Three Things About Islam

---

I understand what revelation is, I do not understand how revelation can be taken as reliable evidence for anything.A burning bush telling you that a plague of raining frogs is coming is surely more a sign of insanity than revelation.

Originally Posted By: damien Originally Posted By: bobalicious Originally Posted By: damienBut the largest error you are making is supposing that empirical evidence is the only criteria for truth. Without getting too heavy into this stuff (out of courtesy to the board, I'm trying to cut down on the militant atheism ), what other criteria are there for truth in terms of the Bible? Without getting too heavy into this stuff (out of courtesy to you and the board, and just a lack of desire to get into it ) I would say historical evidence and revelation, for starters. For starters? Historical evidence doesn't backup miracle stories in the bible. It doesn't actually prove anything except the environment in which these miracle stories could have taken place.Revelation is not evidence.

Originally Posted By: bobaliciousA burning bush telling you that a plague of raining frogs is coming is surely more a sign of insanity than revelation. Ahh...unless the plague of raining frogs actually materializes. At that point it actually becomes supporting (empirical) evidence to corroborate the revelation.

Originally Posted By: TechnicalHistorical evidence doesn't backup miracle stories in the bible. It doesn't actually prove anything except the environment in which these miracle stories could have taken place.Of course you can't use historical evidence in contexts in which it isn't useful. But you also can't exclusively depend on empirical evidence when it's irrelevant. But you just said yourself that historical evidence can prove some things.  Quote:Revelation is not evidence.What do you mean by this? Because I would disagree.See, here's the thing. Truth is something that is separate from attempts to uncover it. Somewhere along the line we were handed the notion that there is no truth apart from that which can be "proven" by the scientific method. That's just wrong. It's tantamount to scientist making the rules for gaining knowledge and understanding truth, based on their preconceived and quite prejudicial notions of how knowledge is gained. I'm not saying the scientific method isn't important. It's crucial. Or at least it is in those areas of knowledge that can be ascertain through that method, basically empirical knowledge. But empirical knowledge isn't the only kind of knowledge. And knowledge that isn't empirical knowledge cannot be ascertained and "proven" through the scientific method. (Crap. Didn't I just say I didn't want to get too heavy into this stuff? )

Originally Posted By: damienSuck it, weenie boy! roflmao Scotty always gets the best offers... lol

you are absolutely right in your concerns... there is no room for the influence of religion on law!

Originally Posted By: damienAhh...unless the plague of raining frogs actually materializes. At that point it actually becomes supporting (empirical) evidence to corroborate the revelation. But then where is the supporting (empirical) evidence for these miracles? Noah's flood, Exodus, Resurrection, etc... These are events that have no supporting evidence outside of the Bible, a book that has been misinterpreted, mistranslated and flat-out edited for thousands of years.Are there historical facts in the Bible? Yes. But even these facts are sometimes used in ways that go to discrediting the Bible. e.g. Jesus was born while Herod was king (Matthew 2:1) but he was also born during the census ordered by Caesar (Luke 2:1). This seems normal enough until you factor in the empirical evidence. The only census of any kind (especially of the scale described in the Bible) ordered by Caesar at this time was undertaken while Quirinius was governor of Syria, a position he did not take until 6AD. Herod died in 4BC. That is a minimum of a 9 year discrepancy, supported by empirical evidence.And before any attempt is made at claiming that the Herod referred to here is actually Herod Archelaus, son of Herod the Great, Matthew 2:22 clears that up for us. I'm also ready for the argument that the ancient Greek word for "first" can be translated to mean "before" or "former" but I'd gladly discuss it if you want to bring it up. It would prove my point though as we would then be discussing an unknown pre-Quirinius census and thus the event in question would not be supported by empirical evidence.

I thought you said you didn't want to really get into this. Cause I really don't. Other than to say that I have seen some pretty good empirical evidence supporting Noah's flood.Here's what it comes down to, and why I really don't care to bat this around any further. You either believe what I believe the Bible is, or you believe what you believe it is. It's either God's TRUE word, or it's not. I believe one and you believe another. And as long as this fundamental disagreement exists, we will never come to agreement on all of this other stuff. So, from my perspective, what's the point of arguing whether or not there is any kind of proof to corroborate the Bible with someone who doesn't believe the book is what I believe it is. Basically, someone who hasn't accepted something by faith, without perfect empirical evidence, that I have?

OK...lets turn up the gain a bit. Here's a video concerning Muslim tradition and (indirectly) Shari'a law...this is legal under Shari'a law. WARNING: Though no blood is spilled, it is somewhat shocking. If you watch the full video, you will also understand that this is not an isolated incident...not even close.I also noted that in Minnesota, Muslim taxi drivers are now refusing to transport passengers that are carrying alcohol or are with dogs (even seeing-eye dogs). They also refused, as checkers in a market, to handle bacon...and were tranferred to another deparment (instead of being fired like everyone else would have been). In short, Muslim-heavy communities in the US are already trying to exert pressures on the local populace...and it will only be a matter of time before they take the local government to task. This is known as "dhimmitude". It is beginning.

Bob, that's a well-known apparent inconsistency. Not being a believer in Biblical infallibility (a difficult position to hold, in view of some internal inconsistencies), I have no difficulty with the possibility that Matthew or Luke made a mistake. Most histories contain errors, people being human, but that doesn't mean those histories are worthless.In this case, however, there are actually four stated facts that can't all be true, two of them not Biblical: the dates of Herod's death and of Quirinius's accession to the governorship of Syria. The possibility that one of them may be wrong needs also to be considered. I don't know what the evidence for these dates is, so I can't go into that further; but I would point out that statements repeated with increasing certainty from history text to history text have often been found to be dubious or quite wrong. Much ancient historical information comes from a single source, and often only a single manuscript copy; and the assumption that where a secular historical source and a Biblical history disagree, the Biblical source is wrong, seems to me an unjustifiable value judgement.

Quote: This is known as "dhimmitude"yet again, you toss out that word with no concept of it's actual meaning or historical context. You're a parrot.So, a private business owner i.e. taxi driver, won't allow alcohol in his work place... FOR SHAME!!Hey, can you buy alcohol on a Sunday in your county? How about in every county near you? What if a business owner wants to sell alcohol on a Sunday? Wow, your precious Christian church wouldn't dream of interfering with your precious free-market, would it?

Originally Posted By: unsupervisedSo, a private business owner i.e. taxi driver, won't allow alcohol in his work place... FOR SHAME!!I don't think he said anything about private business owners.That being said, I know a lot of businesses make concessions toward Christian employees. When I was in grad school pt. 1, I delivered Domino's Pizza. I had a friend that worked there that wouldn't deliver pizzas to a local strip club that ordered them. Wasn't a problem. The managers respected his conviction and just got someone else to do that delivery. I think things like this happen all the time for Christians.

Get in step with the times amigo.

From your reference, thor, the word appears to have been coined to refer to ghettoisation of Christians in a Muslim state, and its use outside that context seems to be a misuse.

For those who have read the link, the meaning as used within this thread is obvious for those who are truly interested in understanding it...less so for those who are not.I would say it more accurately could be stated (to borrow from your post) to be the "ghettoisation" of all non-Muslims in any state...Muslim or not.'Bat Ye'or defined dhimmitude as the condition and experience of those who are subject to dhimma, and thus not synonymous to, but rather a subset of the dhimma phenomenon: "dhimmitude [...] represents a behavior dictated by fear (terrorism), pacifism when aggressed, rather than resistance, servility because of cowardice and vulnerability. [...] By their peaceful surrender to the Islamic army, they obtained the security for their life, belongings and religion, but they had to accept a condition of inferiority, spoliation and humiliation."'

Quote:For those who have read the link, the meaning as used within this thread is obvious for those who are truly interested in understanding it...less so for those who are not. once again, you and/or your FOX mentors are MAKING SHIT UP!unless you are resigned to the fact that the USA is already a Muslim state which is tolerating you Christians. Of course, if you'd ever read you own constitution, you'd realize that you Christians have been tolerated since day one.So, did you ever answer my questions about buying liquor on a Sunday?

Originally Posted By: unsupervisedonce again, you and/or your FOX mentors are MAKING SHIT UP!What does any of this have to do with FOX? The link was from wikipedia. I'm not sure you aid your argument any with that kind of pejorative, which is unfortunate because your argument is a very valid one.

I use Fuax News as the #1 example of the way partisan, populist rhetoric is fed to the neo-conservative base while it's kept in an information void.thor claims he doesn't watch it, nor subscribe to it's philosophies, yet the parallels in opinion are constant.

Interesting. I use MSNBC as the #1 example of the way partisan, populist rhetoric is fed to the neo-liberal base while it's kept in an information void.And if you really knew that much about Fox News, you would know that Thor's "philosophies" are far removed from most of what you would hear on Fox....although I'm not here to defend Thor or Fox News.

I've seen many statement from out mutual friend that strangely mirror recent commentaries by Beck of Hannity. But let's put that aside for now. What troubles me deeply among these so-called-patriots on the far right is the complete disregard for what America (and in many regards, Canada) stand for. One of the main points for leaving the "old world" was to escape religions persecution. Sadly, a bunch of asshats showed up and brought it with them, ruining the whole plan. I hope they are proud."THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.THEN THEY CAME for meand by that time no one was left to speak up."