General discussion of moderation procedures: The Sequel

Please tie any replies into the topic of this thread, moderation procedures. --AdminExcept for the nearly-immediate retreat into ad-hominem name calling when he's backed into a corner. He's much like you in that respect.Other than that, yeah, he keeps a pretty even keel. So what? He still has a little problem with evidence and double standards.This message has been edited by Admin, 07-21-2005 08:29 AM

Please tie any replies into the topic of this thread, moderation procedures. --AdminYou're the only one doing the name calling in this conversation.This message has been edited by Admin, 07-21-2005 08:29 AM

If CS's thread does get off the ground. He should be required to address holmes' refutation of the "war verses". Critical to his argument is this notion that Islam requires conversion by the sword which holmes refuted by showing both the context of the scriptures that were correctly referenced and pointing out that some of CS quoted scriptures did not match the sura and verse number.Given that the Forum Guidelines requires refutations be address I think all I am asking is for the moderators to enforce their own rules. Let keep the debate honest here.Thanks a million!

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

The argument about context is one Islamists themselves refute. They say that Mohammed only dictated Allah's words, which are inerrant and mean exactly what they say. As Allah meant those words to be for all time, context is not a factor. Many scholars indicate that to the Islamists, Islam is as the Koran says, The House of Islam and the House of War. Essentially, as they read it, that means that those who accept Islam are living according to Allah's will and live in peace. Those who do not are challenging his word and have, therefore, declared war on him. They must, therefore, be conquered and subjugated to terminate this aggression. And thus, when one argues that the Sword Verses are about defense only, that is disingenuous.The bottom line is this: Millions of islamists see the faith thusly, and so it has been since the advent of the faith. Indeed, mohammed himself led countless battles and won a great deal of land. When one wins an expensive empire, the argument that it was in self defense is rather self-serving. However, not too long after his time, a great many Muslims have, on and off, taken a truly peaceful interpretation of the faith. And thus the faith has been at civil war with itself through most of its history.What I believe is this: The Sword Verses do, in fact, mean just what they say. However, good people inherently resist that, so emphasize the more peaceful and spiritual side of the faith, and choose to deny the true meaning of the Sword Verses. As a demcoratic revolution sweeps Islam, as it will, almost all the Islamic world will go into collective denial as to the Sword Verses forever. But a small, disaffected and very angry minority will, for some time, do all it can to derail this islamic revolution. Indeed, look at what is happening in Iraq. The vast majority wants democracy. But Islamists, mainly foreigners, are with religious fervor and rectitude, psychopathically mass murdering, citing the Sword Verses. They will eventually be vanquished. But the Islamic world will, nonetheless, have to deal with such people for a while and, perhaps, periodically thereafter.And this is where the argument for a reformation comes into play. If the Sword Verses were edited - not removed, which the faith does not permit - so as to reflect spiritual Jihad only, then, maybe, potential grief can be minimized. I am not a lone voice on this. Indeed, everything I say has both Muslim and non muslim scholars' support. I am merely reflecting their arguments. Of course, there are those scholars and writers who disgaree. I've witnessed at least two who have changed their minds, or, at least, see the need to revisit their original objections to the idea of a reforamtion. Hence, why there is a debate.I didn't see Holmes' argument. But the key is that the islamists follow the versions i cite, and there are a great many more translations that say the same. Even many peaceful Muslims do not dispute those translations. It is the interpretation that is the real issue.

i don't think i've seen you make a single post on here that doesn't rail against the entire muslim world. perhaps you should look a little closer to home.

quote:

---

Numbers 31:17-18

​

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

---

quote:

---

Deuteronomy 20:10-18

​

When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee: That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God.

---

quote:

---

Deuteronomy 7:1-2

​

When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:

---

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

---

אָרַח

I suppose this is the wrong forum to carry on this debate. So, one last word here, and I'll save any more comments for a suitable place.I have said, repeatedly, that i believe the majority of Muslims are peaceful. I have said, repeatedly, that I believe the islamic world is heading for a democractic revolution - which I say as a compliment. I have commented with great admiration on the incredible will of the iraqi people as they defy the islamists every effort to derail the democracy they're building. I have mentioned my son's best friend being a muslim (til they moved to florida) and my daughter's wonderful muslim day home.If you go back and re-read all i've written, you will see that that is so. It appears that the very thought of something problematic with a side to Islam (Sword Verses and Sharia Law - something many Muslims also believe), which leads to a minority - MINORITY - of followers practising Islamism (can you possibly deny this?), is what exercises all this serious misrepresentation of my words.The Islamists are real. They are a global movement. They number in the millions (although still a minority amongst over 1 billion). They have nation states and are powerful 5th columns in others. They maintain cells in the west. They believe in the Sword Verses and Sharia Law as written. This is all fact. It is also fact the many muslims are conflicted about these people and this movement. And it is fact that only now, after London, are many western muslims saying the time has come to confront and defeat these people and their movement. And there is a great deal of commentary on all this by Muslim and non Muslim scholars that I have been following with interest. I am the messenger of these facts and this debate, and have expressed some opinion. If that offends, so be it. The consequences of the outcome is simply too dramatic for PC to rule. Even one prominent Muslim writer, Mansoor Ijad, made the comment that westerners have been stupidly PC about this matter, and have, unwittingly, thereby allowed Islamist movements to fester. Is he a racist? No, he's a profound democrat, and a peaceful Muslim. He sees his faith under attack from the isalmists, and westerners carrying some being tolerant to the point of being naive, blind, and even suicidal. truth is truth is truth. disagree if you will, but if you see me as ill-intentioned, as racist, as a liar, then it is your sensibilities that is the issue.

i'm glad you recognize this.you haven't encountered much actual debate because your comments come across one of two ways:
1. well, duh. we all know the fundamentalists are dangerous.
2. oh look, another wacko railing against islam.

---

אָרַח

Well I TRIED to keep from responding again on the Moderation thread but CS doesn't seem to be showing up to try to open the topic and I have to comment that:(1) he made that point over and over about moderate Muslims so it isn't HE who needed to recognize it but his critics who keep ignoring his many acknowledgments of it.(2) If you don't get that he's saying something DIFFERENT than the PC party line, "the fundamentalists are dangerous" the "DUH" prize goes to YOU.(3) Ditto if you think there is one iota of either thought or tone in his posts that could be described as "railing" and the term "wacko" ought also to be applied to those who misuse such terms just to denigrate an opponent.He has made extremely cogent arguments. EvC would no doubt appreciate more attention to the forms of posting and to evidence, but he has certainly supplied quite a bit of evidence and made excellent arguments. That you and jazzns don't recognize this is the unfair thing, and even bizarre. The much vaunted concern with rationality among some posters at this site is once again shown to be questionable as this topic brings out nothing but emotions and character assassinations instead of thought in rebuttal to CS's points.This message has been edited by Faith, 07-22-2005 11:59 AM

Continuing to debate your point here instead of discussing procedure will result in your posting privilages being restricted.

---

I recognized that that was becoming the case, thus I wrote:"I suppose this is the wrong forum to carry on this debate. So, one last word here, and I'll save any more comments for a suitable place." I stuck to that and left unanswered further comments from others.But others have done this as well. In fact, I was responding, not initiating. Why am I the only one getting a warning?

Because the others I saw were suggestions on moderation while yours was continuing your debate.As has happened in other cases, failure to follow this suggestion will result in a suspension.Take debate to the debate threads.

---

Can I get a moderator response to my suggestion?

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

Possibly if I knew what it was. Can you post a link to the message?This message has been edited by AdminJar, 07-22-2005 06:29 PM

---

post number 93, above:

quote:

---

If CS's thread does get off the ground. He should be required to address holmes' refutation of the "war verses".

---

---

אָרַח

I have only been a member a short while but already I have noticed that some individuals, (I will assume that they are evolutionists), make bold statements regarding what the Bible teaches. Their statements reveal their ignorance of the very topic on which they have chosen to comment. My question is, "Should anyone who does not study the Bible be making assertions about the Bible that show their ignorance of the topic?"
I know little about the sciences, (only what I read in journals, books, etc.), and am therefore not qualified to discuss indepth the various aspects of the theory of evolution. I choose to leave the deeper discussions on this topic to those who are obviously more qualified than I until I have personally had the chance to examine the material being discussed.This does not mean that I am unwilling to listen to opposing views but I feel it would be dishonest of me to engage anyone on subjects such as taphonomy and taxonomy without first attempting to gain a better understanding of these areas of study. I would only be revealing my own ignorance on these subjects by commenting without a proper understanding of the topic of dicsuccion.Should not Christians expect the same from evolutionists when discussing matters in which the Christian has a greater understanding rather than have to deal with some of the comments that I have seen from certain evolutionists thus far?If one does not understand, or is not familiar with a particular subject, would it not be a better stragety to study the subject before engaging one in a discussion on the issue? I could easily respond with the same style of statements that have been directed towards me, statements such as, or or Comments such as these are counter-productive and expose the author as being unworthy of engagement.I know that I am not qualified to discuss the deeper concepts behind the idea of evolution and so I try to limit my involvement in those areas until I have gained a better understanding of the particular subject at hand.I can only hope that more evolutionists would grant Christians this same courtesy.

---

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." Albert Einstein