It is currently Mon Feb 24, 2025 2:30 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 571 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 20  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 8:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:09 am
Posts: 19929
pizza_Place: Papa Johns
SomeGuy is batting 1.000, I'm way ahead of the curve, yet again.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 8:05 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 80562
Location: Rogers Park, USA
pizza_Place: JB Alberto's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
SomeGuy wrote:
Hahahah, now it's been reported that Kh. Bas stated that the Constitution should always be subordinate to Sharia Law.

Im sure the "3rd Estate" will be all over this one!


Link?


I don't really think that's surprising. If you're a Muslim, isn't it incumbent upon you to hold such a belief? How could one actually subscribe to any religion without believing that the word and laws prescribed by God should take precedence over some shit dreamed up by man?


Surprising? No. But there's a big difference between assuming it and saying a guy said it. If the claim is that he said it, there needs to be proof he said it. There's a difference.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/01/khizr-khan-has-previously-written-extensively-on-sharia-law/
Quote:
“The Shari’ah-was completed during the lifetime of Prophet Muhammed, in the Quran and Sunnah. This brings up an important fact which is generally overlooked, that the invariable and basic rules of Islamic Law are only those prescribed in the Shari’ah (Quran and Sunnah), which are few and limited,” Khan continues to write. “All other juridical works which have been written during more than thirteen centuries are very rich and indispensable, but they must always be subordinated to the Shari’ah and open to reconsideration by all Muslims.”


This guy is an officer of the court in the U.S. and he believes that. Does anyone really not see that as a problem?

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 8:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
SomeGuy wrote:
Hahahah, now it's been reported that Kh. Bas stated that the Constitution should always be subordinate to Sharia Law.

Im sure the "3rd Estate" will be all over this one!


Link?


I don't really think that's surprising. If you're a Muslim, isn't it incumbent upon you to hold such a belief? How could one actually subscribe to any religion without believing that the word and laws prescribed by God should take precedence over some shit dreamed up by man?


Surprising? No. But there's a big difference between assuming it and saying a guy said it. If the claim is that he said it, there needs to be proof he said it. There's a difference.


Yeah, okay. But if the guy calls himself a Muslim, I have to assume that's how he feels. And I'm not bashing Muslims. Nobody is making you believe such crazy shit, but I can at least admire someone who is really committed to a belief. If you identify as Muslim but you don't acknowledge the texts of the religion, are you really a Muslim? Of course not. It's like most of the Catholics in my family. Yeah, I guess they "believe" in God, but if you truly believed in God- and if you're a Christian the only basis for such is the Bible- wouldn't you do exactly what God said you should do? I mean, if you're not afraid of God's specific punishments as laid out in his own words, do you really expect me to believe you believe in him?


Yeah, I've had this argument no less than 5,000 times regarding all religuons, and I'm usually the one making this argument. That doesn't change the fact that if the claim was that the guy said it, there should be proof he said it. It looks as though he did, however.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 8:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
SomeGuy wrote:
Hahahah, now it's been reported that Kh. Bas stated that the Constitution should always be subordinate to Sharia Law.

Im sure the "3rd Estate" will be all over this one!


Link?


I don't really think that's surprising. If you're a Muslim, isn't it incumbent upon you to hold such a belief? How could one actually subscribe to any religion without believing that the word and laws prescribed by God should take precedence over some shit dreamed up by man?


Surprising? No. But there's a big difference between assuming it and saying a guy said it. If the claim is that he said it, there needs to be proof he said it. There's a difference.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/01/khizr-khan-has-previously-written-extensively-on-sharia-law/
Quote:
“The Shari’ah-was completed during the lifetime of Prophet Muhammed, in the Quran and Sunnah. This brings up an important fact which is generally overlooked, that the invariable and basic rules of Islamic Law are only those prescribed in the Shari’ah (Quran and Sunnah), which are few and limited,” Khan continues to write. “All other juridical works which have been written during more than thirteen centuries are very rich and indispensable, but they must always be subordinated to the Shari’ah and open to reconsideration by all Muslims.”


This guy is an officer of the court in the U.S. and he believes that. Does anyone really not see that as a problem?


I would hope not.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 8:14 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 80562
Location: Rogers Park, USA
pizza_Place: JB Alberto's
leashyourkids wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
SomeGuy wrote:
Hahahah, now it's been reported that Kh. Bas stated that the Constitution should always be subordinate to Sharia Law.

Im sure the "3rd Estate" will be all over this one!


Link?


I don't really think that's surprising. If you're a Muslim, isn't it incumbent upon you to hold such a belief? How could one actually subscribe to any religion without believing that the word and laws prescribed by God should take precedence over some shit dreamed up by man?


Surprising? No. But there's a big difference between assuming it and saying a guy said it. If the claim is that he said it, there needs to be proof he said it. There's a difference.


Yeah, okay. But if the guy calls himself a Muslim, I have to assume that's how he feels. And I'm not bashing Muslims. Nobody is making you believe such crazy shit, but I can at least admire someone who is really committed to a belief. If you identify as Muslim but you don't acknowledge the texts of the religion, are you really a Muslim? Of course not. It's like most of the Catholics in my family. Yeah, I guess they "believe" in God, but if you truly believed in God- and if you're a Christian the only basis for such is the Bible- wouldn't you do exactly what God said you should do? I mean, if you're not afraid of God's specific punishments as laid out in his own words, do you really expect me to believe you believe in him?


Yeah, I've had this argument no less than 5,000 times regarding all religuons, and I'm usually the one making this argument. That doesn't change the fact that if the claim was that the guy said it, there should be proof he said it. It looks as though he did, however.


You know, I really think this is part of the disconnect that most Americans have when it comes to Islam. Obviously, most Americans "believe" in God. If you declare yourself an atheist you aren't getting elected to shit in this country. But for most people, particularly educated people in the large cities, the belief in God is more of an abstract. It's hope for something better after this life is complete. And such "belief" is often divorced- or at least quite far removed- from the specific religious texts on which the religions embraced by these people are founded upon. I don't think you can say the same for the majority of Muslims. Their beliefs are specific and directly related to their ancient religious texts and doctrines. As it should be if you're actually going to believe in a religion.

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 8:22 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
If that is what he wrote I don't have an issue with it. I think MANY are reading it wrong.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 8:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40942
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Mr. Khan is a complex man.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 8:29 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 80562
Location: Rogers Park, USA
pizza_Place: JB Alberto's
pittmike wrote:
Mr. Khan is a complex man.


No one understands him but Nas.

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 8:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40942
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
pittmike wrote:
Mr. Khan is a complex man.


No one understands him but Nas.


:lol: You caught that.

_________________
Elections have consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 8:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
SomeGuy wrote:
Hahahah, now it's been reported that Kh. Bas stated that the Constitution should always be subordinate to Sharia Law.

Im sure the "3rd Estate" will be all over this one!


Link?


I don't really think that's surprising. If you're a Muslim, isn't it incumbent upon you to hold such a belief? How could one actually subscribe to any religion without believing that the word and laws prescribed by God should take precedence over some shit dreamed up by man?


Surprising? No. But there's a big difference between assuming it and saying a guy said it. If the claim is that he said it, there needs to be proof he said it. There's a difference.


Yeah, okay. But if the guy calls himself a Muslim, I have to assume that's how he feels. And I'm not bashing Muslims. Nobody is making you believe such crazy shit, but I can at least admire someone who is really committed to a belief. If you identify as Muslim but you don't acknowledge the texts of the religion, are you really a Muslim? Of course not. It's like most of the Catholics in my family. Yeah, I guess they "believe" in God, but if you truly believed in God- and if you're a Christian the only basis for such is the Bible- wouldn't you do exactly what God said you should do? I mean, if you're not afraid of God's specific punishments as laid out in his own words, do you really expect me to believe you believe in him?


I once took a History of Religion class in Grad School. I wrote a book review based on this book "God the Evidence". It relates to the question that you are posing. When you say God's words no one really knows for sure if they are god's words. The Bible is merely a written document that was theoretically written by supporters of Jesus Christ. No one has ever heard God's words so you really don't know if you are betraying his words by doing things that may run counter to what you read in the bible.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 8:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 pm
Posts: 68612
pizza_Place: Lina's Pizza
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
SomeGuy wrote:
Hahahah, now it's been reported that Kh. Bas stated that the Constitution should always be subordinate to Sharia Law.

Im sure the "3rd Estate" will be all over this one!


Link?


I don't really think that's surprising. If you're a Muslim, isn't it incumbent upon you to hold such a belief? How could one actually subscribe to any religion without believing that the word and laws prescribed by God should take precedence over some shit dreamed up by man?


Surprising? No. But there's a big difference between assuming it and saying a guy said it. If the claim is that he said it, there needs to be proof he said it. There's a difference.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/01/khizr-khan-has-previously-written-extensively-on-sharia-law/
Quote:
“The Shari’ah-was completed during the lifetime of Prophet Muhammed, in the Quran and Sunnah. This brings up an important fact which is generally overlooked, that the invariable and basic rules of Islamic Law are only those prescribed in the Shari’ah (Quran and Sunnah), which are few and limited,” Khan continues to write. “All other juridical works which have been written during more than thirteen centuries are very rich and indispensable, but they must always be subordinated to the Shari’ah and open to reconsideration by all Muslims.”


From the same article:

The Muslim attorney writes that, “it has to be admitted, however, that the Quran, being basically a book of religious guidance, is not an easy reference for legal studies. It is more particularly an appeal to faith and the human soul rather than a classification of legal prescriptions.”

ThisGuy is a walking khantradiction.

Much like the Quran.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 8:56 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
pittmike wrote:
Mr. Khan is a complex man.


No one understands him but Nas.


Not true. You clearly understand how all religious people interpret their holy books. All Muslims have a literal interpretation of their holy book but that isn't true for everyone else. It's really amazing how you figured that out.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:10 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 80562
Location: Rogers Park, USA
pizza_Place: JB Alberto's
Nas wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
pittmike wrote:
Mr. Khan is a complex man.


No one understands him but Nas.


Not true. You clearly understand how all religious people interpret their holy books. All Muslims have a literal interpretation of their holy book but that isn't true for everyone else. It's really amazing how you figured that out.


Tricky language here. I guess it depends what the meaning of "is" is.

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
You know, I really think this is part of the disconnect that most Americans have when it comes to Islam. Obviously, most Americans "believe" in God. If you declare yourself an atheist you aren't getting elected to shit in this country. But for most people, particularly educated people in the large cities, the belief in God is more of an abstract. It's hope for something better after this life is complete. And such "belief" is often divorced- or at least quite far removed- from the specific religious texts on which the religions embraced by these people are founded upon. I don't think you can say the same for the majority of Muslims. Their beliefs are specific and directly related to their ancient religious texts and doctrines. As it should be if you're actually going to believe in a religion.


The problem, though, is that the same logic should apply to Christians or any other religion. If Ted Cruz is elected president, he literally thinks the Bible's literal interpretation should trump everything. And if he doesn't think that, one has to wonder how much of a true "Christian" he is. This is the exact same thing. Now, I know you're going to come back and say "Yeah, but Ted Cruz isn't trying to eradicate Western Culture or kill people or whatever...", but I'm not trying to solve global terrorism, either. I'm just trying to be logically consistent. If what this guy thinks upsets you so much, you should be equally upset when anyone goes on their religious tirades during a political function. I find both to be incongruent with my way of thinking.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:13 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 80562
Location: Rogers Park, USA
pizza_Place: JB Alberto's
long time guy wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
SomeGuy wrote:
Hahahah, now it's been reported that Kh. Bas stated that the Constitution should always be subordinate to Sharia Law.

Im sure the "3rd Estate" will be all over this one!


Link?


I don't really think that's surprising. If you're a Muslim, isn't it incumbent upon you to hold such a belief? How could one actually subscribe to any religion without believing that the word and laws prescribed by God should take precedence over some shit dreamed up by man?


Surprising? No. But there's a big difference between assuming it and saying a guy said it. If the claim is that he said it, there needs to be proof he said it. There's a difference.


Yeah, okay. But if the guy calls himself a Muslim, I have to assume that's how he feels. And I'm not bashing Muslims. Nobody is making you believe such crazy shit, but I can at least admire someone who is really committed to a belief. If you identify as Muslim but you don't acknowledge the texts of the religion, are you really a Muslim? Of course not. It's like most of the Catholics in my family. Yeah, I guess they "believe" in God, but if you truly believed in God- and if you're a Christian the only basis for such is the Bible- wouldn't you do exactly what God said you should do? I mean, if you're not afraid of God's specific punishments as laid out in his own words, do you really expect me to believe you believe in him?


I once took a History of Religion class in Grad School. I wrote a book review based on this book "God the Evidence". It relates to the question that you are posing. When you say God's words no one really knows for sure if they are god's words. The Bible is merely a written document that was theoretically written by supporters of Jesus Christ. No one has ever heard God's words so you really don't know if you are betraying his words by doing things that may run counter to what you read in the bible.


if you don't believe the Koran is the Word of God you are not a Muslim. If you don't believe the Bible is the Word Of God you are not a Christian. The kind of gymnastics you are attempting here is the reason for something like The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which I generally find disrespectful. Because I don't care what goofy crap you believe, as long as you don't bring it to my doorstep. But religious people are rarely satisfied with just doing their own thing. They want to impose their beliefs on everyone else. That's the very definition of "religious".

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:14 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 80562
Location: Rogers Park, USA
pizza_Place: JB Alberto's
leashyourkids wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
You know, I really think this is part of the disconnect that most Americans have when it comes to Islam. Obviously, most Americans "believe" in God. If you declare yourself an atheist you aren't getting elected to shit in this country. But for most people, particularly educated people in the large cities, the belief in God is more of an abstract. It's hope for something better after this life is complete. And such "belief" is often divorced- or at least quite far removed- from the specific religious texts on which the religions embraced by these people are founded upon. I don't think you can say the same for the majority of Muslims. Their beliefs are specific and directly related to their ancient religious texts and doctrines. As it should be if you're actually going to believe in a religion.


The problem, though, is that the same logic should apply to Christians or any other religion. If Ted Cruz is elected president, he literally thinks the Bible's literal interpretation should trump everything. And if he doesn't think that, one has to wonder how much of a true "Christian" he is. This is the exact same thing. Now, I know you're going to come back and say "Yeah, but Ted Cruz isn't trying to eradicate Western Culture or kill people or whatever...", but I'm not trying to solve global terrorism, either. I'm just trying to be logically consistent. If what this guy thinks upsets you so much, you should be equally upset when anyone goes on their religious tirades during a political function. I find both to be incongruent with my way of thinking.


Have I ever given you the impression that I believe Ted Cruz to be in his right mind? :lol:

Also, I'm not upset with anything Khan said or believes. That was my point in saying it isn't surprising, not to challenge your request for a link. But I think anyone who is a true liberal and isn't aware of these real belief systems and tries to deny they exist or the dangers they could have to the way you and I want to live is naive at best.

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:25 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
You know, I really think this is part of the disconnect that most Americans have when it comes to Islam. Obviously, most Americans "believe" in God. If you declare yourself an atheist you aren't getting elected to shit in this country. But for most people, particularly educated people in the large cities, the belief in God is more of an abstract. It's hope for something better after this life is complete. And such "belief" is often divorced- or at least quite far removed- from the specific religious texts on which the religions embraced by these people are founded upon. I don't think you can say the same for the majority of Muslims. Their beliefs are specific and directly related to their ancient religious texts and doctrines. As it should be if you're actually going to believe in a religion.


The problem, though, is that the same logic should apply to Christians or any other religion. If Ted Cruz is elected president, he literally thinks the Bible's literal interpretation should trump everything. And if he doesn't think that, one has to wonder how much of a true "Christian" he is. This is the exact same thing. Now, I know you're going to come back and say "Yeah, but Ted Cruz isn't trying to eradicate Western Culture or kill people or whatever...", but I'm not trying to solve global terrorism, either. I'm just trying to be logically consistent. If what this guy thinks upsets you so much, you should be equally upset when anyone goes on their religious tirades during a political function. I find both to be incongruent with my way of thinking.


Have I ever given you the impression that I believe Ted Cruz to be in his right mind? :lol:

Also, I'm not upset with anything Khan said or believes. That was my point in saying it isn't surprising, not to challenge your request for a link. But I think anyone who is a true liberal and isn't aware of these real belief systems and tries to deny they exist or the dangers they could have to the way you and I want to live is naive at best.


Now you're trying to impose your beliefs on Leash.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
You know, I really think this is part of the disconnect that most Americans have when it comes to Islam. Obviously, most Americans "believe" in God. If you declare yourself an atheist you aren't getting elected to shit in this country. But for most people, particularly educated people in the large cities, the belief in God is more of an abstract. It's hope for something better after this life is complete. And such "belief" is often divorced- or at least quite far removed- from the specific religious texts on which the religions embraced by these people are founded upon. I don't think you can say the same for the majority of Muslims. Their beliefs are specific and directly related to their ancient religious texts and doctrines. As it should be if you're actually going to believe in a religion.


The problem, though, is that the same logic should apply to Christians or any other religion. If Ted Cruz is elected president, he literally thinks the Bible's literal interpretation should trump everything. And if he doesn't think that, one has to wonder how much of a true "Christian" he is. This is the exact same thing. Now, I know you're going to come back and say "Yeah, but Ted Cruz isn't trying to eradicate Western Culture or kill people or whatever...", but I'm not trying to solve global terrorism, either. I'm just trying to be logically consistent. If what this guy thinks upsets you so much, you should be equally upset when anyone goes on their religious tirades during a political function. I find both to be incongruent with my way of thinking.


Have I ever given you the impression that I believe Ted Cruz to be in his right mind? :lol:

Also, I'm not upset with anything Khan said or believes. That was my point in saying it isn't surprising, not to challenge your request for a link. But I think anyone who is a true liberal and isn't aware of these real belief systems and tries to deny they exist or the dangers they could have to the way you and I want to live is naive at best.


First, yes, if I hadn't met you before, I wouldn't believe you weren't Ted Cruz.

Second, I would again argue that if you're making that assumption based on religious texts that we can assume he subscribes to, then you must also think that Nas would stone his own son to death if he continually disobeyed him. If we assume one, we must assume the other. I'm fine with that if you're onboard.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Nas wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
You know, I really think this is part of the disconnect that most Americans have when it comes to Islam. Obviously, most Americans "believe" in God. If you declare yourself an atheist you aren't getting elected to shit in this country. But for most people, particularly educated people in the large cities, the belief in God is more of an abstract. It's hope for something better after this life is complete. And such "belief" is often divorced- or at least quite far removed- from the specific religious texts on which the religions embraced by these people are founded upon. I don't think you can say the same for the majority of Muslims. Their beliefs are specific and directly related to their ancient religious texts and doctrines. As it should be if you're actually going to believe in a religion.


The problem, though, is that the same logic should apply to Christians or any other religion. If Ted Cruz is elected president, he literally thinks the Bible's literal interpretation should trump everything. And if he doesn't think that, one has to wonder how much of a true "Christian" he is. This is the exact same thing. Now, I know you're going to come back and say "Yeah, but Ted Cruz isn't trying to eradicate Western Culture or kill people or whatever...", but I'm not trying to solve global terrorism, either. I'm just trying to be logically consistent. If what this guy thinks upsets you so much, you should be equally upset when anyone goes on their religious tirades during a political function. I find both to be incongruent with my way of thinking.


Have I ever given you the impression that I believe Ted Cruz to be in his right mind? :lol:

Also, I'm not upset with anything Khan said or believes. That was my point in saying it isn't surprising, not to challenge your request for a link. But I think anyone who is a true liberal and isn't aware of these real belief systems and tries to deny they exist or the dangers they could have to the way you and I want to live is naive at best.


Now you're trying to impose your beliefs on Leash.


:) I'm not a liberal.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
The Bible is not a litmus test for whether or not you believe in God either I don't know where you got that cap from Jorr

How can anything be the "word of god" if no one knows for sure if God has spoken? The Bible was written by man not God. I can believe in God and still believe that a manmade document may not be reflective of his beliefs.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:38 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 80562
Location: Rogers Park, USA
pizza_Place: JB Alberto's
leashyourkids wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
You know, I really think this is part of the disconnect that most Americans have when it comes to Islam. Obviously, most Americans "believe" in God. If you declare yourself an atheist you aren't getting elected to shit in this country. But for most people, particularly educated people in the large cities, the belief in God is more of an abstract. It's hope for something better after this life is complete. And such "belief" is often divorced- or at least quite far removed- from the specific religious texts on which the religions embraced by these people are founded upon. I don't think you can say the same for the majority of Muslims. Their beliefs are specific and directly related to their ancient religious texts and doctrines. As it should be if you're actually going to believe in a religion.


The problem, though, is that the same logic should apply to Christians or any other religion. If Ted Cruz is elected president, he literally thinks the Bible's literal interpretation should trump everything. And if he doesn't think that, one has to wonder how much of a true "Christian" he is. This is the exact same thing. Now, I know you're going to come back and say "Yeah, but Ted Cruz isn't trying to eradicate Western Culture or kill people or whatever...", but I'm not trying to solve global terrorism, either. I'm just trying to be logically consistent. If what this guy thinks upsets you so much, you should be equally upset when anyone goes on their religious tirades during a political function. I find both to be incongruent with my way of thinking.


Have I ever given you the impression that I believe Ted Cruz to be in his right mind? :lol:

Also, I'm not upset with anything Khan said or believes. That was my point in saying it isn't surprising, not to challenge your request for a link. But I think anyone who is a true liberal and isn't aware of these real belief systems and tries to deny they exist or the dangers they could have to the way you and I want to live is naive at best.


First, yes, if I hadn't met you before, I wouldn't believe you weren't Ted Cruz.

Second, I would again argue that if you're making that assumption based on religious texts that we can assume he subscribes to, then you must also think that Nas would stone his own son to death if he continually disobeyed him. If we assume one, we must assume the other. I'm fine with that if you're onboard.


That's exactly the point. I don't think the level of Nas' beliefs in any religious text is the same as just a basic average Muslim, let alone a so-called radical. But Nas is here and he can tell us himself if he would stone his kids and if not how he squares that with God's orders. (Anyway, I think stoning went out when the New Covenant came in.)

The larger point is that, yeah, I believe Ted Cruz is a fucking Christian whacko. The thing is, when I say that, I'm not going to be attacked as some kind of bigot in this forum for doing so. I don't want Ted Cruz anywhere near the White House and I would prefer he weren't in the Senate. You're from a small town. I admit there are probably more Christian whackos clinging to their guns and religion in small towns in Middle America. I just don't really know any of them except Darkside.

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:40 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 80562
Location: Rogers Park, USA
pizza_Place: JB Alberto's
long time guy wrote:
The Bible is not a litmus test for whether or not you believe in God either I don't know where you got that cap from Jorr


I never said it was. But it is certainly a litmus test if you believe in the Christian god. Otherwise you're praying to the Flying Spaghetti Monster or something else that has no basis in the Bible.

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:41 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 80562
Location: Rogers Park, USA
pizza_Place: JB Alberto's
long time guy wrote:
The Bible was written by man not God.



I rest my case.

_________________
Freedom is our Strength.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:13 am
Posts: 17583
Location: BLM Lake Forest Chapter
pizza_Place: Quonset
Nas wrote:
If that is what he wrote I don't have an issue with it. I think MANY are reading it wrong.



This

_________________
Don Tiny wrote:
Don't be such a fucking chump.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93652
Location: To the left of my post
How should it be read?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 pm
Posts: 68612
pizza_Place: Lina's Pizza
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
How should it be read?


Like this.

The Muslim attorney writes that, “it has to be admitted, however, that the Quran, being basically a book of religious guidance, is not an easy reference for legal studies. It is more particularly an appeal to faith and the human soul rather than a classification of legal prescriptions.”

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2015 6:08 pm
Posts: 3717
Location: East of Eden
pizza_Place: Vito and Nick's
Aside:

The books that didn't make it into the Bible are often hilarious. "The Infancy Gospel of Thomas" features a boy Jesus who is kind of a jag. For example, he gets in trouble at school one day, so he kills he teacher. Mary, his mom, makes him bring the dude back to life.

Later, Jesus practices his resurrection skills by killing birds and then reanimating them.

"The Infancy Gospel of Thomas" obviously didn't make the cut, but I'd love to get high with the person who dreamed it up. It's also no more crazy than some of the stuff in the rest of the NT (though it lacks the Golden Rule stuff).

_________________
rogers park bryan wrote:
This registered sex offender I regularly converse with on the internet just said something really stupid


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:29 pm
Posts: 34795
pizza_Place: Al's Pizza
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
How should it be read?


Backwards. The message is totally different, like playing Beatles' records backwards.

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 9:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
That's exactly the point. I don't think the level of Nas' beliefs in any religious text is the same as just a basic average Muslim, let alone a so-called radical. But Nas is here and he can tell us himself if he would stone his kids and if not how he squares that with God's orders. (Anyway, I think stoning went out when the New Covenant came in.)

The larger point is that, yeah, I believe Ted Cruz is a fucking Christian whacko. The thing is, when I say that, I'm not going to be attacked as some kind of bigot in this forum for doing so. I don't want Ted Cruz anywhere near the White House and I would prefer he weren't in the Senate. You're from a small town. I admit there are probably more Christian whackos clinging to their guns and religion in small towns in Middle America. I just don't really know any of them except Darkside.


But your first point seems to contradict what you've said previously. You have stated that if someone doesn't follow the texts of their religion literally, how can they really be called a (Muslim, Christian, Branch Davidian, etc.)? If you're saying that Nas isn't really a Christian, I guess that squares. I don't think either one has any place in a public forum, Muslim or Christian.

I can guarantee you, though, that the reason you perceive more "Liberals" or "athiests" to argue against Christianity than Islam is because we are surrounded by Christians, and there is more expected of them. The very reason people don't often take on Islam is - in my mind - what Ted Kuczynski described in his manifesto regarding Liberals. Many Liberals tend to "lay off" or defend groups who they subconsciously view as not equal to them. I suspect that many Liberals regard Islam as archaic and are therefore hesitant to criticize, whereas their friends and family groups are likely to have at least one Christian wacko that they can relate with on many levels.

I just don't think acknowledging that Islam in general is more radical accomplishes much. First, it's obvious that there are certain sects that want to destroy the West. Second, acknowledging it probably doesn't do much other than piss off the ones who are moderate. If you go strictly by his beliefs, this Khan guy doesn't really think much differently than a lot of Senators and - presumably - judges or other members of our government. He just happens to have a different religion that, as a whole, seems to have a lot more fanaticism at the moment.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Khan Controversy
PostPosted: Wed Aug 03, 2016 10:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Terry's Peeps wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
How should it be read?


Like this.

The Muslim attorney writes that, “it has to be admitted, however, that the Quran, being basically a book of religious guidance, is not an easy reference for legal studies. It is more particularly an appeal to faith and the human soul rather than a classification of legal prescriptions.”


Yeah, I'm certainly not defending ANY religion, but how is his general philosophy different than a huge portion of Christians who hold public office?

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 571 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 20  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group