Muslims kill endangered tiger

Originally posted by whodey
Let me put it another way, what if I were a teacher in authority over you and I continue to believe as I do? You have two options, you could quite coming to that particular religious institution or you could have me removed. Of course, this is because you think I am in violation of God's law.

If you're not a hypocrite and bigot, then answer these questions that you seem to have "missed".

Is it your position that so long as homosexuals don't have sex in front of the congregation, they would be accepted as members and leaders? And that this goes for heterosexuals as well?

How many overweight people in your congregation have you rebuked in the past year? Living in the US, I'd think it likely that there are plenty.

How many of them dismissed the correction and continued to be gluttons? Were they all dismissed?

Originally posted by whodey
My only point here is that Islamic fundamentalism is much more main stream and powerful than any other fundamentalist movement in the world. Therefore, to oppose them has greater inherent dangers.

Your only point here appears to have been a flat lie. Or sheer xenophobic ignorance. Which is it to be?

Which countries countries are you claiming you cannot travel to?

Originally posted by FMF
Your only point here appears to have been a flat lie. Or sheer xenophobic ignorance. Which is it to be?

Which countries countries are you claiming you cannot travel to?

If whodey's is a "flat lie", what kind of lie is the title of this thread?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
If whodey's is a "flat lie", what kind of lie is the title of this thread?

By equating them, are you suggesting that whodey's statement - about not being to enter Islamic countries if one is not a Muslim - is satirical?

Originally posted by FMF
Muslims kill endangered tiger.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/asia-pacific/8217408.stm

Why aren't moderate Muslims speaking out against this?

Why bring Islam into this?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Why bring Islam into this?

🙄

Originally posted by FMF
By equating them, are you suggesting that whodey's statement - about not being to enter Islamic countries if one is not a Muslim - is satirical?

They are both lies. I was asking how you would characterize yours. Any perceived "suggestion" beyond this is purely of your own making.

"Satire" without wit is merely stupidity.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
"Satire" without wit is merely stupidity.

Well beyond trying to set up a standard sense of humour to which we must all conform, I don't think I can help you. I have amused myself which is presumably what the Islamophobes that infest these threads are doing when they post stuff that is little different from my OP and my second post on page 1, and yet they do so in earnest. I have drawn a few of them out of the woodwork and they have made fools of themselves - e.g. whodey and generalissimo and Doctor Scribbles. Sorry that you didn't get it. Feel free to malign my IQ as much as you want. What personally amuses you or doesn't is of no concern to me.

Originally posted by FMF
Well beyond trying to set up a standard sense of humour to which we must all conform, I don't think I can help you. I have amused myself which is presumably what the Islamophobes that infest these threads are doing when they post stuff that is little different from my OP and my second post on page 1, and yet they do so in earnest. I have drawn a few of them out lign my IQ as much as you want. What personally amuses you or doesn't is of no concern to me.

Just so long as you've amused yourself. After all that's what satire is about.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Just so long as you've amused yourself. After all that's what satire is about.

Well, actually, in addition to myself, I have also amused several of my Muslim Indonesian friends - who have been absorbing British style irony from me - and who also play chess on this site but are totally intimidated by all the nasty bigots that stand astride forums such as 'Spirituality' and 'Debates' and who wouldn't dream of posting due to toxic atmosphere. You'd be surprised how many times some of the more laughable misanthropes here have been mentioned over a coffee break.

Originally posted by FMF
Well, actually, in addition to myself, I have also amused several of my Muslim Indonesian friends - who have been absorbing British style irony from me - and who also play chess on this site but are totally intimidated by all the nasty bigots that stand astride forums such as 'Spirituality' and 'Debates' and who wouldn't dream of posting due to toxic atmosphere. imes some of the more laughable misanthropes here have been mentioned over a coffee break.

So it's about baiting via a lie so that you can belittle responders privately rather than satire. Why didn't you just say so? "What a tangled web we weave..."

Originally posted by whodey
The Bible claims to be the INSPIRED word of God. So the question becomes, how close does the actual word mirror what God had inspired men to write of him?

From my perspective the closest thing we have to actually talking to God are the teachings of Jesus. That is because I believe him to be God in the flesh.

That surely then is a COMPLETEY different kettle of fish, and something which theists neglect to mention when claiming the Bible is Gods word. For instance i cannot recall ever, but i may be wrong, posts on this forum claiming to be the 'inspired word of God', i always seem to be reading the 'word of God'. A rather large inaccuracy don't you think?!

Secondly, if God didn't author the Bible and it was merely left to mortal men who were inspired by God, do you not think it's a little presumptious of them to be claiming to know what God is thinking? In my view theists take a leap of faith in firstly believing in God, and another leap in assuming the 'inspired' word of God is actually what God intended. In answer to your question how close does the actual word mirror what God had inspired men to write of him? Who knows.

Even the teachings of Jesus that you mention are mere second hand accounts from 'eyewitnesses', and are not written by the person himself. Surely more idle speculation?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
So it's about baiting via a lie so that you can belittle responders privately rather than satire. Why didn't you just say so? "What a tangled web we weave..."

No. It was a little bit of satire, that's all. Why not start a thread asking everyone to post only things you think are funny?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
They are both lies. I was asking how you would characterize yours. Any perceived "suggestion" beyond this is purely of your own making.

"Satire" without wit is merely stupidity.

So now let me get this straight. I am:

1. Hypocritical
2. Stupid
3. Unable to atempt humor via satire.
4. homophobe

As for yourself, I have not judged you once.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
That surely then is a COMPLETEY different kettle of fish, and something which theists neglect to mention when claiming the Bible is Gods word. For instance i cannot recall ever, but i may be wrong, posts on this forum claiming to be the 'inspired word of God', i always seem to be reading the 'word of God'. A rather large inaccuracy don't you think?!

S ...[text shortened]... ewitnesses', and are not written by the person himself. Surely more idle speculation?

Let me just add that it is my belief that although I view the Bible to have some minor flaws, it is the truth and accurate. For example, the historical accounts have been corroborated by archaelogy by in large. I believe that God worked through Abraham to reach the world, first through the nation of Israel and then the Messiah etc. Also, the major themes ring true throughout the Bible such as faith and love and one God who had a son who came to die for our sins.

As for direct communication, we have the Ten Commandments, written by God's own hand, as well as the teachings of Jesus. Interestingly, there were no penalties for not submitting to the Ten Commandments initially. The Mocaic law came later, so I suppose you could question the authenticity of them hearing from God in that regard, but I beleive they are legit. In addition, Christ did not write of himself, rather, he used the accounts of witnesses. For me, a series of biographies rather than an autobiographies are more believable. In addition, Christ continued to refer to prophecies that spoke of him which are inumerable. For me, these are "evidences" for the authenticity of what he has said and what he has done. What I do know is that he had 12 disciples and taught them and encouraged thme to spread his word so I think there is little doubt as to his intention that they speak of him.

Of course, not every Christian would agree. Many claim the word of God to be innerrant, however, the Bible makes no such claim. The logic goes like this, God is infallible, and the Bible is inspired by God, hence the Bible must be infallible. I would simply say it is a source of truth and an intended way for God to communicate with mankind.