Industrial Deals Beauty Save up to 90% on textbooks STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Wedding Rustic Decor Home Gift Guide Off to College Home Gift Guide Book House Cleaning TheTick TheTick TheTick  Amazon Echo now $99.99 Limited-time offer: All-New Fire HD 8, starting at $59.99 Kindle Paperwhite GNO Tailgating STEMClubToys17_gno
Customer Discussions > Islam forum

Ex-Muslims... Why ?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 540 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 29, 2012, 2:05:52 PM PST
winoceros says:
<<tn:Once the idea of burning hell is dismissed, we can live a peaceful life.
Something Muslims can't.

SA: What? Muslims can't lead a peaceful life? Are you serious? >>

See, if even something as elementary as this reasoning escapes our Muslim posters, what hope is there?

Premise...conclusion.

Premise: Once the idea of burning hell is dismissed we can live a peaceful life.
Premise: Muslims can't dismiss the idea of burning hell.

Conclusion: Therefore, we can't live a peaceful life.

That wasn't too hard, was it?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 29, 2012, 2:06:51 PM PST
winoceros says:
Would it matter? Is truth dependent on one's professed or former faith? Or is he not entitled to an opinion regarding his very good friend, recently deceased, Christopher Hitchens?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 29, 2012, 2:09:12 PM PST
winoceros says:
Not ill-informed. In the context of asking Mohammad whether it was ok to kill non-Muslim children, it was written down that he said that children are born Muslim, but it is their People of the Book parents who make them either Jewish or Christian. So that's where Muslims get the idea that it's not ok to kill children: not because it's inherently wrong to do so, but because until they are old enough to have their own judgment and decisions about religion, they were Muslim anyway, so therefore off-limits for killing.

Or is Bukhari not good enough for you again?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 29, 2012, 4:50:14 PM PST
Ard Fhaidh says:
In reply to your post on Jan 29, 2012 11:42:39 AM PST
Last edited by the author 4 hours ago
Daniel G. Schaeffer says: "That quote was meant as parody, in case you couldn't get that. And since you've decided to turn the Islam Forum into a Christianity forum, in order to proselytize for your, and I gather, Ratzinger's, version of of Christianity, can you think of any reason why I shouldn't take off?"

Ard Fhaidh
Wow!

.

Daniel G. Schaeffer says: "This isn't a conversation, Ard. It's an attempt at conversion, and your tone is getting really, really nasty."

Ard Fhaidh
Nasty? Wow!

.

Daniel G. Schaeffer says: "NO JEW IS UNDER ANY OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER TO ACCEPT CHRISTIANITY. PERIOD. To do so would be to commit blasphemy. Period. They have no concept of original sin in their theology. Period.

Ard Fhaidh
Wow!

.

Daniel G. Schaeffer says: "Rastzinger (SIC) can't figure that out, because he really IS an antisemite -- and I'm NOT referring to his childhood in the Hitler Youth Corps."

Ard Fhaidh
WOW!

.

I'm going to pause here because there is no need to continue line by line through your the remainder of your rage filled screed Mr.Schaeffer.

One is compelled to wonder whether such intolerance is what Dawkins teaches? Or is this what Dawkins attracts?

You've really gone WAY WAY over the top, Mr. Schaeffer. You should be embarrassed by your intemperance. You should be embarrassed by your intolerance. You don't know what you are talking about when it comes to Christianity; and I don't imagine you have a clue as to where I'm coming from either. In my experience spiritually healthy Jews don't spend their time setting up and knocking down straw men. In my experience spiritually healthy Jews are confident in their faith in YHWH. THEIR faith and witness to YHWH is a blessing to all. What can one say? Perhaps after some time after your anger subside you will come to a place where you can reflect on your poor behavior and your anger.

When that time comes I want you to feel free to discuss this with me. G-d be with you until then.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 29, 2012, 6:06:28 PM PST
\\it was written down that he said that children are born Muslim... Or is Bukhari not good enough for you again?\\

You are not good enough for Bukhari !

The text does not say they are born Muslim -- though it could have easily if some related understanding was not to be missed.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 29, 2012, 8:17:20 PM PST
Domenico says:
Man, are you weird.
You always have something to say as a response ( must you have a response?) but you actually say nothing !!
Just like for this one. Weird.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2012, 11:03:05 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 1, 2012, 8:28:11 AM PST
Wait a minute. The RCC puts out an infallible pronouncement in the year 1430, or thereabouts, "proving" that to be a Jew is a damnable offense -- and I'm intolerant? Mel Gibson, who's a firm fan of Ratzinger's, offers an anti-Jewish diatribe to the cops -- and I'm filled with rage? Pius XI, in "Mitt Brenner Sorge," uses the phrase "historical denial of Christ" to write all of Jewry off as a loss -- and I don't understand Christianity? Ratzinger builds a record of public service that makes Richard Outhouse Nixon look like a saint -- and I should be embarrassed? John Paul gets photographed kissing the Koran -- and I shouldn't object?

Have it yor way, Ard, I'm such a mean and rotten guy!!! I guess I'll just have to fry in Hell, along with Anne Frank, Mark Twain and Richard Dawkins.

(And by the way -- read over Exodus and Joshua and you'll find a whole bunch of stuff -- including Moses practicing human sacrifice -- that's a lot worse than anything Dawkins could find. The point he was making is that believers cherry pick whatever they want to make themselves feel morally superior -- and I guess you've just proven him right.)

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 30, 2012, 6:29:08 PM PST
TN says:
<<Moses practicing human sacrifice>>

Please do educate us, i.e. quote the verse.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 31, 2012, 5:12:34 AM PST
\\Man, are you weird. \\

You are not good enough for Bukhari !

The text does not say they are born Muslim.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 31, 2012, 6:45:15 AM PST
Domenico says:
I HOPE I'm not !

Is he the one describing Aisha, the 9-year-old ''wife'' scraping the 54 years old ''prophet's" dried ... fluids out of clothes? You know what I mean. Muslims call this the ''Hadith Science" and it's intensively studied?

Why studied ? Because the ''prophet'' said ... seek knowledge !

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 31, 2012, 4:59:34 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 31, 2012, 5:03:33 PM PST
Gladly! You'll have to forgive me for speaking in haste, though -- it's actually in Numbers, 25, 1-6. The story is that the Israelites have been partying with the Moabites, so YHWH tells Moses "Take all the chiefs of the people and impale them in the sun before the Lord, so that the fierce anger of the Lord may turn away from the people of Israel." I love the image -- Charleton Heston playing Vlad Dracula the Impaler. Oxford Annotated; checking here in the library I've discovered that several other translations try to be a bit less gruesome that this, but the OA is probably the most accurate.

Actually, it's been years since I've done any study of the Bible, but if you ever get the chance to read the OT with a pencil in your hand marking out the things they don't tell you about in Bible class, you'll find some honeys. 1) There's a bit in Exodus where Abraham's wife goes around with a chest full of household Idols, and YHWH doesn't mind at all. Hint: the early Hebrews were NOT monotheists. 2) The last chapter of Deuteronomy is hilarious. It gives the Jewish priests instructions on how to use "the law" as a tool to keep screwing goodies out of the gullible Jews indefinitely. The writer is basically admitting that the Torah is a swindle, but nobody ever admits it, maybe because the Bible is so dull that by the time readers get to this point they're usually numb. As I say -- a critical reading of The Bible will turn any intelligent person into an atheist.

Pity this thread isn't entitled "Ex-Christians ... Why?"

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 31, 2012, 5:23:45 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 1, 2012, 8:29:42 AM PST
BTW, Ard. Do you want to know how I found out that there is no concept of original sin in Jewish theology? I checked it out in the Encyclopedia Judaica. You should have too. Before Christians decide to tell Jews they need to accept Christ to save them from original sin, they should ask politely whether the Jews really need saving all that much. Especially considering the contempt so many Christians hold toward so many Jews for not accepting Christian theology.

BTW 2: Aristotle holds in "The Politics" that the worst form of government is "a theocracy run by an oligarchy masquerading as a democracy." A perfect description of the current Iranian government -- and of the Vatican. He also holds in the "Nicomachean Ethics" that the "telos" of human life is the pursuit of excellence through the free exercize of virtue, for the eventual benefit of the "polis." He was a secularist, and a humanist, so he was a secular humanist. Not in the contemporary sense, not by a long shot, but he made a start.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 31, 2012, 7:10:29 PM PST
\\Why studied ? Because the ''prophet'' said ... seek knowledge !\\

Remain clueless then.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 31, 2012, 7:41:20 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 1, 2012, 10:23:06 AM PST
TN says:
I posted my reply quoting the verses Num 25:1-6 but Amazon won't accept it.

In a nutshell the Israelites were punished for worshiping Baal, considering they signed a covenant in blood to obey their God (at mount Sinai)

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 1, 2012, 8:20:06 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 1, 2012, 8:25:59 AM PST
Undoubtedly so -- but that begs such questions as: Why did YHWH demand killing in his sight? That's human sacrifice anyway, isn't it? And why were these people impaled on stakes? The Assyrians invented that one, by the way. Some God of love. And why doesn't God talk to Pat Robertson and remind him of his duty to "smite" a few of these Hindus? And why did the Hebrews sign their pact in blood? To Paul's way of thinking, the New Covenant, of bread and wine, was good enough -- so why didn't YHWH reveal that one earlier and save everyone a LOT of trouble -- including the crucifixion of Christ? In any case, the early Hebrews WERE polytheists, and "Baal" isn't the name of an individual god -- it just means "lord." Believers always seem to think that YHWH is "God" in the sense that THEY mean -- a transcendent pure idea of goodness and power thinking itself into existence, or whatever -- and there's nothing like that in the Torah. The original Hebrews were apparently wandering illiterates, much like the Arabs later, so of course they came up with a "God" who kicked infidel tail! The later conception of God is Platonism and Zoroastrianism rolled into one -- and it didn't produce contemporary monotheism until after the exile -- nobody is sure when, but that's not relevant.

In any case, there's a century's worth of scholarship, from Frazer and Campbell to Eisenman and Fox, people outside the fold who know what they're doing. It all points to the conclusion that much of The Bible is nearly as mythological as "Beowulf," so I can't get too worried about such topics as this. There are LOTS of threads in the Religion annd Christianity fora that will give you the rundown on all this, TN.

Back to Islam, maybe?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 3, 2012, 4:12:45 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 3, 2012, 8:04:37 AM PST
Ard Fhaidh says:
In reply to your post on Jan 30, 2012 11:03:05 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 1, 2012 8:28:11 AM PST: "Daniel G. Schaeffer says:Wait a minute. The RCC puts out an infallible pronouncement in the year 1430, or thereabouts, "proving" that to be a Jew is a damnable offense -- and I'm intolerant?"

Ard Fhaidh
Yes it seems to me that you are quite intolerant. But perhaps I am wrong. Don't go on about a drunken emotionally troubled man at a traffic stop Mr. Schaeffer. You have got to know better than that. If your anger and rage is justified show us using solid evidence just the same way we have been using the Koran, Hadith and Sira to support arguments. Show us that the Catholic Church teaches doctrinal religious intolerance towards Jews. Show me how I am mistaken directly from the 'authoritative' document that binds my conscience, the document that is assessable to all: the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

This site provides a good search capability: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

.

Regarding "Have it yor way, Ard, I'm such a mean and rotten guy!!! I guess I'll just have to fry in Hell, along with Anne Frank, Mark Twain and Richard Dawkins."

Before you respond in anger like that to me again be sure to read and consider the following for your response:
The Population of Hell
by: Avery Cardinal Dulles
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/the-population-of-hell-23

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 3, 2012, 8:20:25 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 3, 2012, 8:38:35 AM PST
In the first place, Mr, Fhaidh, no that wasn't anger. That was ironic humor, like most of what I post here -- but unfortunately you're in no position to recognize it as such. Apparently there are other people who DID! Check the little boxes at the bottom of my posts.

In the second place, I DID show where the Catholic Church teaches intolerance. It was in a decree of the Council of Florence, which the Church has apparently kept carefully swept under the rug. (And judging from what I've read, there've been a large number of conciliar decrees just like it, but I don't see any reason to do your homework for you.) Hans Kung, THE JESUIT THEOLOGIAN, only discovered it after much research and quoted it in an interview in "The New Yorker" years ago. The topic was Ratzinger's career, and the question was why the man boneheadedly insisted on the birth-control ruling that was driving Catholics out by putting them in a constant state of bad faith. Kung's answer -- "It's a smoke-screen." For the Church's appalling history of antisemitism, that it insisted on calling "tolerance" -- just like the Muslims, come to think of it. If you want to get any further details, I'd suggest you start boning up on Hans Kung, or James Carroll's "Constantine's Sword." He's also a Catholic, by the way. I suggested that you check out Kung's stuff once already, but you refused to take me seriously. Further, the quote from "Mitt Brenner Sorge" was from the second half of the encyclical, which the RCC refused to release until a few years ago as a potential embarrassment, at least according to the article in "Time" when the thing finally saw the light of day. I doubt that you're going to accuse the greatest living Catholic theologian of anti-Catholic rage, are you? Let alone "The New Yorker" or "Time."

Finally, I'd like you to think about how Mr. Gibson got to be such a psychiatric basket-case in the first place. I think you'll find the answer in the psychosis-inducing doctrine of Hell, which you can read all about by checking your own reference to Avery Cardinal Dulles. I really don't need another sermon on Hell, Ard. And then read "A Portrait of the Artist," Ch III, and Hitchens' intro to Ayaan Hirsi Ali's "Infidel." You'll find such books enlightening. Then maybe you'll stop bullying me. I have nothing to apologize to you for, especially since Amazon doesn't require the "Nihil Obstat."

Posted on Feb 3, 2012, 8:36:55 AM PST
Back to Islam. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in the recent "Nomad," made a suggestion that I think quite appropriate -- especially considering the general tenor of this thread. Rather than wasting their time getting into screaming matches with atheists that they cannot win what Christians should be doing is quietly prozelytizing Muslims, on a one-to-one basis perhaps, but not in a confrontational, Robert Spencer fashion -- in a Hans Kung, invitational fashion. "You know, we've known each other for a while -- don't you guys ever get tired of not getting any respect? We've got hospitals! We've got colleges! If you're happy as you are, fine with me -- but you might want to give it some thought." Mosab Yousef, author of "Son of Hamas," got that treatment -- he's in America now, a Christian. Is THAT non-bigoted enough for you, Ard?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 4, 2012, 9:05:45 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 4, 2012, 12:48:34 PM PST
Ard Fhaidh says:
In reply to your post on Feb 3, 2012 8:20:25 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 3, 2012 8:38:35 AM PST
Daniel G. Schaeffer says: "Finally, I'd like you to think about how Mr. Gibson got to be such a psychiatric basket-case in the first place."

Ard Fhaidh
Yes Mr. Schaeffer, thank you, I do think about how Mel Gibson was damaged. Unlike you I'm adequately informed to engage in meaning refection. One need look no further than Hutton Peter Gibson, Mel Gibson's very problematic father, who by informed accounts created an abusive home life for young Mel.

I'll quote form Wikipedia for convenience:
"Hutton Peter Gibson (born August 26, 1918) is an American writer on Sedevacantism, a World War II veteran, the 1968 Jeopardy! grand champion and the father of 11 children, one of whom is the actor and director Mel Gibson.

Gibson is an outspoken critic, both of the post-Vatican II Roman Catholic Church and of those Traditionalist Catholics, like the Society of Saint Pius X, who reject Sedevacantism. Gibson is also a proponent of various conspiracy theories. In a 2003 interview he questioned how the Nazis could have disposed of six million bodies during the Holocaust and claimed that the September 11, 2001 attacks were perpetrated by remote control. He has also been quoted as saying the Second Vatican Council was "a Masonic plot backed by the Jews"... After the promulgation of the reformed liturgy of Paul VI, the Gibson family home in Sydney, Australia was used as a temporary chapel where the Tridentine Mass was offered. Gibson also reportedly used the house to store statues and altar relics which had been discarded by parishes. Gibson was ousted as secretary of the Latin Mass Society of Australia after becoming increasingly vocal about the See of Peter actually being vacant due to John XXIII, who convened the Second Vatican Council, and subsequent popes being heretics"

Hmmmm, how might one charitably describe such a man? 'Nutcase' maybe? Even ultra-conservative Catholic renegades found Hutton Gibson too difficult to accommodate. Mel Gibson's father is an extremist reactionary, perhaps a right-wing doppelganger of Pres. Obama's left-wing maternal grandfather, Stanley Dunham Sr.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 4, 2012, 9:08:34 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 4, 2012, 12:45:31 PM PST
Ard Fhaidh says:
In reply to your post on Feb 3, 2012 8:20:25 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 3, 2012 8:38:35 AM PST
Daniel G. Schaeffer says: "James Carroll's "Constantine's Sword." He's also a Catholic, by the way."

Ard Fhaidh
And James Carroll is "a Catholic, by the way"? Is that so? Tell me, you know this how?

.

btw: Hans Kung is still a Jesuit, but he is not a Catholic theologian.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 4, 2012, 9:21:04 AM PST
Ard Fhaidh says:
In reply to your post on Feb 3, 2012 8:20:25 AM PST Last edited by the author on Feb 3, 2012 8:38:35 AM PST
Daniel G. Schaeffer says: "In the second place, I DID show where the Catholic Church teaches intolerance. It was in a decree of the Council of Florence, which the Church has apparently kept carefully swept under the rug."

FOR EMPHASIS:
"In the second place, I DID show where the Catholic Church TEACHES intolerance. It was in a decree of the Council of Florence, which the Church has apparently kept carefully SWEPT UNDER THE RUG."

Ard Fhaidh
In reality you did no such thing. Why? Because like Dawkins you are ill informed and you ignore evidence which does not support your position.

Perhaps I am wrong however. Demonstrate your point using solid evidence just the same way we have been using the Koran, Hadith and Sira to support arguments. Show us that the Catholic Church teaches doctrinal religious intolerance towards Jews. Show me how I am mistaken directly from the 'authoritative' document that binds my conscience, the document that is assessable to all: the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

This site provides a good search capability: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm.

.

btw: "THE JESUIT THEOLOGIAN" Avery Cardinal Dulles does not support your position. You continue to embarrass yourself.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 5, 2012, 12:39:37 PM PST
James Carroll is a former priest who publishes in Catholic magazines. He's currently teaching at Harvard Divinity School. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic.This is from "Constantine's Sword." (p. 215.) On Augustine:

" ... Augustine's writing about Jews of his own time, especially his treatise in the "Adversus Judaeos" genre and in Book 4 of "The Cuity of God," both of which date from about the year 425, is marked by a typical expression of Christian contempt. In one place, denouncing them for their rejection of the "obvious testimonies" of the prophets, he declares the Jews to be "the House of Israel that God has cast off ... They, however, whom he cast off ... are themselves builders of destruction and rejecters of the corner-stone. (Sounds like the "historical denial of Christ" line, doesn't it?)

"Intolerance" in the sense that the Jews are to be officially persecuted? No, of course not -- but I NEVER claimed that the Church took any such position, did I? But "intolerance" in the sense that the Jews were never to be considered spiritually equal to Christians? It was there from the beginning. This is Augustine I'm quoting.

I came here to talk about Islam, and apparently you'd rather yell at me. because you think that's the way to defend ONE VERSION of the Catholic Church. As it happens, there are many Catholics in the world I've admired deeply -- Helen Prejean, Bono, the late John Cardinal O'Connor, and, lest we forget, Oscar Romero. These are people who don't CARE about the ideology -- they feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the afflicted -- and they let their God do the judging. But of course you've never yet given me the chance to explain that, have you? This isn't a conversation, Ard. You're in an intellectual squirrel-cage I left four decades ago. Since you refuse to get this thread back on topic as I've suggested, you're wasting my time.



I

Posted on Feb 6, 2012, 3:45:25 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 6, 2012, 3:50:55 AM PST
Ard Fhaidh says:
Thank you Daniel.

Above you made an argument from authority citing Boston Globe reporter James Carroll as a devote "Catholic" authority. You were in material error regarding Boston Globe reporter and ex-priest James Carroll:

I'll quote from "Vichy Catholic" by C. Joseph Doyle, Executive Director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, as published by The Catholic World Report

"Ordained in 1969, (James) Carroll spent the next five years as the Catholic chaplain at Boston University, where he participated in illegal protests in support of Communist victory in Vietnam. Forced out as chaplain in 1974 after the nun with whom he worked "celebrated" Mass in his absence, Carroll would later admit that he counseled Catholic students to use contraceptives, and regularly concelebrated Mass with an Anglican minister. After abandoning his orders and his vocation, Carroll would marry outside the Church before he was laicized; he mentions in his autobiography that he thus incurred the penalty of excommunication-a fact which has not deterred him from regularly identifying himself as a member of the Catholic Church."

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=2873&CFID=3215999&CFTOKEN=58885665

I recall that historian Ronald J. Rychlak wrote about James Carroll's excommunication, I'll quote "(James) Carroll did not sound that way (like a practicing Catholic) in his memoirs, when he scoffed at his excommunication from the Catholic Church"

Volume 89, Number 2, April 2003

E-ISSN: 1534-0708 Print ISSN: 0008-8080

DOI: 10.1353/cat.2003.0141

Rychlak, Ronald J.
A Moral Reckoning: The Role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust and Its Unfulfilled Duty of Repair (review)
The Catholic Historical Review - Volume 89, Number 2, April 2003, pp. 327-333

The Catholic University of America Press

James Carroll in not even a Catholic. He was formally ex-communicated. James Carroll, a reporter, is a notoriously bad historian. Further, according to the published research of Rabbi David Dalin, James Carroll is something of a left-wing anti-Semite to boot.

.

One can observe James Carroll's poor historical work in your citation from James Carroll's "Constantine's Sword." (p. 215.) as as you quoted. For a historically informed opinion about Augustine and the Jews we can turn to the noted Jewish American scholar Paula Fredriksen is a historian and a scholar of religious studies. She held the position of William Goodwin Aurelio Professor of the Appreciation of Scripture at Boston University through 2010 and is now the William Goodwin Aurelio Chair Emerita of the Appreciation of Scripture. She earned a Ph.D in the history of religion from Princeton University and diploma in theology from Oxford University. Dr. Fredriksen won a National Jewish Book Award. One of the editors of her book, From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament Images of Jesus was the noted Jesus scholar E.P. Sanders. Along with Geza Vermes, she is often regarded as among the most influential historical Jesus scholars in terms of placing him firmly within a Jewish context.

Dr. Fredriksen has published two books on St. Augustine, both focused on his attitudes towards Jews and Judaism. I recommend the one I've read from cover to cover:Augustine and the Jews: A Christian Defense of Jews and Judaism Dr. Fredriksen finds Augustine to have been an enlightened and "indeed revolutionary" philo-Semite in his attitude towards Jews and Judaism.

.

BTW: I'm not 'yelling' at you. I'm engaging in civil democratic discourse hopefully toward the edification of all participants in this thread.

I agree with you early reference to an instance in Deuteronomy as a possible reference to human sacrifice and I was laying the foundation for a comparative discussion of human sacrifice in regards to Judaeo/Christian scripture and Islamic scripture when you "went off on me". Perhaps you may notice that, while I've been pointedly firm, I've been quite civil in my efforts to address issues you raised.

Given you series of material error in the response you made to me it seems unlikely that I'd be wasting your time it you approach the topics you have raised with an open mind. For instance see above regarding Augustine, Dr. Paula Fredriksen and Boston Globe reporter James Carroll.

I look forward to our continuing conversations.

.

... "in an intellectual squirrel-cage" ... hmmmm?

Posted on Feb 6, 2012, 7:54:04 AM PST
Domenico says:
With all due respect guys... you took over the discussion. It should be about Ex-Muslims.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 6, 2012, 8:00:19 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 6, 2012, 8:08:25 AM PST
Well -- yes, it IS. The concept of Hell really IS completely illogical and a dark-age abomination, and provides the keystone for the entire system; the concept of a God revealing himself to the Jews and then telling them to stone people to death is ludicrous; much of the material of the Gospels was clearly derivative of earlier Greek and Persian myths; there are plenty of things that truly ARE antisemitic in the NT no matter how desperately the later theologians tried to rationalize them -- and Ratzinger's stll trying, of course, with his "historical denial of Christ" line, which no Jew would ever buy; Paul's role in all this was highly dubious indeed; and so forth, ad infinitum.

In any case, you've never told me. or anyone else here, what your remarks about Dawkins have to do with this forum's topic, when in fact Dawkins and his ilk -- Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the people who are running faithfreedom.org. -- are potential allies. And by the way. I don't know how much Warraq you've read, but in the first chapter of "Why," he dismisses all religions, including yours, as "sick men's dreams," and lets it go at that. He's harsher than Dawkins.

So say something about how you intend to handle all those ex-Muslims, please, without hacking them off. That's what I came here for. Especially since your religion is a lot nicer than theirs, but that doesn't mean it's any truer.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Islam forum (346 discussions)

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Islam forum
Participants:  19
Total posts:  540
Initial post:  Dec 22, 2011
Latest post:  May 6, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer