# Politics and News > Rants, Opinions, Observations >  Was The Koran Inspired By Satan?

## Coolwalker

It does not  take a  rocket scientist to realize that the Koran is not the word of God and   that the Koran is an evil book. Even people with a nominal sense of  right and  wrong and a minor ability to discern between good and evil  are able to quickly  recognize that the Koran is an intrinsically evil  book. But was the Koran  actually inspired by the devil himself. Did  Mohammed have a visitation from  Lucifer? There is overwhelming evidence  in the Koran to prove that Mohammed did  have a visitor from Hell   that the Koran is diabolical  that the Koran was  dictated to Mohammed  by Satan.  
    When Mohammed was  close to forty years old he was in a cave at  the foot of Mt. Hira three miles  outside Mecca. In this cave he  believes he had a visitation from the angel  Gabriel in which Gabriel  said to Mohammed, Read. Mohammed said in reply, I do  not read.  Mohammed says Gabriel pressed the words upon his heart. When Mohammed   woke up later on the mountain he heard a voice say, O Mohammed! Thou  art the  messenger of Allah and I am Gabriel.
*Was the  spirit Mohammed heard and saw at Mt. Hira Satan disguised as an  angel?*



_
And when We (Allah speaking in the plural) said  to the angels: Bow down and worship Adam then worshiped they all save  Eblis._ (Elbis is the Muslim Lucifer)He refused and swelled with pride, and became one of the  unbelievers. Koran, Surah 2:30.



_And We (again Allah referring to himself in  plural)_ said to the angels, Prostrate  yourselves before Adam, they all prostrated themselves save Eblis,  who was  of the Dijn, and revolted from his Lords behest  What! will  ye then take him  and his offspring as patrons rather than me? And they  your enemies? Sad exchange  for the ungodly! Koran, Surah 18: 40.
    And when We (Allah) said to the  angels, Fall down and worship Adam, they worshipped all, save Eblis, who  refused:  and We said, O Adam! This truly is a foe to thee and thy wife. Let   him not therefore drive you out of the Garden, and ye become wretched.  Koran,  Surah 20:110.



_When thy Lord  said to the angels, I am  about to make man out of clay, And when I  have formed him and breathed my spirit  into him, then worshipping fall  down before him. And the angels prostrated ,  all of them with one accord,  Save Eblis, He swelled with pride, and became  an unbeliever. O Ebis  said God, what hindereth thee from prostrating thyself  before him whom  my hands have made? Is it that thou art puffed with pride? Or  art thou  being of lofty merit? He said, I am more excellent than he; me thou   hast created out of fire: of clay thou hast created him. Allah said,  Begone  then hence: thou art accursed. Koran, Surah 38:70. 

_


Satan  was jealous of Gods creating human beings from the beginning.  These  four passages from the Koran are clearly Gods creation of mankind as   seen through the eyes of Satan. These four verses from the Koran are  obviously  Satans twisted version of human creation. With out a doubt  these excerpts from  the Muslim book are Satans envy, diabolical jealousy  and evil distortion of Gods creation of human beings. 
*And no marvel; for Satan himself  is TRANSFORMED into an angel of light (II Cor. 11:14).*  Mohammed  did have a visitation in a cave at the foot of Mt. Hira in  the year  610 but it was definitely not the angel Gabriel. Mohammed was visited   by Lucifer. The Koran was dictated to Mohammed by Satan.

*Reality: The Muslim god  Allah is actually Satan.* *Conclusion:  The Koran is diabolical. Mohammed is the  Prophet from Hell and Islam  is Satanic and this is why Muslims decapitate  innocent human beings as  they  screamAllahu* *Akhbar!*
 
*How  art  thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art  thou cut down to  the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For you  have said in your heart, I  will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my  throne above the stars of God: I will  sit also upon the mount of the  congregation, in the sides of the north: I will  ascend above the  heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. (Isa.  14:-12-14).*
*Copyrighted in the USA 2013 all rights  reserved*


*Yours in Liberty,*
*
    Rock Peters
Free lance writer
    Knights of Columbus
    cell (917)  517-2749
    email: rockpeters@aol.com
    web site:  www.GodsaveUSA.com
*











Source:  http://ppsimmons.blogspot.com/2013/09/was-koran-inspired-by-satan.html

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

You do realize that Satan doesn't exist, right?

----------


## Belazure

Literal interpretations of the Bible are false and heretical to it's moral message

Fundamentalism is a cult based off the Bible, and the kind of stuff it teaches are dangerous to America - it's not that much different than fundamentalist Islam, just maybe a few centuries more evolved (but that's not saying a lot).

----------

Gerrard Winstanley (09-17-2013),Sinestro/Green Arrow (09-17-2013)

----------


## Coolwalker

> You do realize that Satan doesn't exist, right?


Prove it.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Literal interpretations of the Bible are false and heretical to it's moral message
> 
> Fundamentalism is a cult based off the Bible, and the kind of stuff it teaches are dangerous to America - it's not that much different than fundamentalist Islam, just maybe a few centuries more evolved (but that's not saying a lot).


Apparently, the fact Christian fundamentalists aren't chopping off people's heads and flying planes into buildings makes their hate more redeemable than that of the radical Muslims.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Prove it.




You're joking, right?

----------

Belazure (09-17-2013),The XL (09-17-2013)

----------


## kilgram

> Prove it.


You must prove its existence. You are the one that is affirming that Satan is real.

Prove that Saruman has never existed.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> You must prove its existence. You are the one that is affirming that Satan is real.
> 
> Prove that Saruman has never existed.


Oh, well that's no fair. We all know Saruman existed. Plus, he's a cooler villain than Satan  :Tongue:

----------

kilgram (09-17-2013)

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Prove it.


Holy cow, this is going to be brilliant.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (09-17-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Holy cow, this is going to be brilliant.


My first thought was the expression in the gif. How in the hell are you supposed to prove Satan doesn't exist? You can't even prove he DOES exist!

----------

kilgram (09-18-2013)

----------


## Coolwalker

> You must prove its existence. You are the one that is affirming that Satan is real.
> 
> Prove that Saruman has never existed.


You would be wrong because he stated Satan didn't exist, not I.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> You would be wrong because he stated Satan didn't exist, not I.


No, no. You made the assertion that Satan does exist. I said he doesn't. My statement was a negative, you can't prove a negative. Your assertion was a positive, and thus the onus for proof is on you.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> My first thought was the expression in the gif. How in the hell are you supposed to prove Satan doesn't exist? You can't even prove he DOES exist!


Heck, even the Satanists acknowledge he's just a metaphor, and they're the ones worshipping him with drunkeness and orgies.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (09-17-2013)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

How did this become a thread about whether or not Satan exists? The very question draws upon a common foundation that God exists and that certain elements of his created angels went rogue and became adversaries of God.  If you don't believe that, then the question isn't for you, or do you really think you're input is needed in every single conversation, even those that you find yourself philosophically incompatible with?

----------

Coolwalker (09-17-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> How did this become a thread about whether or not Satan exists? The very question draws upon a common foundation that God exists and that certain elements of his created angels went rogue and became adversaries of God.  If you don't believe that, then the question isn't for you, or do you really think you're input is needed in every single conversation, even those that you find yourself philosophically incompatible with?


Here I was under the impression that this was a public forum.

Besides, if the question is, "Was the Koran inspired by Satan," then "Satan does not exist" would obviously answer the question. It would be "no."

----------

kilgram (09-18-2013)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Here I was under the impression that this was a public forum.
> 
> Besides, if the question is, "Was the Koran inspired by Satan," then "Satan does not exist" would obviously answer the question. It would be "no."


Wrong. The question was predicated on Satan's existence. If you foolishly don't believe he exists, it doesn't apply to you.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> How did this become a thread about whether or not Satan exists? The very question draws upon a common foundation that God exists and that certain elements of his created angels went rogue and became adversaries of God.  If you don't believe that, then the question isn't for you, or do you really think you're input is needed in every single conversation, even those that you find yourself philosophically incompatible with?


This is a public political forum, for inter-philosophical dialogue and discussion. If you want an echo chamber where literalist Christians can decry amongst themselves how despicable Islam is, citing Biblical and Koranic scholarship along the way, without a single contrary voice disturbing their tea party, then you've come to the wrong place.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (09-17-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Wrong. The question was predicated on Satan's existence. If you foolishly don't believe he exists, it doesn't apply to you.


If Satan doesn't exist, he can't inspire works one way or the other. It's hardly wrong.

----------

kilgram (09-18-2013)

----------


## Coolwalker

*God (good) exists, therefore Satan (evil) exists. Where there is light there is also dark. If you don't believe in God then for you there would be no Satan.*

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> *God (good) exists, therefore Satan (evil) exists. Where there is light there is also dark. If you don't believe in God then for you there would be no Satan.*


Except the problem is, dark doesn't actually exist. It's just the absence of light. It is not, itself, an independent thing.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> *God (good) exists, therefore Satan (evil) exists. Where there is light there is also dark. If you don't believe in God then for you there would be no Satan.*


Ah, yeah. You could have specified this was all a matter of personal dogmatic preference originally, but who am I, an uninformed heathen, to judge?

----------

kilgram (09-18-2013),Sinestro/Green Arrow (09-17-2013)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Prove it.


Classic.  Prove a negative as a point of argument.  Prove you're not a pedophile.

As it is, I believe God created Lucifer.  Therefore, God is responsible for all evil in the Universe.  Why?

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Classic.  Prove a negative as a point of argument.  Prove you're not a pedophile.


Prove Obama isn't a Muslim. :Tongue20:

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Prove Obama isn't a Muslim.


Exactly.  It's a bullshit argument.

FWIW, U.S. intelligence groups would never, ever let a sleeper spy anywhere close to the Nuclear button.  If there was any dirt on Obama or any other President which threatened the security of our nation, that information would find itself into the media.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> This is a public political forum, for inter-philosophical dialogue and discussion. If you want an echo chamber where literalist Christians can decry amongst themselves how despicable Islam is, citing Biblical and Koranic scholarship along the way, without a single contrary voice disturbing their tea party, then you've come to the wrong place.


Nothing physically stops you from butting in to conversations where you don't share the philosophical premise of the OP, but you could anyway.  Your very lack of restraint only goes to prove that those who don't believe in God fail the test of morality which they claim they possess without belief.  You know the question wasn't directed at you, and you're also incorrect arguing that all Christians are going to agree that the Koran or Islam in general is animated by Satan.  It is contestable among people of faith.

What I find interesting about atheists is how unsettled they are on the non-existence of God and feel the compulsion to interject themselves on every discussion involving God, the afterlife, or even the devil.  It seems to me that untortured atheism would be nonchalant and uncommitted on the issue, not evangelistic.  Particularly because atheists believe that the average 40,000 minutes that a person lives is the only life they'll ever experience they would redouble their intention never to waste a single one of those minutes in pointless debates about the existence of God.

But time and time again, you people prove yourselves haters of God, not deniers of him.

----------


## Belazure

> *God (good) exists, therefore Satan (evil) exists. Where there is light there is also dark. If you don't believe in God then for you there would be no Satan.*


Koreshian nonsense masquarading as religion

----------


## Max Rockatansky

Atheism, by actions and beliefs, is just another religion.  It's amusing to me how much time they spend complaining it is not.

----------

Gemini (09-17-2013),Irascible Crusader (09-17-2013)

----------


## Gemini

> Classic.  Prove a negative as a point of argument.  Prove you're not a pedophile.
> 
> As it is, I believe God created Lucifer.  Therefore, God is responsible for all evil in the Universe.*  Why?*



In a nut shell-

There must be an opposition to all things.  Part of the learning process is overcoming resistance.

----------


## The XL

> Prove it.


Ermmm......the burden of proof is on you to prove his existence.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (09-17-2013)

----------


## Belazure

> Atheism, by actions and beliefs, is just another religion.  It's amusing to me how much time they spend complaining it is not.


Of course it's a religion

Honestly though, even the militant atheist basement dwellers scare me slightly less than the cultists who promote beliefs in a 6,000 year old earth, global flood, talking serpent. Normal, non-brainwashed, religious people understand that religion is meant to be a source of moral guidance and values written from the perspectives of cultures of the time - not some 'alternate reality' where snakes and donkeys talk, people live to be 900 years old - that's lunacy.

Militant atheists are idiots for the most part, but even they aren't completely brainwashed into accepting beliefs that any sane person can tell are no different from those of someone like David Koresh, Warren Jeffs, etc

Anyone who believes in a literal "Satan", or in "literal" talking snakes, global floods, etc - is in a cult, plain and simple. Their beliefs are no different than something than David Koresh, or any other cult would belief, and isn't any less deserving of ridicule. They're cults which use their creepy beliefs to prey on children- not to mention fundamentalist based their style of propaganda/marketing off of Maoist propaganda - this is a documented fact - some of the early fundamental "evangelists/cult recruiters" based their "tracts' artwork and style, off of the style Maoist propaganda leaflets.

They're cults that operate like mini-totalitarian Marxist regimes, and use psychological warfare against their members. They should all be ostracized - no one has to be an 'atheist' to see psychopathy for what it is.

----------


## Gemini

> Ermmm......the burden of proof is on you to prove his existence.


Well if documents mean anything.  There are *gobs* of religious writings pertaining to his existence.

And since it is writings both factual and fictional and other such artifacts whether legitimate or fabricated that we base our knowledge of history off of, I think it is a compelling case.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> In a nut shell-
> 
> There must be an opposition to all things.  Part of the learning process is overcoming resistance.


Agreed and the skill isn't in the attack, but in the persuasion.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Nothing physically stops you from butting in to conversations where you don't share the philosophical premise of the OP, but you could anyway.  Your very lack of restraint only goes to prove that those who don't believe in God fail the test of morality which they claim they possess without belief.  You know the question wasn't directed at you, and you're also incorrect arguing that all Christians are going to agree that the Koran or Islam in general is animated by Satan.  It is contestable among people of faith.


The only thing being proven here is that you're a credible king of strawmen. How you can even begin to speculate on my morality begs belief.



> What I find interesting about atheists is how unsettled they are on the non-existence of God and feel the compulsion to interject themselves on every discussion involving God, the afterlife, or even the devil.  It seems to me that untortured atheism would be nonchalant and uncommitted on the issue, not evangelistic.  Particularly because atheists believe that the average 40,000 minutes that a person lives is the only life they'll ever experience they would redouble their intention never to waste a single one of those minutes in pointless debates about the existence of God.


What I find interesting about certain fundamentalist Christians is their obsession with slandering a religion related directly to their own, to such an extent that they begin denouncing its God - _their_ God by an Arabic name - as an incarnation of evil.



> But time and time again, you people prove yourselves haters of God, not deniers of him.


I don't hate anybody. I definitely don't harbour any animosity towards a being in the sky I'm not even sure exists. That would be like hating Nessie, or Bigfoot, or the Sugarpuffs monster.

----------


## The XL

> Well if documents mean anything.  There are *gobs* of religious writings pertaining to his existence.
> 
> And since it is writings both factual and fictional and other such artifacts whether legitimate or fabricated that we base our knowledge of history off of, I think it is a compelling case.


Religions of all kinds make all sorts of claims on many things.  I don't know if I'd call that proof.

----------

kilgram (09-18-2013)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Well if documents mean anything.  There are *gobs* of religious writings pertaining to his existence.
> 
> And since it is writings both factual and fictional and other such artifacts whether legitimate or fabricated that we base our knowledge of history off of, I think it is a compelling case.


Even ungospelled primitive tribes in Africa, the Amazon, etc knew that devils exist.  People sense evil spirits and know them for what they are.  The "intellectuals" on this forum only go to prove that people can have their brains educated out of them so that truths so simple that imbeciles can grasp them are too academic for the "educated" to understand.

----------


## Gemini

> Religions of all kinds make all sorts of claims on many things.  I don't know if I'd call that proof.


And I would agree to a point.

What I am trying to bring forth is the idea that truth exists regardless of record keeping or other tangible 'proofs'.  I'm pretty sure Bill Clinton exists, Thomas Jefferson too.

Same thing with Gengis Khan, Attila the Hun and Jesus Christ.  Ghandi too.

All have many writings on them, some true, and some fictional.  But I am certain they all exist, having never met any of them, let alone seen a grave stone of theirs.

Just because the evidence may have vanished, does not mean that the record is false, it simply means that it cannot be verified with current forensic practices.

Thus the idea of 'proving' God either does or does not exist is an exercise in futility.

Those who *know* He exists, shake their heads and wonder why others can't see it.  Those who *know* that deities are mere mental comforts wonder why people donate their money to them and waste time in strange buildings eating up prime real estate with bizarre rites of passage.

And the world will continue to spin on, until one side is proven true or false by circumstances obvious to all.  So long and nobody hurts another for his beliefs - he can worship a trash can for all I care, or glory in the fact that his body is little more than worm food when dead.

----------


## Belazure

Demons are a metaphor for evil nature in people's hearts - they obviously do not exist in a physical form, that's something you'd see on Ripley's Believe It or Not

----------


## Gemini

> Even ungospelled primitive tribes in Africa, the Amazon, etc knew that devils exist.  People sense evil spirits and know them for what they are.  The "intellectuals" on this forum only go to prove that people can have their brains educated out of them so that truths so simple that imbeciles can grasp them are too academic for the "educated" to understand.


Just the verse for this topic...


2 Nephi 9:28-29-




> 28 O that cunning aplan of the evil one! O the bvainness, and the frailties, and the cfoolishness of men! When they are dlearned they think they are ewise, and they fhearken not unto the gcounsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their hwisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.
> 
>   29 But to be alearned is good if they bhearken unto the ccounsels of God.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Religions of all kinds make all sorts of claims on many things.  I don't know if I'd call that proof.


You are correct.  It isn't proof.  That is why it is a matter of _faith_, not science.  OTOH, Atheists all over the world to declare there is no God or anything else beyond the physical universe, but how can they know for sure?  They don't.  They are taking it on _faith_ that once you're dead, you're dead.

They believe that we are all meat computers with nothing more than chemical reactions driving everything we are and will be.  Their choice, but I believe it gives them an excuse to do at they please instead of seeking a greater moral imperative.

----------

Gemini (09-17-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled on mankind was convincing them that he did not exist.

----------

Irascible Crusader (09-17-2013)

----------


## Gemini

> Demons are a metaphor for evil nature in people's hearts - they obviously do not exist in a physical form, that's something you'd see on Ripley's Believe It or Not


According to some, you're the crazy one.

I personally think you are half right, but unwittingly so.  I do not believe that demons can have a physical form without first possessing a victim's body.

----------


## Gemini

> You are correct.  It isn't proof.  That is why it is a matter of _faith_, not science.  OTOH, Atheists all over the world to declare there is no God or anything else beyond the physical universe, but how can they know for sure?  They don't.  They are taking it on _faith_ that once you're dead, you're dead.
> 
> They believe that we are all meat computers with nothing more than chemical reactions driving everything we are and will be.  Their choice, but I believe it gives them an excuse to do at they please instead of seeking a greater moral imperative.


All in all, I think that atheism and the likening of man to just another beast of the fields is only a clever way to alleviate one's conscience and shirk natural responsibility.

"There is no good or evil" argument is little more than a salve to a wounded and butt hurt, selfish, little soul.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> The greatest trick the devil ever pulled on mankind was convincing them that he did not exist.


It's the wind analogy used in the gospels. We can't see the wind but we know it blows because of the trees.  Likewise it isn't difficult to understand there is a centralized apparatus of spiritual evil because we can see the effects of it, not the least of which is Islam, a more prolific afflicter of evil than any other force on earth.  People have to be pointedly and intentionally thick to not see the devil's handiwork in the world. The devil didn't have to work hard to convince people he doesn't exist. People make that all too easy.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Literal interpretations of the Bible are false and heretical to it's moral message
> 
> Fundamentalism is a cult based off the Bible, and the kind of stuff it teaches are dangerous to America - it's not that much different than fundamentalist Islam, just maybe a few centuries more evolved (but that's not saying a lot).


fundamentalism is not a cult based off the Bible....It means that fundamentalists take the bible literally except when it indicates it is a metaphor.   That is easy enough to do if one has half a brain.  

It is very different from radical islam..  We do not blow up people nor encourage our children to do such things.     Actually they do nothing that is of any danger to you except that they exist and that seems to be the biggest problem.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> It's the wind analogy used in the gospels. We can't see the wind but we know it blows because of the trees.  Likewise it isn't difficult to understand there is a centralized apparatus of spiritual evil because we can see the effects of it, not the least of which is Islam, a more prolific afflicter of evil than any other force on earth.  People have to be pointedly and intentionally thick to not see the devil's handiwork in the world. The devil didn't have to work hard to convince people he doesn't exist. People make that all too easy.


Did God create evil and if so, why?  If not, then doesn't this prove God is not all powerful?

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Mohammad is a wicked plagiarist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Did God create evil and if so, why?  If not, then doesn't this prove God is not all powerful?


angels were created with free will same as man.

----------


## Paperback Writer

I believed as a child.  Then I stopped believing as a teen.  As an adult I believe again, but it is my personal belief and belongs to me.  I don't feel like sharing because I don't believe in religion.  I think religion is the opposite of what Jesus wanted.  I think he wanted an individual commitment to a spiritual connection, not group think.  As for Islam if I believed it I'd be a Muslim, but I'm not so obviously I do not believe it to be true.  I judge a religion by its fruits and it has more than its fair share of nutters.  Would I go so far as to label it satanic?  No.  I think God finds us.  It will find good people in Islam and nothing will stop it because It is an unfathomable being that both created us and lives within us.  Nothing can separate us from God not even religion.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> All in all, I think that atheism and the likening of man to just another beast of the fields is only a clever way to alleviate one's conscience and shirk natural responsibility.


Agreed that such denial results in dodging responsibilities.  Specifically, responsibility for one's actions in life.

----------


## Calypso Jones

I am inclined to believe that satan is a spiritual being who can at times take on physical form or what appears to be physical form to us.   The reason I believe that is in the NT, Jesus Christ referred to satan as such...a physical being.   Luke 10:18. Matt 4:10, John, 12:31, 14:30, 16:11

What I really want to post is what is said in 2 Corinthians 4:4.

2 Corinthians 4:4 (ESV)
4 In their case the god of this world has  blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the  gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 




Read more:  http://www.gotquestions.org/devil-Sa...#ixzz2fCBQwpyV

----------


## Gemini

> I believed as a child.  Then I stopped believing as a teen.  As an adult I believe again, but it is my personal belief and belongs to me.  I don't feel like sharing because I don't believe in religion.  I think religion is the opposite of what Jesus wanted.  I think he wanted an individual commitment to a spiritual connection, not group think.  As for Islam if I believed it I'd be a Muslim, but I'm not so obviously I do not believe it to be true.  I judge a religion by its fruits and it has more than its fair share of nutters.  Would I go so far as to label it satanic?  No.  I think God finds us.  It will find good people in Islam and nothing will stop it because It is an unfathomable being that both created us and lives within us. * Nothing can separate us from God not even religion*.


I beg to differ.  There spiritual death is a very real thing, however, it can only be self inflicted.  Only you can separate yourself from God.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> I believed as a child.  Then I stopped believing as a teen.  As an adult I believe again, but it is my personal belief and belongs to me.  I don't feel like sharing because I don't believe in religion.  I think religion is the opposite of what Jesus wanted.  I think he wanted an individual commitment to a spiritual connection, not group think.  As for Islam if I believed it I'd be a Muslim, but I'm not so obviously I do not believe it to be true.  I judge a religion by its fruits and it has more than its fair share of nutters.  Would I go so far as to label it satanic?  No.  I think God finds us.  It will find good people in Islam and nothing will stop it because It is an unfathomable being that both created us and lives within us.  Nothing can separate us from God not even religion.


you can believe whatever you want but that is not what God wants and he says so in the bible.    I don't think God wants you to belong to a religion but rather to Christ's church.

----------


## The XL

> You are correct.  It isn't proof.  That is why it is a matter of _faith_, not science.  OTOH, Atheists all over the world to declare there is no God or anything else beyond the physical universe, but how can they know for sure?  They don't.  They are taking it on _faith_ that once you're dead, you're dead.
> 
> They believe that we are all meat computers with nothing more than chemical reactions driving everything we are and will be.  Their choice, but I believe it gives them an excuse to do at they please instead of seeking a greater moral imperative.


It's impossible to prove it either way.  Still, the burden of proof is on those making the assertion that he exists.

I actually believe in God, but I would never really engage in an argument about it, because I have no proof to show his existence.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> It's impossible to prove it either way.  Still, the burden of proof is on those making the assertion that he exists.
> 
> I actually believe in God, but I would never really engage in an argument about it, because I have no proof to show his existence.


then your eyes are closed or you don't want to see.  Believers don't have to prove his existence.  It is made plain to you by God.

----------


## The XL

> then your eyes are closed or you don't want to see.  Believers don't have to prove his existence.  It is made plain to you by God.


You don't have to prove his existence to yourself or someone else who believes, but in a debate about it with non believers, that doesn't hold up as a legitimate argument.

----------


## Belazure

> then your eyes are closed or you don't want to see.  Believers don't have to prove his existence.  It is made plain to you by God.


David Koresh lives

----------


## Belazure

> It's impossible to prove it either way.  Still, the burden of proof is on those making the assertion that he exists.
> 
> I actually believe in God, but I would never really engage in an argument about it, because I have no proof to show his existence.


You'd have better luck talking to a brick wall than a brainwashed cult member who thinks they're serving their Dear Leader by reciting pre-memorized propaganda and 'sales scripts' like a good little comrade

Quit pandering to them and just flat out tell them they're scumbags - they're just trying to recruit people to their cult, it's how cults operate - they don't believe their own shit anymore than a used car salesman does

----------


## Calypso Jones

> You don't have to prove his existence to yourself or someone else who believes, but in a debate about it with non believers, that doesn't hold up as a legitimate argument.


you cannot convince them in any way....doesn't the bible say don't cast pearls before swine?   The apostles were told to go to a town/city and if they were treated badly then brush the dust off their sandles and move on.   

No Christian has the power to convince an 'unbeliever' of anything.   God will do that if that 'unbeliever' really want to know.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> David Koresh lives


please. Show me the traits we have in common.

----------


## Belazure

> you cannot convince them in any way....doesn't the bible say don't cast pearls before swine?   The apostles were told to go to a town/city and if they were treated badly then brush the dust off their sandles and move on.   
> 
> No Christian has the power to convince an 'unbeliever' of anything.   God will do that if that 'unbeliever' really want to know.


You aren't convinced of it yourself- you just regurgitate the lies that the leader of whatever cult church you're a member of - it's easier than hiring someone to do recruitment for them

If you'd been born a Muslim, you'd be doing the same, except you'd be proselytizing for Muhammed

Plus you're a cult, not a real Christian who understands the intent of the Bible anyway

----------


## Belazure

> please. Show me the traits we have in common.


Well David was hansomer

Other than that, you're both basically cult members, who operate on the same agenda

Go to rickross.com if you want to see the parallels that all cults share. Bottom line is I think that cults are scum which try to destroy peoples' lives by preying on their fear and luring them into their totalitarian-like organizations - so I consider people like you my personal enemy, and a danger to others, especially children.

----------


## The XL

> you cannot convince them in any way....doesn't the bible say don't cast pearls before swine?   The apostles were told to go to a town/city and if they were treated badly then brush the dust off their sandles and move on.   
> 
> No Christian has the power to convince an 'unbeliever' of anything.   God will do that if that 'unbeliever' really want to know.


See.......that's not proof.  That's an emotional appeal mixed with faith talking.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Well David was hansomer
> 
> Other than that, you're both basically cult members, who operate on the same agenda
> 
> Go to rickross.com if you want to see the parallels that all cults share. Bottom line is I think that cults are scum which try to destroy peoples' lives by preying on their fear and luring them into their totalitarian-like organizations -* so I consider people like you my personal enemy, and a danger to others, especially children.*


well i'm not surprised.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> See.......that's not proof.  That's an emotional appeal mixed with faith talking.


that's not emotional...I simply said what the bible says.   It's not any 'faith' talking or whatever else you said.  I SIMPLY said what is in the Bible....easy enough to check it out yourself.

Do you read the bible...I mean actually read it?

----------


## The XL

The Bible is not proof either.

----------


## Belazure

> well i'm not surprised.


Cults tend to destroy people's lives - your beliefs expressed go beyond that of a 'normal religious person' and resemble something of a cult, so nothing personal, but I've had experience and inside knowledge of cult-like groups and how they operate, and I make it my mission to chastise them publicly as a warning to others.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Cults tend to destroy people's lives - your beliefs expressed go beyond that of a 'normal religious person' and resemble something of a cult, so nothing personal, but I've had experience and inside knowledge of cult-like groups and how they operate, and I make it my mission to chastise them publicly as a warning to others.


okay...well fine then.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> You aren't convinced of it yourself- you just regurgitate the lies that the leader of whatever cult church you're a member of - it's easier than hiring someone to do recruitment for them
> 
> If you'd been born a Muslim, you'd be doing the same, except you'd be proselytizing for Muhammed
> 
> Plus you're a cult, not a real Christian who understands the intent of the Bible anyway


CJ is a real Christian who understands the intent of the Bible. What I want to know is what makes you an expert on what a cult is or isn't?  Or can you just admit that you're talking out of your ass?

----------


## Calypso Jones

The Definition of Cult, many people think, is a group that worships Satan, sacrifices animals, or takes part in strange rituals. 

Actually, most cults seem to be more innocent. The specific Christian definition of a cult is “a religious group that denies one or more of the fundamentals of biblical truth.” 

Specifically, a cult is a group that teaches something that will cause a person to remain unsaved if he believes it. 

 A cult is a group that claims to be part of a religion(Christianity specifically), yet denies essential truths of that religion. 

 A Christian cult is a group that denies one or more of the fundamental truths of Christianity, while still claiming to be Christian.

What's your definition of a cult?

----------


## Belazure

> CJ is a real Christian who understands the intent of the Bible.


Not at all, I'd say not. That's not the impression I get.
But as Dennis Miller says "of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong".




> What I want to know is what makes you an expert on what a cult is or isn't?


I've studied cults and know what they're about, and how they operate.




> Or can you just admit that you're talking out of your ass?


Bizarre, literalistic beliefs are a sign of a cult, for one.

Cults tend to adopt bizarre beliefs designed to distance their members from the 'outside world' (ex. literal interpretations of Genesis, the Great Flood, evolution denial, etc) - since they represent themselves as the sole source of "truth", and often are coupled with fears of punishment (ex. convince their members that they're 'going to hell' if they don't belief Genesis is a literal account of creation - therefore members are limited to fundamentalist Bible schools, or non accredited fundamentalist universities as sources of 'education' for their children- this gives them more power over their members, and is essentially a form of 'thought control'.

Another example of Scientology (ex. teach members that all illnesses are caused by "body thetans", therefore Scientology's 'auditing' is 'the only true' cure for their ailments - and scare them away from modern medicine, psychotherapy, etc by promoting it as part of some 'conspiracy' - this therefore gives them more power to control their members' lives and outside associations).

----------


## Belazure

> The Definition of Cult, many people think, is a group that worships Satan, sacrifices animals, or takes part in strange rituals. 
> 
> Actually, most cults seem to be more innocent. The specific Christian definition of a cult is “a religious group that denies one or more of the fundamentals of biblical truth.” 
> 
> Specifically, a cult is a group that teaches something that will cause a person to remain unsaved if he believes it. 
> 
>  A cult is a group that claims to be part of a religion(Christianity specifically), yet denies essential truths of that religion. 
> 
>  A Christian cult is a group that denies one or more of the fundamental truths of Christianity, while still claiming to be Christian.
> ...


Go to Rickross.com and do some reading, that's a nice starting point - but I don't think you'll do it, I half believe you'll be afraid of angering God by reading something potentially 'heretical' to your beliefs (which is one sign of a cult)- and that wasn't a snarky statement, I really believe you'll put on a 'mental block'

----------


## Paperback Writer

I don't see the purpose of chastising anyone for their religious beliefs, be they Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist.  Calling her a cultist is fuck all rude.  Just as it's rude for someone to question my faith that is sincere and quite personal to me.  This chap has a grudge fine.  He ought manifest it using actual logic instead of fallacious attacks which only hurt his case.  Whatever insider knowledge someone has means absolutely nothing to me.  Anecdotes are shite as far as I'm concerned in a debate.............. and as far as Rick Ross is concerned let's see his peer reviewed papers.  I'd like a link on one of them so that I might determine if he's an actual scientist or just a man hoping to make money off frightened parents.

----------

Gemini (09-17-2013)

----------


## Belazure

> I don't see the purpose of chastising anyone for their religious beliefs, be they Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist.


I don't consider cult-type beliefs to be legitimate religions, that's where you and I differ. They operate more like 'organizations' that 'recruit people', more like businesses than actual religions.

For one thing, legitimate religions usually have some root in actual traditions and cultural practices, they don't "recruit" people because the beliefs are part of the culture. Cults on the other hand just 'spring up out of nowhere' when someone realizes that it's a great way to make money off of easily indoctrinated, and fulfill their "God complex" by having a 'flock of followers' - and their members are 'recruited' into the organization.

As a rule, any "religious group" which 'recruits' people is likely a cult, or a cult-lite.




> Calling her a cultist is fuck all rude.


Calling David Koresh a cultist is rude too. Sorry but sometimes I just can't hold back.




> Just as it's rude for someone to question my faith that is sincere and quite personal to me.  This chap has a grudge fine.  He ought manifest it using actual logic instead of fallacious attacks which only hurt his case.  Whatever insider knowledge someone has means absolutely nothing to me.  Anecdotes are shite as far as I'm concerned in a debate.............. and as far as Rick Ross is concerned let's see his peer reviewed papers.  I'd like a link on one of them so that I might determine if he's an actual scientist or just a man hoping to make money off frightened parents.


There's plenty of other info out there on how cults operate - I was just using him as an example.

Yeah I was rude I admit it, but I do not belief that cults beliefs qualify as an actual religion, and I don't think a person in an organization like that is capable of having 'sincere beliefs', because in order to be 'one of them' to being with, you have to not question your beliefs (that in itself is usually heresy to a cult - they don't allow question of their beliefs, they simply repeat them at you propaganda-style until you subliminally "believe" them without even knowing what you "believe" or why). It's more like a sales pitch than a 'profession of faith'.

To me it's more like a sleazy used car salesman than someone actually expressing real faith - that's how I see it. They sound as "convinced" in their belief as the average infomercial pitchman does trying to peddle some junk on TV.

----------


## Gemini

> Cults tend to destroy people's lives - your beliefs expressed go beyond that of a 'normal religious person' and resemble something of a cult, so nothing personal, but I've had experience and inside knowledge of cult-like groups and how they operate, and I make it my mission to chastise them publicly as a warning to others.


Cult is just what big religions calls small religions - competitors.  Or as a negative connotation by those who do not believe what they teach - regardless of what is being taught.

If I didn't know any better, I would say you are proselyting for Rick Ross's Cult right now.

As it stands, I think you'e just being difficult because some churchy/cultist types pissed you off at one point.  You (or someone dear to you) got burned, excommunicated, or just felt weird about it after some time - don't know.  Doesn't much matter.

_Judge them by their fruits_.  And adhering to the exception and not the norm is a poor way to paint any faith.  You know better.

That being said, some faiths work and play well with others as per core tenets and others do not.  No sense in putting blinders on and singing Kum Ba Yah about reality, when in fact it is quite a mess.

_...By the way_, you're an asshole.   :Smiley20:  

I mean really, what do you gain from tearing down another person?  Tearing down another does not increase your own stature, but may quite easily reduce others' opinion of you, or bolster it if you hang with a crowd of imbeciles I suppose.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> It's impossible to prove it either way.  Still, the burden of proof is on those making the assertion that he exists.


Only to those who want to push their beliefs on others, be they Theist or Atheist.  As it is, I have no obligation to prove to you or anyone else my beliefs nor do you.

----------


## Belazure

> Cult is just what big religions calls small religions - competitors.  Or as a negative connotation by those who do not believe what they teach - regardless of what is being taught.


No, cults actually have a clear-cut definition, it's not all relative like you say it is.




> If I didn't know any better, I would say you are proselyting for Rick Ross's Cult right now.


Rick doesn't run a congregation, or have a flock of followers, who aren't allowed to question his beliefs for fear of punishment. He's a journalist, and no he's not in a cult.




> As it stands, I think you'e just being difficult because some churchy/cultist types pissed you off at one point.  You (or someone dear to you) got burned, excommunicated, or just felt weird about it after some time - don't know.  Doesn't much matter.
> 
> _Judge them by their fruits_.  And adhering to the exception and not the norm is a poor way to paint any faith.  You know better.
> 
> That being said, some faiths work and play well with others as per core tenets and others do not.  No sense in putting blinders on and singing Kum Ba Yah about reality, when in fact it is quite a mess.
> 
> _...By the way_, you're an asshole.   
> 
> I mean really, what do you gain from tearing down another person?  Tearing down another does not increase your own stature, but may quite easily reduce others' opinion of you, or bolster it if you hang with a crowd of imbeciles I suppose.


I 'tear down' beliefs that I consider dangerous - I'd do the same if someone was trying to peddle fake viagra, or scam people - I consider beliefs I see expressed dangerous, because I know that many organizations that hold those beliefs do act like mini-totalitarian regimes and abuse their members.

There's one of those cult churches in my town - when members join they're forbidden to talk to anyone not in their organization except to 'convert' them - they also require their members to sign over their bank accounts to them, and auto-draft 20% of their income each month as their "tithe". They also require their members to send their children to their "Christian" HS, and their self-owned university (which is non-accredited and listed as a 'diploma mill', meaning it's useless for finding a job). Anyone who questions the "pastor" (aka the Dear Leader), or associates with anyone outside the group, it excommunicated - and their family members, children, etc in the group are banned from ever talking to them again. They apparently also spy on their members when they're at work or outside the organization to make sure they aren't associating with anyone who's not a member (except to recruit them) - a former member was once 'caught' giving an elderly woman a ride to her home - and the leader of the group tossed him out, and banned him from ever seeing his wife and kids again.

One of the former staff at the HS was also arrested for serial child molestation a few years ago, and the members are so brainwashed that even that didn't convince them it was a cult.

I've had members of that group come to my door before and try to 'recruit' me - one time they came 4 days in a row.

They're a cult. And most organizations that hold beliefs like theirs are cults as well.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Cults tend to destroy people's lives - your beliefs expressed go beyond that of a 'normal religious person' and resemble something of a cult, so nothing personal, but I've had experience and inside knowledge of cult-like groups and how they operate, and I make it my mission to chastise them publicly as a warning to others.


according to your very vague definition, homosexuality is a cult.  Eating only brownies 24/7 is a cult, smoking is a cult, eating ham is a cult. 

I think you belong to a cult...the cult of atheism.

----------


## Gemini

> No, cults actually have a clear-cut definition, it's not all relative like you say it is.
> 
> 
> Rick doesn't run a congregation, or have a flock of followers, who aren't allowed to question his beliefs for fear of punishment. He's a journalist, and no he's not in a cult.


Why not try to educate and enlighten instead of tearing down another?  A hand shake is more welcome than a sword purposed for destruction.  The whole 'flies and honey' thing you know.




> I 'tear down' beliefs that I consider dangerous - I'd do the same if someone was trying to peddle fake viagra, or scam people - I consider beliefs I see expressed dangerous, because I know that many organizations that hold those beliefs do act like mini-totalitarian regimes and abuse their members.


Well, at least your consistent I guess.




> There's one of those cult churches in my town - when members join they're forbidden to talk to anyone not in their organization except to 'convert' them - they also require their members to sign over their bank accounts to them, and auto-draft 20% of their income each month as their "tithe". They also require their members to send their children to their "Christian" HS, and their self-owned university (which is non-accredited and listed as a 'diploma mill', meaning it's useless for finding a job). Anyone who questions the "pastor" (aka the Dear Leader), or associates with anyone outside the group, it excommunicated - and their family members, children, etc in the group are banned from ever talking to them again. They apparently also spy on their members when they're at work or outside the organization to make sure they aren't associating with anyone who's not a member (except to recruit them) - a former member was once 'caught' giving an elderly woman a ride to her home - and the leader of the group tossed him out, and banned him from ever seeing his wife and kids again.
> 
> One of the former staff at the HS was also arrested for serial child molestation a few years ago, and the members are so brainwashed that even that didn't convince them it was a cult.
> 
> I've had members of that group come to my door before and try to 'recruit' me - one time they came 4 days in a row.
> 
> They're a cult. And most organizations that hold beliefs like theirs are cults as well.


As I said before, 'Judge them by their fruits'.  Looks like you are.  I just think you're going about changing it in the most destructive and inefficient way possible.

The best way to kill an enemy is to make him a friend.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Rick doesn't run a congregation, or have a flock of followers, who aren't allowed to question his beliefs for fear of punishment. He's a journalist, and no he's not in a cult.
> 
> 
> I 'tear down' beliefs that I consider dangerous - I'd do the same if someone was trying to peddle fake viagra, or scam people - I consider beliefs I see expressed dangerous, because I know that many organizations that hold those beliefs do act like mini-totalitarian regimes and abuse their members.
> 
> .


Yes Mr. Ross does have a cult of followers and you are one.  You don't question his beliefs and his actions...especially his actions....like the civil lawsuit which he lost when he kidnapped that young man and held him 5 days against his will.   How is THAT legal?

I don't doubt that many of those organizations he lists could be classified as cults...but he abuses the law and people as much as those he accuses...and you hold up this man...what gives you the authority to determine what is dangerous for the rest of us?  You support a man that is making a load of money lecturing and deprogramming and pulling in money from people like you...atheists, god haters, you are on a mission.   lol

----------


## Belazure

> according to your very vague definition, homosexuality is a cult.  Eating only brownies 24/7 is a cult, smoking is a cult, eating ham is a cult.


Uh sure we'll go with that




> I think you belong to a cult...the cult of atheism.


I'm not an atheist, I just think you're completely out of touch with reality

----------


## Belazure

> ...atheists, god haters, you are on a mission.   lol


If you're so brainwashed that you think that 'only atheists' view people who say the kind of stuff you do as disturbing, then you truly are brainwashed - news flash, the majority of people who believe in God would still think _you're_ in a cult, and not representative of them.

Reminds me now Neo-Nazis tend to think that anyone who's not a white supremacist must be 'liberal' or a Marxist, lmao

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Only to those who want to push their beliefs on others, be they Theist or Atheist.  As it is, I have no obligation to prove to you or anyone else my beliefs nor do you.


And yet with evangelistic fervor you push your atheism at every opportunity.

----------


## Calypso Jones

http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org...rts/rick-ross/

more on Rick Ross.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> If you're so brainwashed that you think that 'only atheists' view people who say the kind of stuff you do as disturbing, then you truly are brainwashed - news flash, the majority of people who believe in God would still think _you're_ in a cult, and not representative of them.
> 
> Reminds me now Neo-Nazis tend to think that anyone who's not a white supremacist must be 'liberal' or a Marxist, lmao


please point out to me what I have said that is so disturbing.    Your remarks are much more hateful than mine.  I think it started with you calling me the name of a dead alleged pedophile cult leader.

----------


## Calypso Jones

thread killer.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> thread killer.


They did it on the very first page. It's why atheists piss me off. They can't allow a religious discussion to ensue unsullied by their rants of hopelessness and despair.  You remember big PF's religion section?  There wasn't a single discussion of a religious nature because of the ravages of the atheists. Sites that fail to keep the atheists out of religious discussions end up having no religious discussions.  They're soulless jackals and I mean that.

----------


## Calypso Jones

when a lib puts a COEXIST bumper sticker on his e-car he does not mean Christians.

LOL

----------


## Roadmaster

> Heck, even the Satanists acknowledge he's just a metaphor, and they're the ones worshipping him with drunkeness and orgies.


 Not the real ones.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

So, yeah. Back to how Satan couldn't possibly influence Islam because he doesn't exist.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> So, yeah. Back to how Satan couldn't possibly influence Islam because he doesn't exist.


Why don't you start another topic on that one.  This topic refers to demonic influence on Islam.

----------


## Roadmaster

It wasn't intended to be in fact the Koran calls the Bible the word of God, and acknowledges that it is a revelation from God. It also teaches that Jesus was a prophet and that his teaching has authority.

----------


## Calypso Jones

But he is not the son of God, they deny his divinity and the Islamic Issa is supposed to help the 12th imam do whatever.

this is by a muslim:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/the-quran-jesus-is-god/

Allah sez in the Koran that he is the greatest deceiver.  How is that different from God?  God does not lie.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> It wasn't intended to be in fact the Koran calls the Bible the word of God, and acknowledges that it is a revelation from God. It also teaches that Jesus was a prophet and that his teaching has authority.


Like the Book of Mormon, the Koran claims to be a revelation given by an angel. It's the first warning sign that it's not the word of God because God doesn't reveal his plans through angels.  But it's the tendency of shamsters like Muhammad and Joseph Smith to elevate the status of their "revelation" by claiming it came from an angel of God.  It should also be noted that the "jesus" of the Koran was a prophet contemporary to the real Jesus but bearing little resemblance to him in his teaching and the Muslim "jesus" was never crucified.  And not only is the Christian canon not recognized in the Muslim religion, but the tenants of the Muslim faith are in direct contradiction to the claims of the New Covenant by which men come freely to God not through the law but through the grace of Christ.

So you'll excuse me if I find absolutely no reconciliation between Christianity and the evil, demonic Muslim religion.

----------


## countryboy

> You do realize that Satan doesn't exist, right?


You do realize not everyone agrees with you, right?

----------

Irascible Crusader (09-17-2013)

----------


## countryboy

> Like the Book of Mormon, the Koran claims to be a revelation given by an angel. It's the first warning sign that it's not the word of God because God doesn't reveal his plans through angels.  But it's the tendency of shamsters like Muhammad and Joseph Smith to elevate the status of their "revelation" by claiming it came from an angel of God.  It should also be noted that the "jesus" of the Koran was a prophet contemporary to the real Jesus but bearing little resemblance to him in his teaching and the Muslim "jesus" was never crucified.  And not only is the Christian canon not recognized in the Muslim religion, but the tenants of the Muslim faith are in direct contradiction to the claims of the New Covenant by which men come freely to God not through the law but through the grace of Christ.
> 
> So you'll excuse me if I find absolutely no reconciliation between Christianity and the evil, demonic Muslim religion.


The God of Islam is *not* the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Anyone who claims they are one in the same is either dreadfully ignorant, or a trouble maker.

----------

Calypso Jones (09-17-2013),Irascible Crusader (09-17-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

You would be in great trouble with muslims if you claimed that they were the same.

----------


## Roadmaster

> But he is not the son of God, they deny his divinity and the Islamic Issa is supposed to help the 12th imam do whatever.


 It depends on who is teaching them. This is why it's important to show them what the book says so they will listen to Jesus teachings. Even spreading Christianity among the Gentiles when Apostle Paul was trying to teach them he was attacked. Read  (Phil. 3:2)

----------


## Roadmaster

> The God of Islam is *not* the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Anyone who claims they are one in the same is either dreadfully ignorant, or a trouble maker.


 No they are not the same.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Why don't you start another topic on that one.  This topic refers to demonic influence on Islam.


Yes, and my comment addresses that topic.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Yes, and my comment addresses that topic.


fine.  comment noted.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> You do realize not everyone agrees with you, right?


No, of course not, I think everybody everywhere agrees with me on everything  :Rolls Eyes:

----------


## Calypso Jones

As to whether the Koran is satanically inspired.   How can you do this to women and not be satanically inspired...and What God would make his laws to suit the proclivities of his prophet Muhammad?   hmmm.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/islam-is...ammad-not-god/

Islam, the greatest anti-woman ideology Ever Created.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> As to whether the Koran is satanically inspired.   How can you do this to women and not be satanically inspired...


It's simple, really. G-d created us all with a dual nature, one that is good and one that is evil.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> It's simple, really. G-d created us all with a dual nature, one that is good and one that is evil.


you have scripture for that assuredly?  post it please.

----------

countryboy (09-17-2013)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> It's simple, really. G-d created us all with a dual nature, one that is good and one that is evil.


Moral free agency?  You're really going to argue moral free agency?

----------

Gemini (09-18-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> you have scripture for that assuredly?  post it please.


Genesis 2:7. The Hebrew word for "formed" used there is "vayyitzer." Jewish scholars throughout our history have posited that the two letter "yods" in "vayyitzer" are for "yetzer," or "impulse." By including two "yetzer," it shows man was "formed" with two "impulses," or natures. One good, the yetzer tov, and one bad, the yetzer ra.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Moral free agency?  You're really going to argue moral free agency?


No. I would argue that it is G-d, not man's own reasoning, that tells us right from wrong.

----------


## Calypso Jones

According to the Bible, says each person is equipped by God with a conscience that instinctively knows right and wrong. 

Paul says, "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them" (Romans 2:14-15).

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> According to the Bible, says each person is equipped by God with a conscience that instinctively knows right and wrong. 
> 
> Paul says, "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them" (Romans 2:14-15).


That would be your yetzer tov.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> No. I would argue that it is G-d, not man's own reasoning, that tells us right from wrong.


Now you're changing your story and your theology is a little flawed. Knowing right from wrong is not the same as having a good and evil nature on equal terms.  Man has a fallen nature and an inclination to rebel and apart from special intervention from God, cannot choose the good or the right.  We don't have moral free agency, we have a sin nature that can only be overcome by the grace of God.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Now you're changing your story


No, I'm not.




> and your theology is a little flawed.


Not really sure you're qualified to judge that, no offense. We're speaking from two completely different religions.




> Knowing right from wrong is not the same as having a good and evil nature on equal terms.  Man has a fallen nature and an inclination to rebel and apart from special intervention from God, cannot choose the good or the right.  We don't have moral free agency, we have a sin nature that can only be overcome by the grace of God.


Yes, that's the Christian theology of Original Sin. It doesn't exist in Judaism. "Man's fallen nature" is his evil nature. He still has a good one, the one that is "in the image of G-d."

----------


## Roadmaster

> It's simple, really. G-d created us all with a dual nature, one that is good and one that is evil.


 It's hard to take you serious because you don't even think satan and I never cap his name exist.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> It's hard to take you serious because you don't even think satan and I never cap his name exist.


It's not so much that it doesn't exist. It doesn't exist as the physical being Christians believe it is.

----------


## Roadmaster

> It's not so much that it doesn't exist. It doesn't exist as the physical being Christians believe it is.


 Even people who play in Wicca will tell you of discerned spirits. Now they don't think they are all evil but they are mistaken. They think they are there to help. I asked them a question one day about something and they had to admit that some are evil. Now I know 100% my Master exist and I am well aware of demons and satan but if they know some are evil (as they think) why do they invite them  into their house? Are there people who  have really sold themselves to satan yes. Are there ones who don't believe and just play, yes but the joke is on them.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Even people who play in Wicca will tell you of discerned spirits. Now they don't think they are all evil but they are mistaken. They think they are there to help. I asked them a question one day about something and they had to admit that some are evil. Now I know 100% my Master exist and I am well aware of demons and satan but if they know some are evil (as they think) why do they invite them  into their house? Are there people who  have really sold themselves to satan yes. Are there ones who don't believe and just play, yes but the joke is on them.


That's nice for the Wiccans. I disagree. Satan is not a physical being. It's a force, nothing more.

----------


## Roadmaster

> That's nice for the Wiccans. I disagree. Satan is not a physical being. It's a force, nothing more.


 Just because you have never witnessed it doesn't mean it's not real either. You don't know for sure and won't admit it.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Just because you have never witnessed it doesn't mean it's not real either. You don't know for sure and won't admit it.


On the contrary, I'll freely admit that I don't know for sure. Doesn't change my beliefs on the subject.

----------


## kilgram

> You would be wrong because he stated Satan didn't exist, not I.


You are stating that Satan exists.

----------


## kilgram

> Even ungospelled primitive tribes in Africa, the Amazon, etc knew that devils exist.  People sense evil spirits and know them for what they are.  The "intellectuals" on this forum only go to prove that people can have their brains educated out of them so that truths so simple that imbeciles can grasp them are too academic for the "educated" to understand.


People see evil, and from the beginning they associated it to evil creatures. And it is very human, give the reason of your own faults to other.

----------


## kilgram

> You are correct.  It isn't proof.  That is why it is a matter of _faith_, not science.  OTOH, Atheists all over the world to declare there is no God or anything else beyond the physical universe, but how can they know for sure?  They don't.  They are taking it on _faith_ that once you're dead, you're dead.
> 
> They believe that we are all meat computers with nothing more than chemical reactions driving everything we are and will be.  Their choice, but I believe it gives them an excuse to do at they please instead of seeking a greater moral imperative.


It is not a belief, it is what we see.

If there is something something beyond death, is impossible to proof, and in consequence irrellevant. And also using the Ohklam blade the simplest answer is the correct, and the simpler is that there is nothing beyond death. 

And also, you must prove that there is something beyond. Can you? So it is how it would not exist, and atheists adopt that position, it does not exist. When it is proved, then atheists will change their position.

But how many Christians would change their believes if God appeared and said that their believes were wrong, misunderstood, and he didn't asked for anything of what Christians do and he does not want to be worshipped in any way?

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Not the real ones.


You're making the classic mistake of confusing Satanism with devil-worship. Satanism is an atheistic school.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> It is not a belief, it is what we see.
> 
> If there is something something beyond death, is impossible to proof, and in consequence irrellevant. And also using the Ohklam blade the simplest answer is the correct, and the simpler is that there is nothing beyond death. 
> 
> And also, you must prove that there is something beyond. Can you? So it is how it would not exist, and atheists adopt that position, it does not exist. When it is proved, then atheists will change their position.


Understood that Atheists only believe what they sense for themselves.  Not knowing if there is or isn't a God or an afterlife is logical since there is no way to prove it either way.  Agnosticism is logical.  Theists believe in God even though there is no proof of God's existence.  Atheists believe God doesn't exist even though there is no proof that there is nothing beyond the physical Universe.   That belief is why I commented that Atheism is akin to religion.  They believe in something that cannot be proven.

----------


## patrickt

> You would be wrong because he stated Satan didn't exist, not I.


Sorry, Coolwalker. People who confuse faith with fact are nuts. It's called delusional.

----------


## TheTemporaryBG

> Understood that Atheists only believe what they sense for themselves.  Not knowing if there is or isn't a God or an afterlife is logical since there is no way to prove it either way.  Agnosticism is logical.  Theists believe in God even though there is no proof of God's existence.  Atheists believe God doesn't exist even though there is no proof that there is nothing beyond the physical Universe.   That belief is why I commented that Atheism is akin to religion.  They believe in something that cannot be proven.


Rina corrects me about this all the time.  There is no such thing as "proof" outside of math.  Science is only theories and evidence supporting them.  I think you can have personal evidence of God just like people have zero personal evidence of God.  Neither can prove they are correct in either support of God or against the belief in God.  Even the agnostic who says he doesn't know can only say he has no personal evidence of it.

Also, if you break it down into how people define "God" it gets even more complicated.  Ask a Buddhist and God is everything and the energy of the Universe.  If God is universal energy than scientists have a lot of evidence for that already.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (09-18-2013)

----------


## TheTemporaryBG

> You're making the classic mistake of confusing Satanism with devil-worship. Satanism is an atheistic school.


Some Satanism is an atheistic school, some Satanists worship a devil/the devil.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow



----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Some Satanism is an atheistic school, some Satanists worship a devil/the devil.


Satanism, as originally conceived by Anton LaVey, is an existential philosophy, emphasising man's desires and primal instincts above any moral obligations. The groups with the attached mythology, call themselves what they will, are devil-worshippers. Big distinction.

----------


## TheTemporaryBG

> Satanism, as originally conceived by Anton LaVey, is an existential philosophy, emphasising man's desires and primal instincts above any moral obligations. The groups with the attached mythology, call themselves what they will, are devil-worshippers. Big distinction.


You have football and we have football.  Two different games, same name.  Also that dude's son, worships the devil.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> You have football and we have football.  Two different games, same name.  Also that dude's son, worships the devil.


I guess that's a good analogy. They all "worship" the devil, but the atheistic Satanist would see him as a metaphorical force of nature, not a horny dude with a scythe. Either way, the main Church of Satan effectively revolves around a LeVay cult of personality.

----------


## Calypso Jones

seems to me that Anton Levey considered Satan a real entity seeing as he set up the church of satan.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> seems to me that Anton Levey considered Satan a real entity seeing as he set up the church of satan.


And why should I care what LeVey thought?

----------


## Calypso Jones

> On the contrary, I'll freely admit that I don't know for sure. Doesn't change my beliefs on the subject.


you did not freely admit that you do not know for sure. INdeed what you posted indicates that you DO think you know for sure.  And the reason you don't change your beliefs based on true information put forward to you only indicates your hard headedness.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> you did not freely admit that you do not know for sure.


Pretty sure I did. Last night was foggy, but I don't recall someone holding a gun to my head and forcing me to answer.




> INdeed what you posted indicates that you DO think you know for sure.  And the reason you don't change your beliefs based on true information put forward to you only indicates your hard headedness.


I have not been given any information to conclusively prove that my beliefs are wrong. On the contrary, I've been able to counter the one piece of "evidence" you've offered.

----------


## Gemini

> Like the Book of Mormon, the Koran claims to be a revelation given by an angel. It's the first warning sign that it's not the word of God because *God doesn't reveal his plans through angels*.  But it's the tendency of shamsters like Muhammad and Joseph Smith to elevate the status of their "revelation" by claiming it came from an angel of God.


The Bible is littered with angelic ministrations.  Who appeared to the Wisemen?  Who appeared to Daniel in chapter 10?  Who escorted Lot and his family out of the Sodom and Gomorrah? 

Plenty of angels doing things.

Claiming an angelic ministration is not as absurd as some would say.

----------


## Calypso Jones

Gabriel was not God's Gabriel, Satan was posing as Gabriel or perhaps Mohammad assumed the 'angel' was Gabriel.  I don't know.  I did not specifically search for that answer.   But God, the One True God would not enslave woman to man in that manner or enslave other people specifically infidels to his followers with those godless rules perpetually.   

Additionally, allah appears to change his rules to accommodate mohammad at the time of and after the fact.   There was no mercy in the heart of allah or mohammad for that matter.  There is only arrogance and pride and evil.  THEREFORE.

----------


## TheTemporaryBG

I don't really want to get into this but I did have some Muslims who acted with our attachment and were interpreters that would quote from it and read from it.  There is a lot of mercy in Islam/Koran.  There is little mercy in the Muslims because of how they practice it.  It's no different than Judaism, but everyone on here will support that because it is the Old Testament for Christianity.  If you didn't know that the Gospels and the OT were related you wouldn't even believe they were.  There is a lot of vengeance and lack of mercy.

I was told by my pastor that Moses (this is in Matthew and Mark) wrote the Bible and that Moses gave Jews the law, not God.  I'll look up the passages.  So, if you believe Matthew and Mark then you have to believe that Moses wrote the OT and it was his will that they had all those laws because their hearts were hard.

I don't know where I'm going with this because I'm tired.  Keep on, I guess.

----------


## The XL

> Only to those who want to push their beliefs on others, be they Theist or Atheist.  As it is, I have no obligation to prove to you or anyone else my beliefs nor do you.


I agree with this, for the most part.  I think if an atheist is going out of his way to convince a believer, he needs to show proof that God does not exist.  

Still, when an atheist and a believer willingly engage in a debate on the matter, I feel the burden of proof is on the believer.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> I agree with this, for the most part.  I think if an atheist is going out of his way to convince a believer, he needs to show proof that God does not exist.  
> 
> Still, when an atheist and a believer willingly engage in a debate on the matter, I feel the burden of proof is on the believer.


LOL  Why?

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Gabriel was not God's Gabriel, Satan was posing as Gabriel or perhaps Mohammad assumed the 'angel' was Gabriel.  I don't know.  I did not specifically search for that answer.   But God, the One True God would not enslave woman to man in that manner or enslave other people specifically infidels to his followers with those godless rules perpetually.   
> 
> Additionally, allah appears to change his rules to accommodate mohammad at the time of and after the fact.   There was no mercy in the heart of allah or mohammad for that matter.  There is only arrogance and pride and evil.  THEREFORE.


I don't get it. If you're going to try debunking a religion you hold in such clear contempt, why bother pretending it was inspired a supernatural being from your own theology? Why not just establish that Muhammad was crazy and deluded, and get down to the fun stuff?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> LOL  Why?


Because it's easier than proving nothing exists beyond the physical.  Easy to pass the buck, ya' know!

As it is, the only people with no obligation to prove anything are those who say "I don't know" aka Agnostics.  If Atheists or Theists want to convert someone, the burden of proof is on them.  If they simply have their own beliefs, then they need prove nothing to anyone.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Gabriel was not God's Gabriel, Satan was posing as Gabriel or perhaps Mohammad assumed the 'angel' was Gabriel.  I don't know.  I did not specifically search for that answer.   But God, the One True God would not enslave woman to man in that manner or enslave other people specifically infidels to his followers with those godless rules perpetually.   
> 
> Additionally, allah appears to change his rules to accommodate mohammad at the time of and after the fact.   There was no mercy in the heart of allah or mohammad for that matter.  There is only arrogance and pride and evil.  THEREFORE.


You might want to reread Leviticus and Exodus before passing judgment on how brutal other religions are compared to Christianity.

----------


## Gemini

> You might want to reread Leviticus and Exodus before passing judgment on how brutal other religions are compared to Christianity.


Well if you want to get technical, that is the Jewish law.  The Christian Law is much kinder.  It is the record of the Israelites, namely the Jews - since they didn't believe Christ is their savior and that the Old Law was fulfilled.

If you want to compare Christianity, I suppose it would be more accurate to base it off of the New Testament.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> You might want to reread Leviticus and Exodus before passing judgment on how brutal other religions are compared to Christianity.


What does Leviticus and Exodus have to do with honor killings, suicide bombings, mass public executions, murdering Christians, and killing people who insult the "prophet"....all events that happen every week?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> What does Leviticus and Exodus have to do with honor killings, suicide bombings, mass public executions, murdering Christians, and killing people who insult the "prophet"....all events that happen every week?


The fact you don't know tells me you know little about the brutality advocated by our own Bible.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Well if you want to get technical, that is the Jewish law.  The Christian Law is much kinder.  It is the record of the Israelites, namely the Jews - since they didn't believe Christ is their savior and that the Old Law was fulfilled.
> 
> If you want to compare Christianity, I suppose it would be more accurate to base it off of the New Testament.


The problem I have often seen is that self-named Christians cherry-pick from the OT to suit their own personal ideals.  Don't like gays?  Go to the OT.   Like an adulterous right-wing politician?  Go to the NT and forget the OT.  Like hot dogs at baseball games and shrimp cocktails on Saturday night dates?  Forget the OT.   Don't you think it's bullshit for people to cherry-pick the Bible? 

Question for you, sir:  Is the OT in full effect or did the NT replace it?

----------


## Annette

> The fact you don't know tells me you know little about the brutality advocated by our own Bible.


The question is, what people are enacting the more violent parts of their holy book today?  Most Muslims are peaceful, but the ones that aren't seem to find justification for violence in the words they read in the Quran.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> The question is, what people are enacting the more violent parts of their holy book today?  Most Muslims are peaceful, but the ones that aren't seem to find justification for violence in the words they read in the Quran.


Most Muslims are NOT peaceful. How peaceful is it to tolerate violence in your own religion?  Anyone who is violent in the name of Christianity becomes a pariah, widely condemned by all Christians. Not so with Muslims. Muslims are all violent save the few that actually stand against the violence.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Most Muslims are NOT peaceful. How peaceful is it to tolerate violence in your own religion?  Anyone who is violent in the name of Christianity becomes a pariah, widely condemned by all Christians. Not so with Muslims. Muslims are all violent save the few that actually stand against the violence.


So everybody who stands by and tries to get on with their life becomes part of the violence disparate members of their ethnic group or religion are inflicting?

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> So everybody who stands by and tries to get on with their life becomes part of the violence disparate members of their ethnic group or religion are inflicting?


"Your silence gives consent."  --Plato

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> "Your silence gives consent."  --Plato


Do I see Christians rising up _en masse_ to condemn Kony and his merry band of mutilators? No, but I recognize that they all regard him as a subhuman swine. The same attitude runs through the Islamic religion.

----------


## Paperback Writer

> Do I see Christians rising up _en masse_ to condemn Kony and his merry band of mutilators? No, but I recognize that they all regard him as a subhuman swine. The same attitude runs through the Islamic religion.


  @Char1es, apparently the Yanks had a huge Kony2012 campaign started by Christians.  The campaign and petition became so huge that Obama sent in US advisory troops.  I'm sure you remember.  The Yank in charge had a meltdown after and was caught running naked by the side of the road.  Terrible that.

----------


## Gemini

> The problem I have often seen is that self-named Christians cherry-pick from the OT to suit their own personal ideals.  Don't like gays?  Go to the OT.   Like an adulterous right-wing politician?  Go to the NT and forget the OT.  Like hot dogs at baseball games and shrimp cocktails on Saturday night dates?  Forget the OT.   Don't you think it's bullshit for people to cherry-pick the Bible? 
> 
> Question for you, sir:  Is the OT in full effect or did the NT replace it?


Indeed, cherry picking the Bible is silly.

No, the OT is not in full effect once the death and resurrection of Christ occurred _for Christians_.  Jews on the other hand?  Indeed it is if my understanding is correct.

Many doctrines for Christians have changed with the sacrifice of Christ, but the history hasn't.  We don't sacrifice sheep anymore, and are encouraged to forgive, and not collect eyes and teeth in revenge and such things.

So, to answer your question, does the NT replace the OT?  Well, _sort of_ in some situations, and in a few, absolutely yes.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> @Char1es, apparently the Yanks had a huge Kony2012 campaign started by Christians.  The campaign and petition became so huge that Obama sent in US advisory troops.  I'm sure you remember.  The Yank in charge had a meltdown after and was caught running naked by the side of the road.  Terrible that.


Were the majority of people supporting Kony 2012 Christians? No, most were half-literate 12 year-old kids looking for something hip to share on Facebook.

----------


## Belazure

> seems to me that Anton Levey considered Satan a real entity seeing as he set up the church of satan.


Anton Levay didn't believe in a "real Satan" - his "church of Satain" was basically a parody religion, it was inspired by Ayn Rand's ideology

----------


## Belazure

> You do realize not everyone agrees with you, right?


It's a moot point - a physical incarnation of "Satan" or a "demon" has no evidence to back it up. It's pretty obvious to the un-indoctrinated that Satan and Devils are metaphor for evil that lies in men's hearts.

Just because some dude behind a pulpit thinks he can make money off of saying a "physical Satan exists" doesn't make it true, cause it ain't.




> The God of Islam is *not* the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Anyone who claims they are one in the same is either dreadfully ignorant, or a trouble maker.


You do realize that not everyone agrees with you, right?  :Wink: 

Just sayin

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Do I see Christians rising up _en masse_ to condemn Kony and his merry band of mutilators? No, but I recognize that they all regard him as a subhuman swine. The same attitude runs through the Islamic religion.


Just forewarning, but the board's more radical Christians will ignore everything after "no."

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Anton Levay didn't believe in a "real Satan" - his "church of Satain" was basically a parody religion, it was inspired by Ayn Rand's ideology


that's not what the info about him sez.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Just forewarning, but the board's more radical Christians will ignore everything after "no."


I guess I am the radical Christian?  lol

----------


## Belazure

> They did it on the very first page. It's why atheists piss me off. They can't allow a religious discussion to ensue unsullied by their rants of hopelessness and despair.  You remember big PF's religion section?  There wasn't a single discussion of a religious nature because of the ravages of the atheists. Sites that fail to keep the atheists out of religious discussions end up having no religious discussions.  They're soulless jackals and I mean that.


I'm not an atheist, I believe in God.

As a Christian, you shouldn't bare false testimony against your neighbor - just sayin'

Plus by your own standard, an "atheist" (and I put that in quotes), then anyone opposed to Wahabbism is an "atheist" who just "hates all Muslims". :lol:

Bottom line is, beliefs like the ones Calypso expressed are heretical and are cult-like beliefs which cult organizations preach.

I think 'militant atheists', as in those who hate anyone who dare to 'belief in God or the supernatural' are idiots - but there's a big difference between 'believing in God', and wanting to replace science and history with literalistic interpretations of events in the Bible, the Koran, etc




> that's not what the info about him sez.


If the info comes from some cult-ish site then that's probably why.




> I guess I am the radical Christian? lol



You're to "Christians" what Wahabbis are to Muslims.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> I'm not an atheist, I believe in God.
> 
> .[/COLOR]


so does the devil.

----------


## Belazure

> so does the devil.


That sounds like a tacit admission that you're the devil

You'd be better off just converting to Islam, they're more hardcore than you, and within a decare or so, Christian fundamentalism is going to be a thing of the past - regarded about as seriously as people on Ripley's Believe it or Not who believe in ghosts or other nonsense - it's a cult, plain and simple.

Fundamental Islam though is still thriving in the middle east, so you'd fit right in pretty well if you'd just adapt to wearing the Hajib.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> I guess I am the radical Christian?  lol


Note: "_more_ radical". Just because Obama is less black than Chris Rock, doesn't stop him being black.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (09-19-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

> I'm not an atheist, I believe in God.
> 
> As a Christian, you shouldn't bare false testimony against your neighbor - just sayin'
> 
> Plus by your own standard, an "atheist" (and I put that in quotes), then anyone opposed to Wahabbism is an "atheist" who just "hates all Muslims". :lol:
> 
> Bottom line is, beliefs like the ones Calypso expressed are heretical and are cult-like beliefs which cult organizations preach.
> 
> I think 'militant atheists', as in those who hate anyone who dare to 'belief in God or the supernatural' are idiots - but there's a big difference between 'believing in God', and wanting to replace science and history with literalistic interpretations of events in the Bible, the Koran, etc
> ...


wiki...hardly right wing.

I'm a jihadi Christian and i'm a lone cult member...I'll be sure to share that at my church.   and with my bible study group...they'll get a kick out of that.

----------


## Calypso Jones

What do radical Christians do?

----------


## Belazure

> wiki...hardly right wing.
> 
> I'm a jihadi Christian and i'm a lone cult member...I'll be sure to share that at my church.   and with my bible study group...they'll get a kick out of that.


No one in a cult has ever admitted they were in one

And yeah, you're not that far off from a jihadi - just a little watered down. You say stuff that sounds like stuff jihadi's would say (ex. terrorism is America's punishment for immorality, et cetera - I think that Jihadi's believe that too).

Ayn Rand wasn't "right wing" BTW, she was an atheist and a partial birth abortionist, she was just fiscally libertarian.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> What do radical Christians do?


What do radical Muslims do? What do radical Hindus do? What do radical Buddhists do? They preach a hard-line, purist version of their religion, and attempt to assert its superiority above others. That's the bare-bones criteria, anyway.

Don't confuse "radical" with "violent".

----------

Belazure (09-19-2013),Sinestro/Green Arrow (09-19-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I guess I am the radical Christian?  lol


One of them, at least.

----------


## Belazure

> What do radical Muslims do? What do radical Hindus do? What do radical Buddhists do? They preach a hard-line, purist version of their religion, and attempt to assert its superiority above others. That's the bare-bones criteria, anyway.
> 
> Don't confuse "radical" with "violent".


Yeah, here's a fundamental Islam site - they're 'a little' more radical than Christian fundamentalism is, but not that far off - in 50+ years of social evolution, I think the fundamentalists in Islamic countries will look about the same as the fundamentalists in the US do today.

http://islamicvanguards.com/

Funny thing is I've condemned militant atheists for being anti-Christian, but if I point out the radical nature of Christian fundamentalism, then some of em will label me an 'atheist' or 'anti-Christian' There's a big difference between a "Christian" and "God believer", and someone who believes in supernatural conspiracy theories (ex. "rapturism", "young earth creationism", or this thread - apparently about Satan actually appearing in physical form to Muhammed and dictating the Koran). It's lunacy, plain and simple.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (09-19-2013)

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> Yeah, here's a fundamental Islam site - they're 'a little' more radical than Christian fundamentalism is, but not that far off - in 50+ years of social evolution, I think the fundamentalists in Islamic countries will look about the same as the fundamentalists in the US do today.
> 
> http://islamicvanguards.com/


'Irish Islamic Vanguards'. LMAO

----------

Belazure (09-19-2013),Sinestro/Green Arrow (09-19-2013)

----------


## Gemini

> Funny thing is I've condemned militant atheists for being anti-Christian, but if I point out the radical nature of Christian fundamentalism, then some of em will label me an 'atheist' or 'anti-Christian' There's a big difference between a "Christian" and "God believer", and someone who believes in supernatural conspiracy theories (ex. "rapturism", "young earth creationism", or this thread - apparently about Satan actually appearing in physical form to Muhammed and dictating the Koran). It's lunacy, plain and simple.


Some are plain examples of lunacy.  Others not so much.

Ultimately, lunacy only matters if someone is hurting another because of it.  Few Christian "lunatics" are hurting anybody, the same cannot be said by many others.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Some are plain examples of lunacy.  Others not so much.
> 
> Ultimately, lunacy only matters if someone is hurting another because of it.  *Few Christian "lunatics" are hurting anybody*, the same cannot be said by many others.


That is strongly debatable.

----------


## Belazure

> Some are plain examples of lunacy.  Others not so much.
> 
> Ultimately, lunacy only matters if someone is hurting another because of it.  Few Christian "lunatics" are hurting anybody, the same cannot be said by many others.


I'm not that concerned about fundamentalists who mind their own business - those who come public and proselytize beliefs such as a literal "rapture" or "young earth creation" though are subjecting themselves to criticism.

----------


## Gemini

> That is strongly debatable.


Indeed, by those still wearing their head firmly on their shoulders.

----------


## Gemini

> I'm not that concerned about fundamentalists who mind their own business - those who come public and proselytize beliefs such as a literal "rapture" or "young earth creation" though are subjecting themselves to criticism.


So lunacy comes in varying grades now does it?  Or only those who proselyte it their version regardless of how bizarre it may seem?

It would seem to the non-religious, that the religious are the kooks one and all - with varying levels of 'kookiness'.  

But to the religious, the non-believers are -

1.  Missing out on something wonderful and shiney with fuzzy teddy bears (Christians, strangely, some spiritualists/wiccan types etc...)
2.  Infidels who need beheading, not even worth converting (Islam, some whacko 'Christians', or just about any group that has hate as an underlying theme of them being better than everybody else etc...)
3.  Only cool if they profit us - but they are still slime (Jews, some 'Christian' Sects etc...)
4.  Just another being in the journey of life (Buddhism, Taoism, spiritualists etc...)
5.  Just fine, just don't hurt anybody (Some Wiccans and some eastern ones to my knowledge)

My point is that religion isn't the cause of the violence.  Violence stems from jealousy/coveting, anger, or defense usually.
And violence is usually what people are worried about, or some other behavior or loss, in regards to lunacy.

Crazy people are just fine, so long as they don't hurt anybody.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> So lunacy comes in varying grades now does it?  Or only those who proselyte it their version regardless of how bizarre it may seem?
> 
> It would seem to the non-religious, that the religious are the kooks one and all - with varying levels of 'kookiness'.  
> 
> But to the religious, the non-believers are -
> 
> 1.  Missing out on something wonderful and shiney with fuzzy teddy bears (Christians, strangely, some spiritualists/wiccan types etc...)
> 2.  Infidels who need beheading, not even worth converting (Islam, some whacko 'Christians', or just about any group that has hate as an underlying theme of them being better than everybody else etc...)
> 3.  Only cool if they profit us - but they are still slime (Jews, some 'Christian' Sects etc...)
> ...


And it even begs to point out that the lack of religious belief (atheism) caused the deaths of 120 million people in the 20th century, more than all the religious wars in the history of mankind combined.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Some are plain examples of lunacy.  Others not so much.
> 
> Ultimately, lunacy only matters if someone is hurting another because of it.  Few Christian "lunatics" are hurting anybody, the same cannot be said by many others.


Hmmm.  A couple of thoughts.  Is exploiting someone peacefully Christian? Is supporting dictators to fight Marxists or terrorists, using rendition and torture on terrorist suspects and spying on innocent people Christian?

Islam is younger than Christianity by about 700 years.  Where was Christianity 700 years ago?  Right at the beginning of 400 years worth of the Spanish Inquisition, execution of people for being heretics, witches and blasphemers.  The brutality of the European Middle Ages goes hand in hand with Christianity's spread across Europe.  "We, the People" considered ourselves both Christian and God's Chosen People thereby justifying the enslavement of blacks and the annihilation of the Native Americans who lived here before us. 

Do you disagree with any of the facts I've posted, Gemini? 

http://galileo.rice.edu/lib/student_.../overview.html



> Throughout the Inquisition's history, it was rivaled by local ecclesiastical and secular jurisdictions. No matter how determined, no pope succeeded in establishing complete control of the institution. Medieval kings, princes, bishops, and civil auth orities wavered between acceptance and resistance of the Inquisition. The institution reached its apex in the second half of the 13th century. During this period, the tribunals were almost entirely free from any authority, including that of the pope. T herefore, it was almost impossible to eradicate abuse.
> 
> A second variety of the Inquisition was the infamous Spanish Inquisition, authorized by Pope Sixtus IV in 1478. Pope Sixtus tried to establish harmony between the inquisitors and the ordinaries, but was unable to maintain control of the desires of Ki ng Ferdinand V and Queen Isablella. Sixtus agreed to recognize the independence of the Spanish Inquisition. This institution survived to the beginning of the 19th century, and was permanently suppressed by a decree on July 15, 1834.
> 
> A third variety of the Inquisition was the Roman Inquisition. Alarmed by the spread of Protestantism and especially by its penetration into Italy, Pope Paul III in 1542 established in Rome the Congregation of the Inquisition. This institution was al so known as the Roman Inquisition and the Holy Office. Six cardinals including Carafa constituted the original inquisition whose powers extended to the whole Church. The "Holy Office" was really a new institution related to the Medieval Inquisition only by vague precedents. More free from episcopal control than its predecessor, it also conceived of its function differently. Some saw its establishment as an attempt to counter-balance the severe Spanish Inquisition at a time when much of Italy was under Spanish rule. Whereas the medieval Inquisition had focused on popular misconceptions which resulted in the disturbance of public order, the Holy Office was concerned with orthodoxy of a more academic nature, especially as it appeared in the writings of theologians. In its first twelve years, the activities of the Roman Inquisition were relatively modest and were restricted almost exclusively to Italy. Cardinal Carafa became Pope Paul IV in 1555 and immediately urged a vigorous pursuit of "suspects." His snare did not exclude bishops or even cardinals of the Church. Pope Paul IV carged the congregation to draw up a list of books which he felt offended faith or morals. This resulted in the first Index of Forbidden Books (1559). Although succeeding popes tempered the zeal of the Roman Inquisition, many viewed the institution as the cutomary instrument of papal government used in the regulation of Church order. This was the institution that would later put Galileo on trial.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Indeed, cherry picking the Bible is silly.
> 
> No, the OT is not in full effect once the death and resurrection of Christ occurred _for Christians_.  Jews on the other hand?  Indeed it is if my understanding is correct.
> 
> Many doctrines for Christians have changed with the sacrifice of Christ, but the history hasn't.  We don't sacrifice sheep anymore, and are encouraged to forgive, and not collect eyes and teeth in revenge and such things.
> 
> *So, to answer your question, does the NT replace the OT?  Well, sort of in some situations, and in a few, absolutely yes.*


Thank you for your answer, but you and I both know that there are no rules on what "sort of" situations or which, few if any, are okay and which are not.  

Where is the ruling that slavery or the execution of adulterers is wrong, that eating shellfish and pork is okay, but being gay is an abomination or that abortion is considered murder?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> And it even begs to point out that the lack of religious belief (atheism) caused the deaths of 120 million people in the 20th century, more than all the religious wars in the history of mankind combined.


Except atheism, like religion, cannot "cause" those deaths. It is those who claim adherence that caused those deaths, and those people were not motivated by atheism or religion but by the darkness in their nature.

----------


## Gerrard Winstanley

> And it even begs to point out that the lack of religious belief (atheism) caused the deaths of 120 million people in the 20th century, more than all the religious wars in the history of mankind combined.


I oppose usage of the term 'religious war', because I don't think there's ever been a war fought in the history of mankind where a group or nation's faith was the sole motive at play. To the perpetrators of the great mass-killings of the 20th Century, atheism was a secondary consideration - more often, they were working people to death in pursuit of industrial might, to eradicate groups they harboured ethno-racialist hatred towards, or to solidify their grip amidst post-revolutionary chaos. Whether ideology constitutes a religion is a matter of debate; in the extreme instances of Mao, Stalin and Hitler, I think it does.

----------


## Belazure

> So lunacy comes in varying grades now does it?  Or only those who proselyte it their version regardless of how bizarre it may seem?
> 
> It would seem to the non-religious, that the religious are the kooks one and all - with varying levels of 'kookiness'.  
> 
> But to the religious, the non-believers are -
> 
> 1.  Missing out on something wonderful and shiney with fuzzy teddy bears (Christians, strangely, some spiritualists/wiccan types etc...)
> 2.  Infidels who need beheading, not even worth converting (Islam, some whacko 'Christians', or just about any group that has hate as an underlying theme of them being better than everybody else etc...)
> 3.  Only cool if they profit us - but they are still slime (Jews, some 'Christian' Sects etc...)
> ...


I wasn't even talking about 'violence' per say - I was talking about literalistic sects of religions - which promote kooky supernatural/conspiracy theories (ex. 'rapturism', 'young earth creationism', foretelling the future, 'real life' 'demons', etc) - those beliefs aren't really any different than anything that any other 'doomsday cult' would believe, and groups which make it one of their primary agendas to indoctrinate their members which extremist beliefs like that are doing damage to them and exploiting them - I suppose adults can choose what they want to believe - though I feel very bad for children who 'grow up' in some totalitarian religious organization which scares them into cloistering themselves from the outside world by indoctrinating them and scaring them with conspiracy beliefs like that, just like like a cult does.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Except atheism, like religion, cannot "cause" those deaths. It is those who claim adherence that caused those deaths, and those people were not motivated by atheism or religion but by the darkness in their nature.


Darkness is the absence of light.  Belief that there is no God and no accountability for our actions is a frightening propellant for atrocity.  Even in Muslim conquests (remembering this thread is about the Koran) there was temperings of mercy when you read the details, the conquest of Constantinople being a good example of this.  The unrestrained murder of the atheists of the 20th century have no equal and no precident in human history.

----------


## Belazure

> Except atheism, like religion, cannot "cause" those deaths. It is those who claim adherence that caused those deaths, and those people were not motivated by atheism or religion but by the darkness in their nature.


I don't believe that 'religion' causes genocide - and my comments here didn't have anything to do with 'genocide'. It's true that Stalin was an atheist, but killed more than the Cruades or Inquisition did.

On the flip side though, even the militant atheist groups don't promote kooky/supernatural conspiracy theories - which many fundamentalist groups do - that is my main beef with them.

This thread was basically a conspiracy theory - apparently the OP thinks that "Satan" appeared in a physical form to Muhammed "disguised" as an angel, and dictated him the Koran. That's cute but it's about on par with David Icke's theories about "lizard men" impersonating world figures such as Bush, Obama, etc

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Darkness is the absence of light.  Belief that there is no God and no accountability for our actions is a frightening propellant for atrocity.  Even in Muslim conquests (remembering this thread is about the Koran) there was temperings of mercy when you read the details, the conquest of Constantinople being a good example of this.  The unrestrained murder of the atheists of the 20th century have no equal and no precident in human history.


Yes, and it's not atheism - or religion - that causes it. With or without atheism/religion, evil people will do evil things.

----------


## kilgram

> Yes, and it's not atheism - or religion - that causes it. With or without atheism/religion, evil people will do evil things.


Well I disagree and agree, because with religion good people can do evil acts.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Well I disagree and agree, because with religion good people can do evil acts.


Bullshit.  Good people are defined by refraining from evil acts.  That was just asinine.

----------


## Paperback Writer

> Yes, and it's not atheism - or religion - that causes it. With or without atheism/religion, evil people will do evil things.


  Yes, but without a belief that there is something higher than yourself and a calling to serve and have mercy, man has no restraint.  Then you see the truly good, but you also are open to the type of atrocity which exists in the absence of mortal restraint.  The "good" atheists I know I have much respect for because they do good without thought of reward, which ironically is what Jesus said to do.  The arsehole atheists are some of the biggest twatters that you'll ever meet because they have zero consequences within their system.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (09-19-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Bullshit.  Good people are defined by refraining from evil acts.  That was just asinine.


That's not entirely true, unless good people are perfect.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Yes, but without a belief that there is something higher than yourself and a calling to serve and have mercy, man has no restraint.  Then you see the truly good, but you also are open to the type of atrocity which exists in the absence of mortal restraint.  The "good" atheists I know I have much respect for because they do good without thought of reward, which ironically is what Jesus said to do.  The arsehole atheists are some of the biggest twatters that you'll ever meet because they have zero consequences within their system.


I agree with this.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Yes, but without a belief that there is something higher than yourself and a calling to serve and have mercy, man has no restraint.  Then you see the truly good, but you also are open to the type of atrocity which exists in the absence of mortal restraint.  The "good" atheists I know I have much respect for because they do good without thought of reward, which ironically is what Jesus said to do.  The arsehole atheists are some of the biggest twatters that you'll ever meet because they have zero consequences within their system.


Atheists who do good are certainly admirable, but so are the religious.  It's a flawed argument that people of faith do good and abstain from evil for eternal reward or eluding punishment or both.  Religious people doing good do so because it's in their nature.  "If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil." (1Jn 2:29, 3:8 KJV)  It's insulting and condescending to people of faith to be told that what they do is motivated by greed or fear because it's absolutely false.  People who have the love of God in them do good simply for the love of God.

I would further surmise that those atheists who care for their neighbor and do good are unwittingly communing with the divine and it's no coincidence that they aren't hostile to religion or the practice thereof. They're on a journey that has not yet resulted in a full epiphany. But that's just my opinion.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Bullshit.  Good people are defined by refraining from evil acts.  That was just asinine.


Would advocating the assassination of someone be an act of good or evil?

While I agree that good people are defined as you say, many evil people think they are good and rarely ever think their actions are evil.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Would advocating the assassination of someone be an act of good or evil?
> 
> While I agree that good people are defined as you say, many evil people think they are good and rarely ever think their actions are evil.


1. No. Who's doing that?
2. I agree.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

Some people think murder is good politics.

----------

