Yassine

You asked two personal questions which I answered fulsomely.  Just calling my answers false is not a basis for rational argument or even polite.

I don't hold for equal rights between myself and my 2nd brother, as he's stolen from our house before.

So he's supervised when visiting, while trusted family members are not supervised.

Depends on context and specifics.

Yes.

Since I hold that people are different, by what they are, what actions they take, how society views certain states of being or action.

Discrimination occurs.

Well, maybe not the 'same rights.

I would like that they have 'some 'sort of rights though.

Gay and trans people are valid and deserve the same rights as any other american

Yassine, the weak minded Muslim RUNAWAY regarding his Satanic faith of Islam,

OMG, every inept refutation by you to my owning your Satanic Islam faith gets weaker, weaker, and weaker by NOT addressing my statements to you, other than to interject child like statements in return!  As an example, here is the last post of mine to you in the link below:

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6309-whos-in-for-some-fun-challenges?page=5&post_number=116

Now, embarrassingly, here is your ever so CHILDLIKE and ever so wanting response to my post above, ready?

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6309-whos-in-for-some-fun-challenges?page=5&post_number=119

^^^ That is all you have to offer in NOT addressing ALL of my post relative to the outright embarrassment towards your faith, other than your childlike and vain responses?   Too SCARED to converse about your Satanic pedophile Muhammad, and what he said about you are to murder Christians by beheading them, and to beat women and kill them if need be? Huh? Can you spell W-U-S-S-Y that relates to your presence within this forum

Yassine, here is your future problem, I haven't even started upon your Satanic Islamic faith yet, so when I do, CHAIN UP because your ride is going to get real bumpy, understood?  Yeah, you do.

I wouldnt know how to explain that secular ideals are better than Islamic ones if I don't know much about Islam.

I am more of an agnostic than atheist, but I do not think that matters for defending atheisms existence.

I am ok to debate democracy or western democratic state whenever you are, thank you for the potential challenge. It will be my first real debate on this site as I messed up my first and didn't finish.

The only topics I have a good grasp on, as I am not familiar with Islam, would be 

Atheism is unattainable 

The Chinese communist state is superior to the Western democratic state

When you say democracy is terrible, I think it would have to be related to something else. Would you be willing to propose something that is better than democracy? That might be a better framework for a debate. 

I am perfectly comfortable learning and loving a mysterious, unverified, and unverifiable Bible.

The Descent of Man theorizes that if we look at living organisms microscopically, we will find the mechanisms of inheritance that explain the replication of biological traits and the mechanisms of mutation that explain adaptation.

So we dug and we found the double-helixed DNA molecule.

I suppose one might call it a reinforcement of belief when molecular biologists send messages to our immune system via an injection of modified nucleic acids, defusing the rapid acceleration of a coronavirus pandemic but its not really about belief. 

It's just recognizing what methods work effectively and consistently and relying on that consistency and communicating those theories that prove accurate.

Allah didn’t make a very good religion.

By the way, this what happens when religions make their gods too OP (over powered).

#115

See?

10/10 for originality!

It’s been scientifically shown swear words are pain/stress reliefs.

I suspect saying Allah, God, Jesus, Muhammad + pbuh, etc also works in the same way. 

It would be interesting to see which people of faith are relieved more.

I’m saying it might reinforce the merciful God mentality.

I’m asking questions. I want to understand. 

Do you want to move onto the next topic?

I’m not great at formal debates. I find good faith conversations better. 

Addressing your embarrassing refutation to my godly knowledge in your pathetic post #90, where you threw in the towel of defeat by parroting my quotes in return in a “neener, neener, neener” fashion, where you didn't have any of your own. Pathetically sad on your part.

YOUR QUOTE WHERE YOUR IGNORANCE CONTINUES:  “I think you're conflating two definitions into one... My first time seeing such an impressive achievement! You may wanna check your source.”

I did check the source you gave, and it substantiates my claim as shown in defining "modest" where your ignorance of same is on record, Islamic fool!  HELLO?  Thank you for stepping in the proverbial poo again. Priceless Muslim giving in to my argument again, THANK YOU!

Listen up you follower of the Prophet Muhammad child rapist of the 9 year old Aisha in marriage, where at least Jesus as God celestially impregnated His own mother at 12 years old as historically believed, whereas the ONLY thing that we can ever agree upon is that your Allah and my Jesus, as Yahweh God incarnate, were disgusting and blatant brutal serial killers!   Furthermore,  both of our faiths have women being 2nd class citizens where the man rules over women in brutal and horrific ways, praise! 

Notwithstanding, both of our Gods are aligned with Abraham, yet their respective writings, Christian Bible and your Satanic Qu’ran, contradict each others beliefs, figure that one out if it is the same God, duh.  

To any TRUE Christian, you are nothing but a Muslim terrorist, that is, if you actually followed your pedophile Muhammad’s Qu’ran to the letter, which seemingly you do not like the plelthora of pseudo-christians do as well.

Jesus and I are going to have a lot of fun with you at your expense, praise!

They were different questions. But if your answer is yes they are all liars, tell us why and how those Islamic sources are lying about the Satanic verses?

I think it would be more fun if people post their favorite myths.

Your topic seem really heavy.

Personally, he (Copernicus) pales in comparison to Galileo. He never mounted a challenge to the Catholic church and his insistence on the status quo makes him a coward, imho. 

I’m asking you. Is Allah (God) not a loving god?

Accountability to God who has already planned your fate?

We are still talking about an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent god who knew everything before creating the universe, correct?

I'm not a good debater but I am interested in the sources you're going to use. I'll send you the challenge sometime next week.

Well, if we're doing a normal debate, I guess I could employ some of 3RU7AL's methods for starting one.

Though, with the range of new commitments you seem to have on this site, I won't take your attention too much. I'll just make a typical competitive debate in which I'll write 10k words comprising of what I think about Copernicus. My sources will be drawn from historians and old studies. 

If you're opting for the forum, it is fine as it is though I probably won't read the whole thread. I'll still read all your replies though.

What loving God would plan for people to go to Jahannam (Hell) before the universe was created?

What is the point of “freewill” then?

lol! At you. You do realise I don’t live in America. 

Confessions??? The first step to reconciliation with God begins with confessions. The Christian mind can’t even conceive of the difference between right and wrong, let alone acknowledge they might have done the wrong thing.

Christians have done lots of evil in history. Hence why they have attempted to own it and confess their wrongs and try to change.

Muslims are still living in the past because they have no real understanding of vision and restoration. 

Until the Muslim religion also owns its own past they will forever only ever see the gun as the means of reconciliation. Like the left wing socialist the muslim only sees the destination and not the journey. 

So Yasmine come and taste that the Lord is Good.

Confess your sins and turn to Jesus the Messiah for the forgiveness of the same and he will direct your steps on the path to righteousness.  And then you too can experience real peace between God and man in this life right here and now. 

Well, maybe  the BRI is "net beneficial for participating nations" or "net beneficial for the global community." I think you'd favor the latter. 

The BRI debates I'm most familiar with tend to ask whether the benefits from the BRI tend to help BRI recipients. The global community resolution seems interesting too, though. 

If you're down, feel free to offer me a challenge. If you could change argument time to 1 week, that would be very helpful. I'm busy a lot these days.

Oh, and how does 10-12k characters sound? 

BrotherDThomas is not being serious. He is notorious of ironically posting extremist Christian ideals, and even then it is just irony, and it spices up the forums section of the site.

You missed the questions, Yassine...

YOUR EVER SO IGNORANT QUOTE AGAIN IN POST #85: “I don't think you know what that word means... Hijab is modest & ritual dress in general, including head covering or face veil."

MODEST DEFINITION IN THIS CASE:  observing the proprieties of dress and behavior, limited in size, amount, or scope.  

Therefore the following image that I had given you, https://ibb.co/HqcjzPz, is drastically limited in size, amount, and scope, by having only a slit for the eyes to look through, and therefore NOT being modest,

 DO YOU UNDERSTAND ALLAH FOLLOWER FOOL?!!

ONCE AGAIN, I do not care for your continued rambling of telling me other propositions of your Muslim veils, whereas I was ONLY relating to the veils as NOT BEING MODEST!  Now, if you cannot understand this simple position of mine, then I suggest that you take an English class post haste to save further embarrassment in front of the membership, understood Islamic follower fool?

YOUR IGNORANT QUOTES CONTINUE: “Face veil is not an obligation in Sharia, head covering is. In fact, face veil is discouraged in prayer & prohibited on pilgrimage. The more you know…”

I don’t give an ignorant Muslims rat's ass whether a face veil hijab is an obligation in Satanic Sharia Law or not, because my position AGAIN is the FACT that it is not modest as you comically stated, DO YOU UNDERSTAND AGAIN YOU BLATANT MUSLIM ALLAH FOLLOWER FOOL?! Try and separate to the two notions, get it?!

REGARDING YOUR CHILD LIKE “STRAW-MAN” POSITION YOU STATED I HAVE IT BACKWARDS AS SHOWN RELATIVE TO YOUR CIRCULAR ARGUMENT: “You have it backwards.” 

WAIT, then actually prove that I have it backwards instead of using the childish ruse of not saying how it is backwards! LOL! I await you trying to perform this act, and will easily embarrass you if you try in front of the membership, and DO NOT runaway from it, understood Islamic follower fool?!  

YOUR ONLY QUOTE THAT I AGREE WITH:  "Despite your vulgarity, I respect a Christian who abides by his book."

I cannot help but to use alleged "vulgarity" when dealing with totally dumbfounded Muslims of their faith like you represent! 

YOUR CONTINUED GRASPING FOR THE PROVERBIAL STRAWS QUOTE:  “Why do all people like you talk the same way! Do you all go to a the same school or something?

I talk ONLY as the TRUE Christian Brother D. Thomas, whereas conversely, tell me why all dumbfounded followers of Islam are blatantly ignorant fools like YOU as shown in our conversation thus far?!  Now, if you need further “schooling” with your Islamic faith, be sure to let me know, and this is because you are giving your Satanic faith a bad name, of which it totally deserves, praise Jesus! 

NEXT dumbfounded Muslim follower of the Islamic faith like Yassine will be ... ?

awyt?

They do though. 

Do we really have freewill then in regards to doing good and evil?

People going to Jahannam is part of God’s plan, correct?

"The Belt and Road Initiative is good."

I like that resolution, but good for whom? Recipient nations? China? 

I think it's a worthwhile debate. I think a a little bit of specificity would go a long way though. 

My statement to you was the fact that the Muslim woman's hijab was NOT modest, get it?

It is now duly noted that obviously your Arabic language doesn’t allow you to understand the term “modest” when you misinformed the membership of calling the Islamic woman’s hijab as modest attire,  as I had shown that it is NOT in the image that I provided. 

Therefore, you assumed as a premise in the conclusion in which you wished to reach, and therefore your ignorance took over in the fact that you thought I was being a hypocrite because the JUDEO-Christian Bible has the same notion of women having face coverings as you have shown, of which I have to accept as being the only TRUE Christian upon this forum. Get it? Maybe?

Your ever so weak "Strawman" argument in your post #82 may be entertaining to your equally dumbfounded Allah following Muslims, but not to me in you stepping in the proverbial poo that is at your expense in front of the membership. Priceless. LOL!

NEXT dumbfounded hell bound Muslim of the Islamic faith will be …. ?

Yassine,

YOUR QUOTE IN POST #31: "- Hijab = modest dressing with head covering, for religious & decency purposes."

You actually had the audacity to state that the hijab for women was a "modest dressing?"  LOL!  Relative to the image in the following link, this is hardly the case, isn't it?   You're funny.  :)    https://ibb.co/HqcjzPz

Ok, no debate. I accomplished what I wanted to.

Yes, as long as we define the Satanic verses as Surah (“Chapter”) 53, verses 21–22 of the Quran.

 So Muhammad then didn't have  "revelations from Satan" that have come to be known as the Satanic verses?

I was of the understanding (in English of course) that the event is recorded by the earliest Islamic sources on Muhammad's life. So are they lying? Or are yours and their rebuttals just another load of old cobblers that have been invented to save the embarrassment of the "greatest prophet that ever lived"?

I would be glad to debate you. I would use the following argument.

The satanic verses are two lines in the Quran that, according to some versions of Muslim history, Muhammad spoke under the direction of Satan rather than Allah. Some early Muslim sources record that Muhammad admitted that Surah (“Chapter”) 53, verses 21–22 of the Quran, as they originally read, were the result of a satanic trick that he thought was a genuine revelation from Allah. If this tradition is true, Muhammad’s position as a true prophet would be in dispute because he had been deceived by Satan.

The background behind the satanic verses is that, early on, the number of Muhammad’s followers was growing slowly, and he was in conflict with Arabs. In order to ease the conflict, he received the following revelation:

Surah 53:19–20:

“So have you considered al-Lat and al-'Uzza?

And Manat, the third [goddess]—the other one?”

Al-Lat, al-'Uzza, and Manat were three pagan Arab deities.

Following Surah 53:20, the devil interjected his own words onto Muhammad’s tongue, and the result was Surah 53:21–22 (the “satanic” version):

“These are the exalted cranes [intermediaries]

Whose intercession is to be hoped for!”

According to these verses, the three pagan deities are recognized to be legitimate, and Muhammad can seek their intercession on his behalf. By Muhammad recognizing these Arab deities, he was able to ease tensions with the Arabs. Later, he explained what looked like a lapse into polytheism by saying that Satan had tricked him. He also said that the angel Gabriel came to him and told him that occasionally Satan fools even true prophets. At the time, this explained how an error was introduced into the Quran. Later, this admission was seen to be damaging to Muhammad’s character, so the verses were changed altogether, and the story of his confession was squelched. This is documented in early Muslim sources still available today, although Muslim apologists also point out that there are earlier biographies of Muhammad that do not record this story.

The following passage is from one early source (AD 915) that does record it:

“When [the pagan] Quraysh heard this, they rejoiced and were happy and delighted at the way in which he spoke of their gods, and they listened to him, while the Muslims, having complete trust in their prophet in respect of the messages which he brought from God, did not suspect him of error, illusion, or mistake. When he came to the prostration, having completed the surah, he prostrated himself and the Muslims did likewise, following their prophet, trusting in the message which he had brought and following his example. Those polytheists of the Quraysh and others who were in the mosque likewise prostrated themselves because of the reference to their gods which they had heard, so that there was no one in the mosque, believer or unbeliever, who did not prostrate himself. The one exception was al-Walid b. al-Mughirah, who was a very old man and could not prostrate himself; but he took a handful of soil from the valley in his hand and bowed over that. Then they all dispersed from the mosque. The Quraysh left delighted by the mention of their gods which they had heard, saying, ‘Muhammad has mentioned our gods in the most favorable way possible, stating in his recitation that they are the high flying cranes and that their intercession is received with approval’” (The History of al-Tabari, Vol. VI: Muhammad at Mecca, trans. by W. Montgomery Watt and M. V. McDonald, State University of New York Press, 1988, pp. 108–109)

Abiogenesis is a separate theory from biological evolution.

Abiogenesis is the theory that life arose from non life. Evolutionary theory is the theory that biodiversity is caused by the changing in inherited traits in successive generations in populations of organisms.

Therefore, you have to already have organisms in order for evolution to take place.

It makes no claims as to how that life got here.

You're falsely conflating two separate theories into one and claiming that that is the definition of biological evolution.

I'm not here to argue abiogenesis, but instead, biological evolution. 

Evolution =/= Abiogenesis

Let’s go through one at a time. 

- God = singular absolute necessary being. (absolute = omniscient & omnipotent)

That’s the same thing Christians say.

So everything that happens is part of God’s plan?

He knew for an eternity how everything would happen before he made the world.

that’s a logical conclusion, correct? 

I have not forgotten I need to get back to you with some responses to your post #34. I will do so, just a bit over-busy right now. Sorry.

I've heard of this. Sufi was the closest to creating a helioentric model;  he was regularly referenced by Copernicus.

However, to date, Copernicus is the first scientist to complete the heliocentric model.

How did you find him "plagerist"?

It is more than a “difference of opinion” – it is a set of different resolutions of law which often contradict, creating more than one set of rules, all being an expression of religion, all being valid, and all not being “feelings.” That is exactly what happens in the foundation of reform as well.

Actually, the rulings which establish the meaning and parameters of normative behavior ARE law.

Case law and the precedent system are part of the overall construct of law in the US, and in religion.

In truth, I can have my cake and eat it too. I can't eat it and have it, though. I didn’t mention anything about post modernism. Your decision that something is a “BS claim” is just you projecting your feelings and expecting that to create reality.

But for almost no current Jew, the scriptures are the ultimate authority. If you don’t understand that, then you don’t understand Judaism. And here I thought you only didn't understand reform Judaism.

Now you have established a false binary, setting “scripture” and “secular” as two poles, but that isn’t the case. Judaism sees the two as distinct but often reconcilable. Reform just understands its mandate of coalescing the two as more scripturally pervasive than other branches.

Also not true. They understand religious authority as valuing other things (as supported by scriptural interpretation) besides traditional rite and practice.

That’s a silly response. I cited an article as background for understanding. If you don’t share a common base of knowledge, no argument will be useful.

I have already said “reformation is, according to them, biblical” and the proof is in the article. You deny the claim because you refuse to read the article.

Just like all your counter-factual statements. Got it.

You asked a question and I answered it. If a group can cite precedent and then you ask “is this based on precedent” then that group would say “yes.” If I deny the validity of that precedent then I would say “no” but why is my understanding inferior or superior to theirs?

I could say "Islam is not an Abrahamic faith" and you would answer "because the Quran..." which demands an a priori acceptance of the authority of the Quran which is innate in Islam. Self-serving, using the  questioned claim's source authority to establish the claim.

Well, I'm not making you do anything. You are free to doubt my knowledge if you want, but I have plenty, mostly informed by outside and background study and reading which you refuse to do.

No, it was not obviously rhetorical. You can say it was because the answer disproved your thesis, but it was only rhetorical in your mind. That doesn;t make reality for anyone else.

Exactly how? It proves that reform Judaism uses an authority structure and a process which parallels that of other branches of Judaism to see the scriptural and human authority as defining a code of behavior.

And the reality is that the reform movement uses a system which is foundationally identical to other denominations of Judaism.

I have yet to bring up feelings. I did cite an article rife with facts and explanation, but you don’t want to read it so instead you keep shouting from your emotional, safe space.

Interesting. And what part of the Quran has been reformed?  "The satanic verses"?  Those will be the verses that Muhammad said had been given to him by Satan that he, "the greatest of all the prophets",  had "mistaken" for divine revelation, would they?

Please correct me if I have that wrong.

How would you define him in Islam?

I don’t know much about Islam and Judaism as I do about Christianity. 

But I assume God in all of them has a general theme.

Islam is true / Muhammed (pbuh) is a true prophet

By true prophet you mean God spoke through him? It’s a claim. 

The Quran is faithfully preserved

I don’t doubt that. From what I know Islam was created during war times and gave structure to the people. Some concepts are bit outdated.

The Quran is a true revelation

It’s a claim. 

Islam is a religion of peace

What do you mean Islam is a religion of peace exactly? Peace can mean ‘there will be peace if you do what I tell you to do.’

The Hadith tradition is genuine

Maybe.

Tawhid vs. Trinity

As an atheist I find it Interesting, I did not know about Tawhid.

But from what I understand, the Trinity is three parts of a whole. I consider there’s more meaning in that.

Quran vs. NT preservation

I would say Quran wins. But that’s not necessarily a good thing. 

Conservatism on its own doesn’t get you anywhere. 

Truth of Quran vs. Bible

What do you mean by truth, and how do you know?

Quranic stories vs. Biblical stories

In what sense? How much meaning you interpret from them?

Quranic prophets vs. Biblical prophets

In what sense? Which are more virtuous? It might be a tough argument for you to make.

Free Will in Islam vs. Christianity

In what sense?

Salvation in Islam vs. Christianity

In what sense?

Worldview in Islam vs. Christianity

In what sense? World views in religion change all the time. Including religious sects. 

Women's rights in Islam vs. Christianity

How? 

Human rights in Islam vs. Christianity

Human rights isn’t an abrahamic argument to have. 

History of Muslims vs. Christians

There’s a lot of history.

Science in relation to Islam vs. Christianity

Just because books say so, doesn’t make it science.

Islamic conquests vs. Christian conquests

Both are bad.

Islamic state vs. Secular state

In what way?

Freedom of religion in Islam vs. Secularism

How? Secularism essentially mean it doesn’t play favourites with religion.

Islamic education vs. Secular education

How? Secular education isn’t bogged down by dogma.

Islamic ethics vs. Secular ethics

There’s no such thing as “secular ethics” apart from being anti-theocratic. 

People are ethical regardless of religion. 

Islamic history vs. Secular history

Freedom of religion vs. Islam. Alright.

Human rights in Islam vs. Secularism

Secularism doesn’t have a doctrine unlike religion.

Women's rights in Islam vs. Secularism

You don’t know what secularism is.

Islamic conquests vs. Secular conquests

Again, you don’t know what secularism is.

The Quran is better preserved than any other book in history

Yeah I guarantee it isn’t if you’re including books published yesterday. 

Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) is the best attested to person in history

Yeah I guarantee he isn’t.

Islamic penal law is superior to Secular penal law

Secularism isn’t a whole doctrine. It just lets people not be bogged down by dogma so people can reason open and rationally.

History in Islamic tradition is superior to History in the Western tradition

I think the “Western” concept is pretty new. I don’t think it’s a single tradition or culture. 

I think you would agree Islam doesn’t have a single tradition or culture either.

Although there are underlying pillars in both. Though one isn’t a religion. 

The origin of Common Law is primarily Islamic Law

There are far older religions than Islam.

The Hijab is a religious duty in all abrahamic religions

Definitely not. Though don’t know about all sects

The zionist cause of Israel is culpable

Depends on what cause you focus on. If you mean treating Palestinians as second class citizens then yeah. 

The Jewish people have been oppressed for a millennium by Christian’s and Islamist’s. Do you think they should have a home?

Atheism is unattainable 

How? We’re all born atheists (have a lack of faith on gods.)

Darwinian Evolution is more literature than science

Darwinism was first a hypothesis that turned out to be scientifically true.

Though not everything Darwin said was right. Scientists don’t treat founders of scientific fields as prophets.

Subsaharan Africa adopted civilization before White Europe (non-Mediterranean)

I would agree with that. Don’t you?

Democracy is a terrible government system

It’s great when it functions correctly, not when it isn’t corrupted by money and power. 

Erdogan vs. any current European leader

Erdogan has been known to go after journalists, help Isis and repress the Kurds that fought Isis.

The Islamic world will surpass the Western world by 2050

In what way? 

China will surpass the Western world by 2040

China is catching up to America. 

The world order will go back to its pre-Western dominion by 2070

What do you mean?

The Chinese communist state is superior to the Western democratic state

Until it can’t handle the corruption anymore. 

My man, you can message me before declining and I can modify the details before you accept. 

Evolution only deals with life after it's already been here, so your proposed definition falsly conflates evolution and abiogenesis, which are different theories. Your definition is about abiogenesis, not evolution.

My definition is the standard definition of biological evolution.

The theory has been improved a lot since Darwin's time since the discovery of other mechanisms of evolution that aren't natural selection, therefore I'm not going to argue just for evolution by natural selection, and I'd like some flexibility with the evidence I can bring to the table. 

Not “must.” Some do, some don’t. There have been many opinions and changes over the last 100 years. You should read the Ben Ish Chai Bo 1:12, Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society 30:page 105, Hide and Seek page 27. Or https://jlifeoc.com/on-orthodox-judaisms-rules-of-head-covering/ fifth paragraph, or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzniut#Hair_covering .

So then there isn’t just “one law.”

Because it sees a constant thread in law’s evolution – it adapts and changes with the times (starting biblically).

It does answer the question. You may not like the answer, but it is an answer.

Asking that question and insisting it isn’t complex is useless. It IS complex. I cited an article which deals with it and approaches many of the complexities but you didn’t read it. That doesn’t change the complexity, it just reflects a willful ignorance from which you insist on speaking.

I don’t recall mentioning anything about “good.” I said that reform Jews would claim that they are more in line with what Moses’ approach to law was in a larger sense because the specifics are less important and Moses endorsed that through his approach to the law on that higher level.

According to that article, yes, the reform movement would claim exactly that.

And you are not reading the article I cited.

No, you don’t. Saying you do doesn’t change that.

They say that hair covering is not necessary – it is not scripturally present except in an inference made in post biblical times and the reasons innovated for that inference are not relevant so the authority they subscribe to does not demand adherence to the post biblical rule. The rule itself is not even very clear within Orthodox circles. In terms of homosexuality, they see the sociological underpinnings of the rule and note the changes in society which make the original rule less relevant, and since their authority structure gives their current leaders the power to recontextualize and therefore revise law, they come to a different conclusion about the behavior’s propriety. Here is a 1987 resolution, for example. https://urj.org/what-we-believe/resolutions/support-inclusion-lesbian-and-gay-jews

Ah, so they have the same ultimate authority but you don’t like how they view and use that authority, so the ultimate authority, according to you, is…you.

I’m in favor of it, as it is determined by certain authorities. I don’t adhere to it as it is codified by others.

Then you don’t understand Jewish law. The simplest example I can give is the difference between the Shulchan Aruch’s rulings, the Rambam’s rulings and the Ramo’s rulings. Each is binding and yet no one follows all of them.

No, I’m saying that the reform movement aimed to understand a process of evolution and development in Jewish law which led to a very different canon of rulings still under the heading of “Jewish law as driven by ancient authority.”

Based in the understandings of man, through the lens of the time period and the knowledge base of the

It isn’t a red herring to say that your question requires a much more complex understanding than you have about a topic and defies a simplistic or conflated answer. And, no, I am not talking about feelings when I point out claims and religious authority, no matter how many times you say it is about feelings.

They would say that that isn’t the goal of existence, to mirror a man who lived thousands of years ago even though the world has changed. They would say that they mirror him more in their understanding of law’s interaction with the world around it. Again, that was covered in the article I referenced which you called a red herring.

That would be how you feel about it. If you had read the material I presented, you would have seen the proof presented and would be more reluctant to make some absolute statement in the face of contrary facts. You call something fraudulent, but that doesn't make it so, any more than someone saying your understanding is fraudulent creates reality.

Their ultimate authority is the scripture and their leaders who develop meaning from the text, same as any other group of Jews’ premise.

And the “ultimate authority” for reform Jews is the same idea as any other Jews’. The specific object (the particular voices) and what those voices say are different.

I specifically left out the part about the bible in the definition of Creationism bc Creationism and intelligent design are the same idea, and I didn't want you to have to argue anything from the bible.

BOP is evenly shared.

Biological Evolution: the change in inherited traits over successive generations in populations of organisms.

Biodiversity: the variety of life in the world or in a particular habitat or ecosystem

One version of it, yes.

This analogy fails as there is only one “law of the land” in the US whereas there are different versions and understandings of Jewish law.

That is a statement which would be denied by anyone familiar with the history of reform Judaism and its roots.

And a reform Jew might have a different understanding of the “ultimate authority.”

It is tough to answer this because individuals within the movement have individual ideas but the movement’s platform has the understanding that God gave the authority to people to adapt and modify, understanding text in the light of current society. Precedent for this is well over a thousand years old. You should review “AUTHORITY IN JUDAISM” by Samuel S. Cohon for a fuller discussion of the development of authority in Judaism.

And the reform movement says the exact same thing, seeing its iteration as a religion crafted through the disciples that they deem as authoritative. Your decision about what is or isn’t a religion isn’t very persuasive.

With what? The historical facts of the roots or Reform Judaism? The precedents for the reform movement trace back (according to reform understanding) to biblical times.

I’m not sure you and I would agree on what those scriptures are or say. Do you cede authority about Jewish concepts to experts in Judaism, or will you insist that you know better?

Except, as stated, this isn’t a denial of authority, but an assertion of different authority and a different understanding of the source texts.