|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1655 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What's the difference between Islam and Radical Islam? | |||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17909 Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
That's pretty distorted. She may not have -quite- made it up but there are substantial omissions and some big exaggerations in there.
Why do you expect anyone to fall for this crude propaganda which can easily be seen to be false ? You may be allergic to fact-checking but the rest of us certainly aren't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17909 Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
And how do you know that the standard histories are "whitewashed" ?
And how would Gabriel know any better ? She is, after all, a reporter not a historian and one who might be expected to have something of a chip in her shoulder. Evidence, Faith. Where is yours ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17909 Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
quote: There were Americans in the US who supported Hitler. Is that news to you ?And there were Americans who got into trouble for opposing Hitler - and that trouble came AFTER the war. Does that surprise you ? And, of course, "supporting Hitler" can mean many things. In WWII the US supported Stalin.
quote: There are two major falsehoods here. First, many Palestinians were driven out by the Israeli army. Second, there was a substantial Arab population living in Palestine even under the Ottomans. (The rest is spin based solely on the fact that Palestine was not a nation - it had been part of the Ottoman Empire prior to WWI and under control of the victors afterwards)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17909 Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Propaganda and spin. There were plenty of Arabs living in Palestine, whose families had been there for generations. Just because they weren't formally identified as Palestinians is irrelevant. And don't forget that there was a rush of Jewish settlers into the area.
The Hitler stuff is also spin. Anti-Semitism is popular amongst Arabs NOW largely because of the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians. It's shocking and wrong - but understandable. And, of course, it is a perfect example of what you call a "Godzilla attack" - all about the moral failures of the target with no regard to the actual point of the argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17909 Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
quote: There was a substantial Arab population, even when Twain visited. And I have been saying all along that Palestine wasn't a nation so I don't see why you feel the need to raise it as an issue of disagreement. The whole point of raising Hitler is "moralistic denunciation". You don't connect it to the argument at all - let alone consider the reasons for whatever support there is or has been. So why shouldn't it count ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17909 Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
quote: "God" is not the name of God. But you still call God "God". "Allah" is Arabic for "God" and if you were an Arabic-speaking Christian you would very likely say "Allah" in place of "God" And not believing the propaganda you happen to like is a sign of good judgement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17909 Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
That depends on who "considers it to be God's actual name"
And given your habit of falsely accusing people of lying any such assertions on your part are less than convincing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17909 Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
quote: Only one name is sacred. And nobody is certain how it is pronounced. And "Allah" is still the Arabic equivalent of "God" which you have no trouble saying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17909 Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Not really. Ultimately it is likely derived from El - which you can find in the Bible as a name of God. But by the time of Muhammad it just meant "The God"
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17909 Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
quote: In reality El originally referred to the head God in a whole pantheon of Gods - and there are traces of that still in the Bible. Yahweh, too, was originally part of a pantheon. Besides if Paul could say that the Greeks worshipped God as "the unknown God" why would it be impossible for the Arabs to worship God as part of their pantheon ? Further, Muhammad did not simply promote a pagan God to the one God, his ideas about God came from Christianity and Judaism, too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17909 Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
quote: As I said, there is an exact parallel. When will you learn that making poorly-considered excuses is not a winning debating strategy ?
quote: No, I don't mean that, or not only that.
quote: By which you mean I trust real scholars more than I trust the men YOU put above the Bible.
quote: An unprejudiced view is a far better way to find the truth than the gross prejudice of dogmatic belief. And the fact that you choose lies and slander to fight against the truths found by scholars only demonstrates that you are no Christian. And we know that when the book of Romans told you to obey the law of the secular authorities you appealed to a contradictory passage that you never found and probably doesn't exist to claim a loophole. Your belief in the Bible is not all you would have us believe.
quote: So your only counter is that Paul might have been lying. Do you really want to say that ?
quote: Which would make perfect sense if he was speaking for the real creator God of Abraham and Jesus as he claimed. And if the Allah of the Arabs was a distorted memory of that God - which the parallels with El hardly discourage - your argument goes to nothing. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17909 Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
quote: Just like El.
quote: Because the various peoples took their own patrons from the shared pantheon - and that includes the Israelites. On the road to monotheism they conflated their patron god with El. To your first question mark I remind you that your attempted objection was in fact a point of agreement. As you certainly ought to have noticed if you actually thought about it. To your second I invite you to investigate the parallels between the Biblical texts and the pagan Canaanite descriptions of the Divine Court of El.
quote: Obviously they do not and their rejection of scholarship is proof. A deeper understanding of the Bible is obviously not a threat to anyone who truly respects it.
quote: By which you show that you place unBiblical dogma ahead of the Bible.
quote: It seems pretty obvious that anyone who would stoop to evil means to suppress knowledge of the Bible is not a Christian. If you wish to argue otherwise it would probably be amusing.
quote: Which refers specifically to preaching about Jesus in contravention of the commands of the Sanhedrin (rather than a specific law). And since you don't have a command - or even anything that really suggests any reason to interfere with a purely secular affair it isn't exactly adequate.
quote: Saying that the Unknown God is the God he preaches would certainly be a lie if he did not believe it (Acts 17:23)
quote: You mean apart from pretty much everything in the Bible ?
quote: Which completely ignores Muhammad's contribution.
quote:In fact we do not know that. What we do know is that Muhammad's Allah is certainly not a moon god - and that Muhammad's Allah owes far more to Judaism and Christianity than the pagan gods of the Arabs.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024