patrick.net

YesYNot says

If you want to apply the textual originalist method of reading to the Koran, then apply it to the bibles too.

If you took the time to read both, instead of asserting from ignorance that they are equivalent, then you would know they are not. I've survived countless debates with Christians and can quote chapter and verse from both the NT and the OT, in addition to the Koran. You would never survive a similar debate in Pakistan; you'd be legally executed for blasphemy. Also, although Christian "fundamentalists" claim to believe every word of the KJV (even the contradictions between expressly different authors, and the known errors in translation), Muslims have a much simpler method of resolving apparent conflicts between passages of the Koran: Mohamed could change his mind and adapt to his own growing power; whatever he said last, governs. The whole fraud of Islam was literally invented by that one charlatan, and there's no arguing with him. He started out small and seemingly harmless (microsoft), but he became increasingly lethal as he and his followers gained power. The dead charlatan Mohamed remains the ultimate example for Muslims to follow, and his biography repeats in the process of hijrah (importing jihadis as "refugees") and Islamization. Muslims know about the sunnah, but use taqiyyeh to deceive infidels, especially the identitarian liberal "multiculturalists" who want emotionally to believe that "religions are all the same." (BTW, saying that in Pakistan would be a capital offense, and Muslim countries are organizing a global jihad against blasphemy including specifically online, and that is consistent with the Islamic State publishing home addresses of blasphemers - including atheists - and other high value targets, e.g. American transit police. Be careful how many jihadis you want to import, and whether you really want to rent rooms in your house to them; be careful what you wish for. Most killings in the name of Islam are not counted as terrorism, because they happen one at a time, e.g. the bloggers in Bangladesh. Remember, "assassin" began as an Islamic word.)

rando says

This is absolutely true.

ISIS is nothing other than Islam taken seriously. Muslims know this, but will not admit it to Westerners. Except for this guy:

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2014/12/04/video-egyptian-human-rights-activist-isis-is-doing-what-the-prophet-muhammad-did/

2:12
Atheist Egyptian Activist Ahmad Harqan ISIS Is Doing what the Prophet Muhammad Did
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ISIS+Is+Doing+what+the+Prophet+Muhammad+Did

curious2 says

asserting from ignorance that they are equivalent

I never asserted that they were equivalent. I asserted that they are both intolerable. Thankfully, most American 'Christians' are not true Christians. curious2 says

You would never survive a similar debate in Pakistan

I'm not planning on going there. I like it here, and i don't want to import any jihadis.

curious2 says

You would never survive a similar debate in Pakistan; you'd be executed for blasphemy.

This is the most essential point.

YesYNot says

You would never survive a similar debate in Pakistan

I'm not planning on going there. I like it here, and i don't want to import any jihadis.

Stick to the internet YesYNot. Lots of people here who think just like the Jihadis.

YesYNot says

According to PeopleUnited in another thread: Trump is doing great, because PeopleUnited says

He isn't her. And that is the point isn't it?

By that standard, Islam and ISIS is great too. @PeopleUnited, would you rather ISIS or the Democrats govern the US?

Demorats are funny animals. Can I have a third option? What about Ross Perot, is he available?

YesYNot says

curious2 says

for them, religion is the founding assumption and ultimate conclusion, "the alpha and the omega."

Yeah, but they are not true Christians. If you want to apply the textual originalist method of reading to the Koran, then apply it to the bibles too. Then we can get on with our war against Christianity too.

A liberal democrat finally speaking the truth. So you admit you want to wage war on Christianity? How enlightened of you. If only the world had more hatred for Christians!

Nominated

PeopleUnited says

If only the world had more hatred for Christians

I don't hate fake Christians like you. It's just true Christianity that needs to go. Fortunately, organized religion stopped practicing true Christianity. We just have to get them to admit that they are using a textual originalist interpretation when it suits there needs while applying a filter on the parts that are too extreme. Once they admit that, then they can stop pushing their flavor of morality on the rest of us.

YesYNot says

PeopleUnited says

If only the world had more hatred for Christians

I don't hate fake Christians like you. It's just true Christianity that needs to go. Fortunately, organized religion stopped practicing true Christianity. We just have to get them to admit that they are using a textual originalist interpretation when it suits there needs while applying a filter on the parts that are too extreme. Once they admit that, then they can stop pushing their flavor of morality on the rest of us.

Ok I'll bite. What makes you think I am a fake Christian? What does this mythical
"true Christianity teach" according to you, a self described hater of so called true "Christianity "

PeopleUnited says

Ok I'll bite.

Lots of people on this board apply a textual originalist (fundamentalist) reading of the Koran to define true Islam. I've argued that it's bad from a strategic standpoint. Ideally, Islam would move away from such readings, and the official teachings would be more in line with modern Western morality. However, they insist on reading the Koran in a fundamentalist way (as ISIS does) to define true Islam. To be consistent, they ought to apply the same method to define true Christianity and Judaism. That is why in the post that got your attention, I said "If you want to apply the textual originalist... Then we can get on with our war against Christianity too.

I'm using the term 'textual originalist' instead of fundamentalist to get people thinking about the supreme court. Christians like the so called 'textual originalists,' but nobody really applies textual originalism across the board to Christianity or even the Constitution. They selectively apply it to the parts that are still acceptable to today's consensus morality.

I'm not going to pretend to be a religious scholar and have not interest in being one (for any religion). But I don't have to be. I can simply point to all of the different forms of Christianity today and all of the different teachings of Christians throughout the last 2000 years to show that there is no consistent interpretation. There is also a trend to get to lighter and lighter interpretations, because the original ones are just not acceptable anymore. Also, people try to say that the bad parts of the old testament don't apply, but they cannot point to any text in the new testament that defines this.

YesYNot says

Also, people try to say that the bad parts of the old testament don't apply, but they cannot point to any text in the new testament that defines this.

I can.

Galatians chapter 3

16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

The Old Testament is law and history with some prophecy mixed in. But the above passage clarifies the Old Testment Biblical law not as a set of rules to be followed, but as a set of rules that teach us we are sinners. And it also clearly states that once we have faith (that Jesus has paid our sin debt) we no longer need the law nor are we subject to keeping/following Old Testament Biblical law.

PeopleUnited says

there is neither male nor female:

This means that he is she, doesn't it?

If you are a sinner for breaking those laws, but you don't have to follow those laws, that means you are free to sin.

YesYNot says

If you are a sinner for breaking those laws, but you don't have to follow those laws, that means you are free to sin.

YesYNot says

PeopleUnited says

Galations chapter 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

This means that he is she, doesn't it?

It means in the eternal dimension there is no differences.

PeopleUnited says

eternal dimension

It doesn't say that.

If there are consequences to sinning, then you should obey the old laws.

YesYNot says

PeopleUnited says

eternal dimension

It doesn't say that.

The eternal dimension is a concept that is addressed and elaborated on from Genesis through Revelation. That concept is relevant here.

YesYNot says

If there are consequences to sinning, then you should obey the old laws.

You are very close to understanding it. But you are treating the Bible as if it were simply a rule book. Remember the law was written to guide you to Christ.

Jesus elaborated on the law during a meeting with the religious leaders of His day. One of them happened to be a lawyer, who no doubt understood that laws sometimes come into conflict with one another and therefore required further definition/elaboration. We pick up the action in Matthew Chapter 22.

34 But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.

35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Jesus condensed the law down to two commandments.

curious2 says

need to import non-Muslims to do much of the work, e.g. the Barbary States' slave trade and the current Petrodollar-driven quasi-slave trade and hiring of Rashomon among others).

The real reason they hire non-muslims is because they are lazy and incompetent. Saudi Arabia has very high unemployment. The non muslims have "taken their jobs". Never mind fact that those whining are incapable of doing said jobs

YesYNot says

Ideally, Islam would move away from such readings, and the official teachings would be more in line with modern Western morality. However, they insist on reading the Koran in a fundamentalist way (as ISIS does) to define true Islam

Given the choice of a secular dictator of ISIS, most muslims in the Middle East would select theocracy, which is what ISIS is really all about

MMR says

curious2 says

need to import non-Muslims to do much of the work, e.g. the Barbary States' slave trade and the current Petrodollar-driven quasi-slave trade and hiring of Rashomon among others).

The real reason they hire non-muslims is because they are lazy and incompetent. Saudi Arabia has very high unemployment. The non muslims have "taken their jobs". Never mind fact that those whining are incapable of doing said jobs

I read last week that the Saudis are trying to diversify their economy so as not to rely on the oil industry. They are spending billions to develop technology. Sadly, they could not find talent. I was bursting with laughter. 80% of Saudis who go for graduate studies do so in Islam and religion. What talent do you gain by memorizing the Koran?

YesYNot says

Ideally, Islam would move away from such readings, and the official teachings would be more in line with modern Western morality.

Ideally, we would all live forever in good health with no need for medical care, and ride around on solar powered unicorns that emit only rainbows.

Here on earth, in most countries that have Muslim majorities, most Muslims demand Sharia. IOW, they demand that you, personally, must be killed as a blasphemer. You are condemned as a terrorist, "the worst of beasts," because you are an unbeliever. Even Vaticanus could survive as a subjugated dhimmi, bowing down and paying jizya and submitting to Sharia, but you, YesYNot, must be killed. Muslims would and do vote to do exactly that, and feel good about it.

If you want to persuade Muslims that they should line up with western morality, then try that where they live currently rather than bringing them here. As Nassim Taleb wrote, the dynamic of Islam drags down nearly every place where it has influence: "The West is currently in the process of committing suicide." In the UK, where the dole subsidizes polygamous Muslim families, young Muslims are actually more intolerant than the old. They live in the west, and yet they reject western morality. The "strategic" error is importing Muslims and celebrating/empowering/financing Islam, as Daniel Pipes and HIllary Clinton propose. The question ultimately is how to get Muslims to reject Islam. You don't achieve that by spreading and empowering Islam.

curious2 says

Daniel Pipes

I take it this is a mistake; Daniel Pipes is an Islam critic, no?

curious2 says

Muslims would and do vote to do exactly that, and feel good about it

Nobody is advocating importing anywhere near enough Muslims to vote in sharia. Religions change over time. People in the religion just believe what their neighbors believe. That's how humans work.

curious2 says

The question ultimately is how to get Muslims to reject Islam.

That's unlikely to happen, especially when the current leaders just kill the people who do reject Islam.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

curious2 says

Daniel Pipes

I take it this is a mistake; Daniel Pipes is an Islam critic, no?

"Bolstering Moderate Muslims

by Daniel Pipes
***
When I suggest that radical Muslims are the problem and that moderate Muslims are the solution, the nearly inevitable retort from most people is: "What moderate Muslims?"
***
American government and other powerful institutions should give priority to locating, meeting with, funding, forwarding, empowering, and celebrating those brave Muslims who, at personal risk, stand up and confront the totalitarians."

The issue with his position, especially as advocated by Hillary Clinton and others, is that it means celebrating and empowering and funding Islam. They might call it "moderate," but it concedes the beachhead. Imagine if they said let's take the "moderate" migrants who promise to stay on the shore and never to come further inland. That doesn't work. Celebrating the dead charlatan Mohamed and funding and empowering a subset of his followers, at the expense of people who denounce his hateful fraud, is a mistake.

curious2 says

The issue with his position

Pipes has been warning against radical Islam for decades. He believes that the best way to fight it is for more moderate Muslims to lead the others out of the dark ages. I've yet to hear a better idea.

YesYNot says

That's unlikely to happen, especially when the current leaders just kill the people who do reject Islam.

That is why all Islamic leaders must be under secular democratic control until they are ready to fully accept secularism.

YesYNot says

I've yet to hear a better idea.

Even within his ideas, he criticizes America for mistaking a smile from a veil, e.g. mistaking the Saudis for moderates. A better idea that he would probably agree with is to quit funding KSA (which funds Islamic terrorism) and Pakistan (which is a terrorist state). I would go further: a problem with Islam is the prohibition against blasphemy prevents those countries from having anything like the Reformation and Enlightenment. Those countries are currently mobilizing a worldwide plan against blasphemy, including online, and the Islamic State is publishing kill lists including westerners in western countries in order to enable Sharia patrol murders like what we see in Bangladesh and the Netherlands. In addition to cutting off all funding for Islam, we should ban Muslim immigration and celebrate and fund blasphemy against Islam. We should recognize that Islam is a totalitarian doctrine similar to the Nazis (Muslims and Nazis both recognized that fact during WWII), and worse than communism, and proceed accordingly.

curious2 says

In addition to cutting off all funding for Islam, we

the way to do this is to starve the beast is by cutting back on our oil addiction. The best way to do that is to tax our fucking oil consumption already. We are 20 years too late on this, but it's never too late to start. In the mean time, we shouldn't be making the radical Islamist's life easier by agreeing with them.

YesYNot says

The best way to do that is to

During the campaign, candidate Trump said "we take the oil" in Iraq and Libya among other places. We shouldn't be paying money to people who would kill us. They don't respect our right to live. The only reason we pay them is Petrodollar baksheesh including via the MIC. If they had the guns and we had the oil, they'd take what they want and make us do the work for them. As it is, we are already doing the work for them, and too many of us have been hypnotized to believe in doing that.

YesYNot says

we shouldn't be making the radical Islamist's life easier by agreeing with them.

Islam says what it says. You might fool yourself into believing that it doesn't, but you don't fool anyone else.

curious2 says

Islam says what it says.

People are tribal group thinkers. They do and think what their neighbors do and think. Go to a bunch of different Christian churches in America.
Within each church, you will find a lot of similar views. Between churches, the views will differ considerably. In big cities, this is by selection. In small towns, it's because people are fitting in with their community. It's not because people within a church all happen to interpret the Bible the same way, which is different from a church in the next state over. Imo, is not so much what is in the book as what everybody in the community is saying it means.

curious2 says

Trump said "we take the oil" in Iraq

This would get rid of any pretense that we fought the war for moral reasons. It would not solve the Saudi Arabia problem or be an easy thing to do either. It would be much easier to just use less oil.

YesYNot says

This would get rid of any pretense that we fought the war for moral reasons.

That NATO MSM pretense fooled only NATO voters who wanted to be fooled, like what you said about people who imagine sugary soda would somehow be healthy. It's the equivalent of believing that bombing Libya did not constitute "hostilities," that the latest coup d'etat in Egypt was not a coup d'etat, and that bombing Syrians and financing Sunni militias to drive them out of their homes and into other countries as rapefugees is for their benefit. Anyone who can believe even half those lies is living in an Alice in Wonderland world, believing countless impossible things before breakfast.

YesYNot says

It would not solve the Saudi Arabia problem or be an easy thing to do either.

It might be the only way to solve the KSA problem, and paying them more $ won't make it any easier.

YesYNot says

It would be much easier to just use less oil.

Yes, and President Trump has talked about expanding domestic drilling including off both coasts. Other energy sources are advancing rapidly but are not yet close to replacing oil. Besides, even if we ended our own consumption of oil entirely, other countries would continue buying from KSA.

curious2 says

Yes, and President Trump has talked about expanding domestic drilling including off both coasts.

He has already rolled back cafe standards which would not be necessary if we taxed oil. But we don't, and cafe works. curious2 says

other countries would continue buying from KSA.

If we taxed oil like Europe does we would drive different cars, and the price of oil would be in the sewer. We wouldn't fly so much either.

The goal is not to avoid buying a fungible commodity from x, y, or Z. The goal is to drive the price down. That way, oil rich countries all take a hit regardless of who buys their oil.

YesYNot says

. Imo,

You persist in believing what you want to believe, what is politic and in your interest to believe, having apparently become more managerial than scientific. Go along to get along. You ignore so much about Islam and the differences between Islam and Christianity that it's hard to know where to begin. The Koran is the most widely read book in the Islamic world, and it is recited verbatim even to people who are illiterate. Unlike the Bible, the Koran has officially one author. To the extent different interpretations can be found, they are at the edges, like two KKKlansmen debating how many loops to use in a lynching knot: they both agree on the main result. It is frustrating to see you insist on ignorance and lies, maybe IRL you can order people to act as if they believe them but the lies remain lies. I remember your lies about refugees not becoming involved in terrorism, and you persisted in those too, claiming no refugees had been arrested for terrorism while linking a source that listed three. None so blind as those who will not see.

The difference between "radical" and "moderate" Muslims comes down to timing. Radical Muslims want to impose Sharia right now, by force. So-called "moderate" Muslims want to grow and spread Islam, increasing its power organically until resistance becomes futile, and then impose Sharia. You seem to promote the second strategy, which is an Islamic strategy, rather than standing for the Enlightenment.

curious2 says

That NATO MSM pretense fooled only NATO voters who wanted to be fooled, like what you said about people who imagine sugary soda

I think it also fools kids in our country who sign up for the military. Who would sign up to be a mercenary for grunt pay?

YesYNot says

kids in our country who sign up for the military.

They are a subset of NATO voters, so drop the "also." After seeing what Islam says and does, most Army and FBI voted for President Trump.

BTW, I updated my comment, will paste here too: The difference between "radical" and "moderate" Muslims comes down to timing. Radical Muslims want to impose Sharia right now, by force. So-called "moderate" Muslims want to grow and spread Islam, increasing its power organically until resistance becomes futile, and then impose Sharia. You seem to promote the second strategy, which is an Islamic strategy, rather than standing for the Enlightenment.

curious2 says

claiming no refugees had been arrested for terrorism while linking a source that listed three. None so blind as those who will not see.

I'm pretty sure that I agreed that the statistic that I read was misleading. It qualified terrorism as acts labeled terrorism on us soil iirc.

As for my opinions on Muslims, I've known quite a few Muslims who were basically typical secular Americans. My opinion on what would work the best is consistent with my views on people. I do think that Islam is a mess, and that would explain the higher rate of terrorism by Muslims.

So let's hear your strategy for convincing Muslims to abandon Islam.

curious2 says

rather than standing for the Enlightenment.

How do you do this?

For a start, see my comment above. America beat communism and fascism, though some of the latter came to America wrapped in an American flag. You have to start by recognizing the problem: Islam hates us. You don't win by importing "moderate" Nazis and claiming to respect Hitler while firebombing Dresden. We've been at war for 15 years, making matters worse, because we're fighting mostly on the wrong side; it goes back to Nixon's deals to expand the war in southeast Asia and the MIC.

YesYNot says

How do you do this?

See all of my comments. While you opine from ignorance and wishful thinking, I stick to evidence and reason.