keithprosser

That all said, we are taught to love you Jews, even if you spit on us whenever we walk through your neighborhoods, and refuse to take money from us directly when we go to your shops. 

The claim that Mopac "knows" something is questionable. The claim was "We Orthodox know that the primary reason Rabbinic Judaism split from The Church of Christ which is truly Israel". The proof for this "knowledge" was "witnessed in our gospels". A flawed conclusion drawn from flawed sources.

It would seem safer to make a faith based claim by prefacing it with a faith based context.

Jews were not allowed to convert others to their religion in the Roman Empire.

Jews were always allowed to convert others into Judaism. 

Even an "illusion" must have some "substance".  An "illusion" cannot be "nothing".

If you look at a cow then the cow is made of meat, but your perception of the cow is not made of meat.  What physically exists is a pattern of neural activity that encodes {cow}, ie a neural pattern containing information such as 'big', 'brown', 'has four legs and two horns'.  Your brain has the as yet unexplained power (consciousness) that turns that information into 'awareness'.

So an illusion (or anything percept) is made of information.  So is information a substance?  That I suggest that is not a matter of fact but of how one chooses to define 'substance'.  Information is not nothing but neither is it an ordinary, material 'substance' like meat.   As long as people agree whether the word substance includes information or not either convention can be adopted. 

I think that the title is a bit misleading, because all religions are backward. 

Does it then follow that those adherents to Islam are "backward" and don't know what they are following?

I think all religions are backward if that they are based on the silly notion of gods and divine revelations. 

If I would have started a thread with such a title both you AND prosser would be on me like  flies to shite calling me a  "racist bigot" and of being    "islamophobic".

I think that the title is a bit misleading, because all religions are backward. 

Does it then follow that those adherents to Islam are "backward" and don't know what they are following?

You simply are not taking into consideration the C_I_V_I_L_I_S_A_T_I_O_N of peoples are you?

That's true.  If you tell me what it refer to and how factor it in I will try 'taking into consideration'.

You're still trying - and failing - to conflate 7th century Islam  with today's 21st century Christianity by using ancient Hebrew scriptures, How many times must I tell you;  Its doesn't work!

You simply are not taking into consideration the C_I_V_I_L_I_S_A_T_I_O_N of peoples are you?

because one has moved on and the other has no intention of moving on.

A religion is an abstract - how can a religion have an 'intention'?   Did Christianity intend to reform and move on?  What are Christianity's intentions for the future?

The reason Islam 'has no intention of moving on' is that at this point in history there are many people who don't want it to move on, and even want it to turn further back.  Religions both shape and are shaped by history.

Who knows!  I predict that in 200 years the US will be a Evangelical, fundamentlist theocracy and the Middle East a thriving Islamic democracy.   If I'm wrong you I'll owe you 100 dollars - in 2219.

where in the bible does the Christ god of Christians order the stoning of anyone?

Where does he forbid stoning for anything bar adulterous women?   It's a matter of interpretation.  I'd like to think Jesus was against, say, stoning blasphemers, but it's not explicit in the text he was. 

if scholar A says the verse applies to adulteresses only and scholar B says its applies for all previously stonable offences who is right?   That is how religious wars hsppen!

Where do they get the idea that they are the true representatives of Islam?

The short answer is that Islam has yet to adopt the core values of the Enlightenment.

It appears yet again that christian apologist simply cannot face facts. It  shouldn't though,  come as any surprise.  But at least no one wants to kill me for criticizing Christianity and questioning the bible. I am not even called  christianophobic.

Tell me;  what does the Christ of the New Testament say about stoning?

John 8:7

In that it doesn't work when you persistently attempt  to paint me as an "islamophobic racist bigot, who spreads "hate and division".

A "backward form of Wahabbist Islam" you say. But it is still Islam. OK. So that would be an interpretation  or "form" as you put it. Are there any other interpretations or "forms"? Why are you struggling to answer the question above. Again it was YOU who suggests there must be other "forms" of Islam, so what are they or what is it? How many are there? 

I keep telling you that it is ISLAM that I have a problem with and "not all muslims". And stop trying to make this personal, you are no good at it.

 You can ask bish in a PM, and he'll tell you.

If a being exists which has an all encompassing and irrefutable plan which applies to each of us personally and guides us through our everyday lives then freewill is logically incoherent.

Suppose the plan contained branch points to allow for choices?  The plan would end up having a lot of unused paths, but 'wasteful' is not the same as 'logically incoherent'!   Indeed, if the mulitiverse theory holds up then the unused branches wouldn't be wasted...in fact they'd be neccessary!

Note: I don't put that forward as a serious possibility.  :)

Well follow this thread. 

Nah.   Or as musty might say,  *(*)*/\/\ ^6.

ever noticed the ones that claim somebody has an ego issue are the ones who have an ego problem? 

Can't say I have, no.

Not Germans were nazis,the majority were peaceful, but this didn't stop the "minority" causing the deaths of 60 million + men women and children with 16 million of those death happening in death camps.  You see, the peaceful majority are irrelevant.

At least in that case we have two words: 'nazi' and 'german'.   You seem reluctant to allow a clear verbal distinction in the case of Muslims.   What - in yiur view - are good terms we can use?

000

Is that good or bad?

If you do know who is interpreting this quran correctly then spit it out, lets have it. But you don't know either do you. 

If any omniscient being existed freewill would logically be precluded (actions counter to the preexisting knowledge of said beingvwpuld be imposdible).

I don't set much store by arguments that hinge on infinite attributes.   I'd point out that YHWH took six days to create the universe - a literally omnipotent entity could have done it in one, and not needed a rest afterwards.  Nonetheless, I reckon a being that can make a universe in under a week still qualifies as a god!

Cantor showed our ideas about infinity were wrong only in the C19, so I think that when god is descibed as 'omni-thing' it really meant god is 'extremely-thing', not literally 'infinitely-thing'.

It may be that a literally 'omniscient' entity precludes free will, but what if a god only knows almost everything?   Granting a god infinte qualities makes it easy to knock up trivial proofs and disproofs about that god but I don't think an entity has to be literally infinite in power to be a god.

I know, like all apologist that you cannot accept facts, but here it is again from the horse's mouth:

I think I would find it offensive also as it indicates a division and separatism among a religious group. It could be regarded as hate speech by some muslims. But that is only my opinion.

The reason muslims don't like the label 'moderate muslim' is that they feel it implies 'undevout muslim'.   It is as if they aren't blowing up churches they are not 'proper muslims'.  

You linked to an article by Sarraz Manzoor - I offer a link to a 30 minute radio 4 documentary he made on the subject.  

And I thinknyou know that I do not accept anybtheory which requires freewill until freewill can somehow be demonstrated

Can you demonstrate that this response was causally determined and not the result of my free will?   If it was by free will, you can still assert plausibly a deterministic cause but i'm asking if you can demonstrate it was.

If reality is fundamentally mental then this implies that consciousness is fundamental too.

Is it relevant that external reality has only ever been known or defined according to mental concepts and perceptions?

How can something that we're mentally conceptualizing or perceiving not be mental?