Skinwalker banning Scifes unacceptable

Thanks! I was looking for that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

what you are describing here is preaching.
you either include all religions or none.
frankly i believe all discussions that center solely on a single religion in and of itself should be locked, possibly deleted.
you must remember that this is a science board not a place to stand on a soapbox extolling the virtues of "your" religion.
only in relation to society can you do this and then to its effects.

i think this is where muslims need to get a grip, islam is not the end all of everything, nor is any other religion.
religion is very probably genetic in nature, the finding of the placebo effect in animals support that observation. it could be the placebo effect is the cause of religion, who knows? but to proclaim one religion over any of the others is biased and bigoted.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Who allegedly proudly proclaimed that and in what post? Don't want to have to sift through posts to find out...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That was pretty funny

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Using citations from the Bible to study Christianity is preaching? Using citations from the Quran and Hadith to study Islam is preaching?

If such is the case, then there can be no proper intellectual debate on religion with your criteria.

You neglect the fact that the vast majority of threads opened on this website about Islam are done so as attacks by Atheists on Islam. Therefore, you words are lost on the wrong audience.

I personally have no problem with any debate, as long as it is done in a consistent intellectual manner with the use of sources, citations, and evidences backed by certified scholars on the subject.

Unfortunately, Atheists and others seem to only be able to debate Islamic topics from prejudiced stereotypes and misinformation. I expect this is the end result of debating a topic in which the majority of members of this forum are basically illiterate.

Most of my posts are rebuttals to previous posts. You can search my posts and you will realize this immediately. Furthermore, it does not make it any more right to degrade a particular religion than to extol it. Religions are similar to view points, and with this allegory we see that it is ridiculous to prevent people from extolling their personal viewpoints. If extolling religion is unacceptable, extolling lack of religion or atheism should similarly be unacceptable.

They are called Muslims because they accept Islam. If they did not, then they would no longer be Muslims.

According to you. This does not make you correct, it is simply your opinion. Those who follow a particular religion or ideology greatly differ from this view.
People search for universal truth, and if a particular religion is not universal truth, then it is illogical that all religions are truth, or that none are. Universal truth does exist, we just have to find it for ourselves.

 

that's the thing diamond hearts, this site is not dedicated to the study of religion as applied to a god.
i think its wrong of you to suggest that it should be then complain because you can't.
remember this diamondhearts, god has NEVER been proved to exist at no time, no where, by anyone, at any time in the worlds history.
also remember that i could go on and on about the remarkable similarities between the christain bible and the history it contains.
so, whose "bible" wins? to determine that you must prove that god is either christain or islamic.
this scenario reeks of preaching diamondhearts.

i might not have noticed but i'm not neglecting.
the question in this case is "are these people being fair"?
are they attacking all religions or are they singling out islam or some other one.

islam is not "the religion" diamondhearts, live with it.
proof you say?
islam, christianity, and judaism all proclaim god as their own and have proof of it.
this in itself should tell you something.

are you a religious scholar diamondhearts?do you know christianity like you know islam?
if not then how can you possibly say islam is the "true religion"
have you read shakespear? if not you should.

 

Depends how you define God. I define God as everything. The proof that God as I define it exists is all around you.

 

what you are defining is nature.
trying to explain nature with reason and logic is called science.

 

diamondhearts,
you need to rethink your strategy.
if you are adamant about "proving god" then you'll have to use some other method besides a holy book.

 

this type of garbage must positively be stopped, dead, in its tracks.

every US citizen should be outraged by the following:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/weekinreview/17liptak.html

it really peeves me to see this type of garbage in our courtrooms.

and you say islam has no political intentions?
bullshit.

 

leo, I appreciate your correspondence but this does not mean I am required to agree with you. I believe, as I always have, the most efficient way to debate a subject is through its most trusted sources. Just as we would debate Marxism by using the Communist Manifesto, Christianity by using the Bible, and Judaism by using the Torah and Talmud, we must similarly base our statements of "Islam's stances" on particular issues from the Quran and Hadith. It is not enough to simply proclaim that Islam, or any other religion, take a particular position, it must be proven through the sources of this religion. This is the only proper way to debate specifics in regards to religions or ideologies.

I visited your link. I think that people in the West have become too alarmist lately. Jewish personal law is already allowed in the UK, why would extending the same rights to Muslims outrage citizens?

I have never stated Islam does not have political intentions. It indeed does, in as far as Muslims have political stances on a variety of issues. The foremost command of the Islamic religion is 'to encourage good and forbid evil," this means that Muslims should be active in opposing unjust wars, economic manipulation of lower classes, promote civil rights and human rights, and work to establish a more just society wherever they may reside.

 

When debating Islam, we should use the wordly manifestations of Islam, whatever they happen to be. To debate on the subject of Islam using only it's holy texts is like debating democracy vs. communism using only the US constitution and the Communist Manifesto, in other words, it would be abstract and lacking in realism.

 

You must use this as a basis for 'Islam's stances.' Worldly manifestations is very vague language. There can be a murderer such as Saddam who is inherently secular and yet claim to be Muslim, whilst you can have someone such as Dr. Edhi who has donated and collected billions of dollars to helping to poor of the world. So whose point is more legitimate concerning Islam, you judge by the scriptures as the ultimate criterion.

 

We should get back to the topic at hand.

SKINWALKER'S MODERATION.

If you wish to continue the above discussions, please create a new thread in the religion subforum.

 

I don't mind calling it God as well. In some circumstances, I prefer that term.

Agreed.

 

Over my dead body

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Diamond, I think the best solution may be to just avoid Skinwalker's forums like the plague. It works for me.

 

too alarmist?
yes, i am alarmed at women marrying religious men then being REQUIRED to obey a holy book. in fact you don't want to know how i really feel.

bobbitt.

 

“
Originally Posted by leopold99
“
Originally Posted by scott3x
Depends how you define God. I define God as everything. The proof that God as I define it exists is all around you.
”
what you are defining is nature.
”

I prefer calling God Satan.

 

Ok. Why though? Because of all the terrible things done in God's name? Anyway, with people who dislike the term God I'm fine with talking to them personally of it as Nature. Perhaps some sci fi fans wouldn't mind concepts like Star Wars' "Force"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

I think we should have 333, 333, 333, 333, 333 definitions for god.