I dare Mo Matik to tell me its about "context"
Read this and tell me whats misunderstood here:

or this

Islam on Apostasy: 

"Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:83:17

Narrated Ikrima: Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' " Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:260

Narrated Abu Burda: Abu Musa said, "I came to the Prophet along with two men (from the tribe) of Ash'ariyin, one on my right and the other on my left, while Allah's Apostle was brushing his teeth (with a Siwak), and both men asked him for some employment. The Prophet said, 'O Abu Musa (O 'Abdullah bin Qais!).' I said, 'By Him Who sent you with the Truth, these two men did not tell me what was in their hearts and I did not feel (realize) that they were seeking employment.' As if I were looking now at his Siwak being drawn to a corner under his lips, and he said, 'We never (or, we do not) appoint for our affairs anyone who seeks to be employed. But O Abu Musa! (or 'Abdullah bin Qais!) Go to Yemen.'" The Prophet then sent Mu'adh bin Jabal after him and when Mu'adh reached him, he spread out a cushion for him and requested him to get down (and sit on the cushion). Behold: There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Muisa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, "Then we discussed the night prayers and one of us said, 'I pray and sleep, and I hope that Allah will reward me for my sleep as well as for my prayers.'" Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:84:58

Whoever insults Allah, the angels, and the religion, has apostatized from Islam, and become an infidel -- (agreed). The apostate is the legally competent one who voluntarily withdraws from Islam, whether he openly declares his infidelity, or utters something which makes him an infidel, or does something which makes him an infidel. In this case, this man has uttered something which makes him an infidel! For he insulted the religion, or in other words mocked, ridiculed, and belittled it. We take this from Islam -- (agreed). The ruling on the apostate is for him to seek forgiveness within three days, and if not he is killed, according to the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him): "The blood of a Muslim man is not permissible except under one of three conditions: 1) he commits adultery, 2) he takes an innocent life, or 3) he abandons his religion and separates himself from the community" (narrated by al-Bukhari and Muslim from Ibn Mas'ud). Let us beware, servants of Almighty Allah, to not be careless or reckless in our words and deeds, and to fear Almighty Allah in that which we say. For it is a great disaster for insults to the religion and the like to be found on our tongues, rather than remembrance and thanks for Almighty Allah. Islamic Fatwa Council of Jerusalem, February 10, 2009

Views of harsh punishments also vary across the Muslim publics polled. Majorities of Muslims in Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and Nigeria say they would favor making harsh punishments such as stoning people who commit adultery; whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery; and the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion the law in their country. In the other predominantly Muslim countries surveyed – Turkey, Lebanon and Indonesia – most Muslims oppose these measures. Source: [1]http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02...orld-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/#prc-jump

 

[mo matik]

It is about context. Context of the statements made. Contexts of the times. Again, up to this point you have shown you aren't willing to consider there is more that you don't know that is relevant. Well, there is.

You don't think when I first heard about the marriage to A'isha, I wasn't immediately taken aback? Of course I was. But I've already seen all these Hadith and researched all this, because I hope I've made it apparent thus far that I'm not someone who has just accepted this faith blindly.

Nonetheless, the last time I answered your criticisms, I got hit with a "scholarship doesn't matter bro." So you have to consider my evidence this time. I chose these sources because they are complete, organized, and fully sourced responses.

On apostasy (yes, this does discuss the Hadith you have posted ): http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/09/apostasy/

On the marriage to A'isha:



Sources for Part 1: http://www.muhaddith.org/...EarlyMarriage-part1.html
Sources for Part 2: http://www.muhaddith.org/...EarlyMarriage-part2.html

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

It is about context. Context of the statements made. Contexts of the times. Again, up to this point you have shown you aren't willing to consider there is more that you don't know that is relevant. Well, there is.

You don't think when I first heard about the marriage to A'isha, I wasn't immediately taken aback? Of course I was. But I've already seen all these Hadith and researched all this, because I hope I've made it apparent thus far that I'm not someone who has just accepted this faith blindly.

Nonetheless, the last time I answered your criticisms, I got hit with a "scholarship doesn't matter bro." So you have to consider my evidence this time. I chose these sources because they are complete, organized, and fully sourced responses.

On apostasy (yes, this does discuss the Hadith you have posted ): http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/09/apostasy/

On the marriage to A'isha:



Sources for Part 1: http://www.muhaddith.org/...EarlyMarriage-part1.html
Sources for Part 2: http://www.muhaddith.org/...EarlyMarriage-part2.html

Its sunday and I just took all 20 minutes and listened to this...
And I'm going put this clear as day to you.







ARE YOU SUPPORTING THE MARRIAGE OF A 6 YEAR OLD GIRL TO HAVE A MARRIAGE CONSECRATED WHEN SHE TURNS 9? 




IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE IN SUPPORT OF?




THIS IS JUST AN ATTEMPT AT "CHANGING" THE CONTEXT OF A STORY TO MAKE IT SEEM BETTER.




YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE THEY USED TO DO? STONE WOMEN. PUT NON-BELIEVERS ON A STAKE. BURN WITCHES. KEEP SLAVES. BLEED OUT BAD BLOOD.




THE QURAN/KORAN/QUR'AN SAYS THOSE VERSES.




WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO CHANGE THEM?




THE MESSAGE IS CLEAR. KILL APOSTATES.




WHAT ELSE IS THERE TO DEFEND?




YOU MUST EXPLAIN THIS. EVEN IF IT WAS A CULTURAL THING DO YOU AGREE WITH IT OR NOT? IF THE QURAN IS TRUE AND YOU BELIEVE IT IS THE WORD OF GOD, THEN DID YOUR GOD MAKE A MISTAKE?




GOD'S WORD IS ALWAYS RIGHT, HUH? SO WHY DO YOU GET TO BLAME IT ON CONTEXT? WAS GOD CONFUSED??? WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO SAY ITS NOT VALID CURRENTLY? ITS IN THE DAMN BOOK HOMIE.




YOU'RE DODGING AROUND.




DON'T BRING UP THE ARGUMENT OF "MAINTAINING THE POPULATION" ITS GARBAGE. IS SLEEPING WITH 9 YEAR OLDS REQUIRED TO MAKE SURE THE HUMAN RACE SURVIVES? WHAT A STUPID ARGUMENT.




THIS VIDEO WAS RIDICULOUS. "WELL SHE HIT PUBERTY SO ITS COOL"

MISS ME WITH THE "YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ISLAM" ARGUMENT.




NO MY MAN, YOU DO NOT HAVE A CONSCIENCE.




THESE VIDEOS ARE THE EPITOME OF THE ARGUMENT YOU HOLD AGAINST ME. IF ITS ABOUT CONTEXT THEN WHY ARE THEY JUST PICKING RANDOM PHRASES TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS? THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE COMPLETE SENTENCE OR SET OF PHRASES USED TO JUSTIFY THEIR POSITION IN THOSE VIDEOS.




YOU MAKE AN ARGUMENT AGAINST PICKING AND CHOOSING...BY PICKING AND CHOOSING.




TRY AGAIN, MO MATIK.




YOU ALREADY KNOW ITS NOT COOL YET YOU FOOL YOURSELF INTO ACCEPTING IT.

 

[mo matik]

Rather than address the points in the videos or in the apostasy piece, you have merely re-stated your original argument.

If you can't address the content of my argument, then this discussion is over.

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by Mo Matik

Rather than address the points in the videos or in the apostasy piece, you have merely re-stated your original argument.

If you can't address the content of my argument, then this discussion is over.

This discussion was over when you admitted that you knew the stuff in the Quran was wrong but you still supported it.
Think about this.

God supposedly told Muhammad what to put in the Quran.

God is all-knowing.

God knowingly created passages about killing non-believers and sleeping with 9 year olds.

You say this is about context. 

If its about context so are you saying that God's word changes over time? 

If god's word changes, evolves, or whatever over time then its NOT infallible, is it? 

Are you telling me god didn't have enough omniscient foresight to know that the context of his own words would change over time and that society would only follow half of what he said in the book? 

To even suggest that its a matter of "context" eludes the fact because your sources are STILL picking and choosing text. 

They justify sleeping with Aisha with short simple phrases and segments of Suras. So much for your context argument.

Its like me quoting a speech from Obama and simply making an argument out of him saying words like "the" or "camel" or "sex" and saying Obama likes to have camel sex. 

Those videos were ridiculous. Its like me making a movie about hitler and saying how misunderstood he was. He was actually helping the jews. Its about context. You have to see it from his point of view. Its apologetics of the worst form. 

Your videos SIDESTEPPED the question. The Quran DOES SAY THOSE THINGS...yet they say we're reading it wrong. Thats all it tries to do. And it fails. Miserably.