Total Posts:196|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Muhammad the Greatest: A comparative study

Fatihah
Posts: 7,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 8:35:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Through my comparative study, I've noticed that of all religious people within history, none shares as big of a difference in point of view in character and merit amongst people than Muhammad. While muslims see Muhammad as the prophet of islam, a honest, decent, loving messenger of God, and the greatest example for humanity on the best way to live, many non-muslims see Muhammad as not only a false prophet, but attribute some of the most degrading and immoral characteristics and behavior to Muhammad. Such a completely different view of muslims.

I've analyzed the the qur'an and sunnah of Muhammad thoroughly and compared it with other biographical and historical depictions of him from other sources and I have seen nothing to conclude the point of view that non-muslims share which makes me ask the question, "where do these differences come from?" Is Muhammad the greatest example of the best way to conduct ourselves? Let's have a discussion.
arielmessenger
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 9:10:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Fatihah, your name you use tells us exactly why you would prefer Muhammad over all others. You're in that culture which idolizes Muhammad. As it also seems to us non-Muslims to be stuck in 7th century Arab social behavior patterns that are quite violent and backward. Add these things together with a religion that prescribes war and yet lies about it claiming very falsely to be a "religion of peace" and you will get the inevitable non-Muslim backlash. To us, worshiping a man is idolatry clear as day yet Muslims like you are totally blind to this form of idol worship just as you are blind to idol worship when the idol comes in the form of paper, ink and rows of little black marks. It's too primitive for us to go for and I've not even begun the criticisms of Muhammad's ideas forced upon all Muslim worshipers taught to worship an idol or bear the idol's wrath. For instance, how can any Muslim think rationally that the past's knowledge of things supersedes the present or future knowledge of things? How can 7th Century knowledge of Muhammad supersede 21st Century knowledge of the world? How does that work logically to defeat the Logic of History?

Islam is accepted by the less intelligent masses in a limited band of hot weather or extreme treeless desert climate regions. Where there are trees and wildlife, Islam doesn't take hold of the people's psyches like it does in more lifeless places. The matching disregard for human life so predominant in Muslims attacking each other every day of the week as well as non-Muslims makes the whole idea of interest in the Founder of this moral madness unappealing.

Now if you were talking about Muhammad Ali, the Greatest Athlete of All Time, there I would agree with you. No other man in sports history has ever done so much for sports and humanity as Muhammad Ali.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 9:26:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 9:10:03 AM, arielmessenger wrote:
Fatihah, your name you use tells us exactly why you would prefer Muhammad over all others. You're in that culture which idolizes Muhammad. As it also seems to us non-Muslims to be stuck in 7th century Arab social behavior patterns that are quite violent and backward. Add these things together with a religion that prescribes war and yet lies about it claiming very falsely to be a "religion of peace" and you will get the inevitable non-Muslim backlash. To us, worshiping a man is idolatry clear as day yet Muslims like you are totally blind to this form of idol worship just as you are blind to idol worship when the idol comes in the form of paper, ink and rows of little black marks. It's too primitive for us to go for and I've not even begun the criticisms of Muhammad's ideas forced upon all Muslim worshipers taught to worship an idol or bear the idol's wrath. For instance, how can any Muslim think rationally that the past's knowledge of things supersedes the present or future knowledge of things? How can 7th Century knowledge of Muhammad supersede 21st Century knowledge of the world? How does that work logically to defeat the Logic of History?

Islam is accepted by the less intelligent masses in a limited band of hot weather or extreme treeless desert climate regions. Where there are trees and wildlife, Islam doesn't take hold of the people's psyches like it does in more lifeless places. The matching disregard for human life so predominant in Muslims attacking each other every day of the week as well as non-Muslims makes the whole idea of interest in the Founder of this moral madness unappealing.

Now if you were talking about Muhammad Ali, the Greatest Athlete of All Time, there I would agree with you. No other man in sports history has ever done so much for sports and humanity as Muhammad Ali.

Response: I was born, raised, and reside in the United States. So I was never influenced by any culture, and rather, it is the culture of non-muslims themselves in comparison to Islamic principles that I accept Islam. A culture that has no problem exploiting women and sexuality for the sake of freedom, then punishes you if you become a prostitute. Whereas Islam forbids both. A culture that allows a corrupt banking system in which loans and interest is necessary for survival, ultimately putting people in debt. Islam forbids this. There are many other examples that can be given.

So it has nothing to do with being influenced by culture, but the actual teachings of Islam and message of Muhammad (saw). So the question still remains as to what allows for a person to see Muhammad as not being a moral and decent person, when everything he teaches says otherwise?
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 9:31:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 9:10:03 AM, arielmessenger wrote:
Fatihah, your name you use tells us exactly why you would prefer Muhammad over all others. You're in that culture which idolizes Muhammad. As it also seems to us non-Muslims to be stuck in 7th century Arab social behavior patterns that are quite violent and backward. Add these things together with a religion that prescribes war and yet lies about it claiming very falsely to be a "religion of peace" and you will get the inevitable non-Muslim backlash. To us, worshiping a man is idolatry clear as day yet Muslims like you are totally blind to this form of idol worship just as you are blind to idol worship when the idol comes in the form of paper, ink and rows of little black marks. It's too primitive for us to go for and I've not even begun the criticisms of Muhammad's ideas forced upon all Muslim worshipers taught to worship an idol or bear the idol's wrath. For instance, how can any Muslim think rationally that the past's knowledge of things supersedes the present or future knowledge of things? How can 7th Century knowledge of Muhammad supersede 21st Century knowledge of the world? How does that work logically to defeat the Logic of History?

Islam is accepted by the less intelligent masses in a limited band of hot weather or extreme treeless desert climate regions. Where there are trees and wildlife, Islam doesn't take hold of the people's psyches like it does in more lifeless places. The matching disregard for human life so predominant in Muslims attacking each other every day of the week as well as non-Muslims makes the whole idea of interest in the Founder of this moral madness unappealing.

A lot of ad-hominem here. Many Westerners regard Islamic culture to be backward and violent, while many Muslims regard Western Culture immoral and violent.

Similarly, "peace" is subjective. Islam calls for war/fighting in the face of persecution, which could be understood as a means of achieving peace through justice.

Islam doesn't call for Muhammad to be worshiped like an Idol, but its clear many Muslims go too far and idolize him.

Its also a stretch to tie Islam's popularity with arid uneducated climates so cleanly. Also, the idea that Muslims are killing each other and others due to religion is laughable.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
ironsmile360
Posts: 42
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 11:40:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 9:10:03 AM, arielmessenger wrote:
Fatihah, your name you use tells us exactly why you would prefer Muhammad over all others. You're in that culture which idolizes Muhammad. As it also seems to us non-Muslims to be stuck in 7th century Arab social behavior patterns that are quite violent and backward. Add these things together with a religion that prescribes war and yet lies about it claiming very falsely to be a "religion of peace" and you will get the inevitable non-Muslim backlash. To us, worshiping a man is idolatry clear as day yet Muslims like you are totally blind to this form of idol worship just as you are blind to idol worship when the idol comes in the form of paper, ink and rows of little black marks. It's too primitive for us to go for and I've not even begun the criticisms of Muhammad's ideas forced upon all Muslim worshipers taught to worship an idol or bear the idol's wrath. For instance, how can any Muslim think rationally that the past's knowledge of things supersedes the present or future knowledge of things? How can 7th Century knowledge of Muhammad supersede 21st Century knowledge of the world? How does that work logically to defeat the Logic of History?

Islam is accepted by the less intelligent masses in a limited band of hot weather or extreme treeless desert climate regions. Where there are trees and wildlife, Islam doesn't take hold of the people's psyches like it does in more lifeless places. The matching disregard for human life so predominant in Muslims attacking each other every day of the week as well as non-Muslims makes the whole idea of interest in the Founder of this moral madness unappealing.

Now if you were talking about Muhammad Ali, the Greatest Athlete of All Time, there I would agree with you. No other man in sports history has ever done so much for sports and humanity as Muhammad Ali.

Great discussion starter. While my view slightly differs from the Lion here. I believe that, tragically, many horrible acts have been committed throughout history in both religions. True Christianity (as in Islam) desires peace & harmony. It's Mankind that through our misunderstanding, AND misinterpretation of the truth spoken that causes destruction.

MUSLIM'- Forgive my ignorance, so please correct me if I'm wrong, so I can be better informed, and have greater understanding:

is it not recorded that on his way back from the angel Jibril that the message was altered from the original spoken word?

is it not also understood that Muhammed's wife would keep his original writings on her bed, not a goat came and ate the written documents which are now lost forever?

Isn't there different "Hadiths", or different schools of thought, and even they disagree with the exact interpretation of the Prophet's writings (Sunni Muslims vs. Shia, etc, etc)?
Ironsmile360
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 11:52:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 8:35:54 AM, Fatihah wrote:
Through my comparative study, I've noticed that of all religious people within history, none shares as big of a difference in point of view in character and merit amongst people than Muhammad. While muslims see Muhammad as the prophet of islam, a honest, decent, loving messenger of God, and the greatest example for humanity on the best way to live, many non-muslims see Muhammad as not only a false prophet, but attribute some of the most degrading and immoral characteristics and behavior to Muhammad. Such a completely different view of muslims.


I've analyzed the the qur'an and sunnah of Muhammad thoroughly and compared it with other biographical and historical depictions of him from other sources and I have seen nothing to conclude the point of view that non-muslims share which makes me ask the question, "where do these differences come from?" Is Muhammad the greatest example of the best way to conduct ourselves? Let's have a discussion.

99% learning about this greatest person through the hating view - the media, from foxnews to BBC, pure propoganda. poeple are lazy to search the truth about him.
Never fart near dog
ironsmile360
Posts: 42
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 12:28:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 11:52:39 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 4/17/2014 8:35:54 AM, Fatihah wrote:
Through my comparative study, I've noticed that of all religious people within history, none shares as big of a difference in point of view in character and merit amongst people than Muhammad. While muslims see Muhammad as the prophet of islam, a honest, decent, loving messenger of God, and the greatest example for humanity on the best way to live, many non-muslims see Muhammad as not only a false prophet, but attribute some of the most degrading and immoral characteristics and behavior to Muhammad. Such a completely different view of muslims.


I've analyzed the the qur'an and sunnah of Muhammad thoroughly and compared it with other biographical and historical depictions of him from other sources and I have seen nothing to conclude the point of view that non-muslims share which makes me ask the question, "where do these differences come from?" Is Muhammad the greatest example of the best way to conduct ourselves? Let's have a discussion.

99% learning about this greatest person through the hating view - the media, from foxnews to BBC, pure propoganda. poeple are lazy to search the truth about him.

yes, yes, yes pop, and Christians believe the same things about Muslims, and Jews believe the same thing about Muslims & Christians, But could you please answer or correct my 3 main questions... Especially #3? The Sunnis can't peacefully agree with Shia brothers about the true interpretation of your holy Prophet & his writings w/o going to battle. Again, please educate me- if the writings are true and there's ZERO chance of misinterpretation ( as your highest Clerics agree) then why the violent clash within Islam?
I am an infidel, right? Speak the truth & convert + enlighten me.
Ironsmile360
Fatihah
Posts: 7,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 12:45:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 11:40:49 AM, ironsmile360 wrote:

Great discussion starter. While my view slightly differs from the Lion here. I believe that, tragically, many horrible acts have been committed throughout history in both religions. True Christianity (as in Islam) desires peace & harmony. It's Mankind that through our misunderstanding, AND misinterpretation of the truth spoken that causes destruction.

MUSLIM'- Forgive my ignorance, so please correct me if I'm wrong, so I can be better informed, and have greater understanding:

is it not recorded that on his way back from the angel Jibril that the message was altered from the original spoken word?

is it not also understood that Muhammed's wife would keep his original writings on her bed, not a goat came and ate the written documents which are now lost forever?

Isn't there different "Hadiths", or different schools of thought, and even they disagree with the exact interpretation of the Prophet's writings (Sunni Muslims vs. Shia, etc, etc)?

Response: Thanks for the reply. To answer your questions:

The Qur'an and Sunnah both state that the revelation is the same and is in its original form. The Qur'an was memorized and written down by the companions of Muhammad, but was never kept in a standard book form. It was compiled as one book by Abu Bakr soon after Muhammad died for preservation. Until then, the Qur'an was written down by everyone who heard it and everyone had created their own copy before the Qur'an was later standardized by the third caliph Uthman.

So when a goat came and ate a verse of the Qur'an that was copied by Aisha, the wife of Muhammad, it does not disturb the preservation of the Qur'an. For the verse was copied by many. So it was never lost. Aisha had one of many copies. The hadith just states that her copy was eaten.

There are also different schools of thought and hadiths. These schools of thought are based on the understanding of a particular Imam. Meaning that the understanding of the Qur'an and Sunnah is based on what the Imam understands of what Muhammad and the Qur'an says, and not what Muhammad and the Qur'an actually says. However, these Imams themselves state that this is only their interpretation and if it goes against Islam, it should be rejected.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 1:00:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 9:26:51 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 4/17/2014 9:10:03 AM, arielmessenger wrote:
Fatihah, your name you use tells us exactly why you would prefer Muhammad over all others. You're in that culture which idolizes Muhammad. As it also seems to us non-Muslims to be stuck in 7th century Arab social behavior patterns that are quite violent and backward. Add these things together with a religion that prescribes war and yet lies about it claiming very falsely to be a "religion of peace" and you will get the inevitable non-Muslim backlash. To us, worshiping a man is idolatry clear as day yet Muslims like you are totally blind to this form of idol worship just as you are blind to idol worship when the idol comes in the form of paper, ink and rows of little black marks. It's too primitive for us to go for and I've not even begun the criticisms of Muhammad's ideas forced upon all Muslim worshipers taught to worship an idol or bear the idol's wrath. For instance, how can any Muslim think rationally that the past's knowledge of things supersedes the present or future knowledge of things? How can 7th Century knowledge of Muhammad supersede 21st Century knowledge of the world? How does that work logically to defeat the Logic of History?

Islam is accepted by the less intelligent masses in a limited band of hot weather or extreme treeless desert climate regions. Where there are trees and wildlife, Islam doesn't take hold of the people's psyches like it does in more lifeless places. The matching disregard for human life so predominant in Muslims attacking each other every day of the week as well as non-Muslims makes the whole idea of interest in the Founder of this moral madness unappealing.

Now if you were talking about Muhammad Ali, the Greatest Athlete of All Time, there I would agree with you. No other man in sports history has ever done so much for sports and humanity as Muhammad Ali.

Response: I was born, raised, and reside in the United States. So I was never influenced by any culture, and rather, it is the culture of non-muslims themselves in comparison to Islamic principles that I accept Islam. A culture that has no problem exploiting women and sexuality for the sake of freedom, then punishes you if you become a prostitute. Whereas Islam forbids both. A culture that allows a corrupt banking system in which loans and interest is necessary for survival, ultimately putting people in debt. Islam forbids this. There are many other examples that can be given.

Here you are making the mistake of comparing culture with religion. Christianity also forbids these things. For centuries only Jews were allowed to commit "usury," the lending of money for profit. And Jesus said that to imagine sinful sex was no different from performing it. The main problem that most Christians have with Muhammad, I think, is that he became a rich and militant leader who conquered even Mecca, while Christ was benevolent and poor. Of course I'm not claiming to be an authority on this, it's simply my perception.

So it has nothing to do with being influenced by culture, but the actual teachings of Islam and message of Muhammad (saw). So the question still remains as to what allows for a person to see Muhammad as not being a moral and decent person, when everything he teaches says otherwise?
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 1:06:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 8:35:54 AM, Fatihah wrote:
Through my comparative study, I've noticed that of all religious people within history, none shares as big of a difference in point of view in character and merit amongst people than Muhammad. While muslims see Muhammad as the prophet of islam, a honest, decent, loving messenger of God, and the greatest example for humanity on the best way to live, many non-muslims see Muhammad as not only a false prophet, but attribute some of the most degrading and immoral characteristics and behavior to Muhammad. Such a completely different view of muslims.


I've analyzed the the qur'an and sunnah of Muhammad thoroughly and compared it with other biographical and historical depictions of him from other sources and I have seen nothing to conclude the point of view that non-muslims share which makes me ask the question, "where do these differences come from?" Is Muhammad the greatest example of the best way to conduct ourselves? Let's have a discussion.

It seems to me that such views are based on chequered views of Islam. On one hand, plain people are filled with news of the latest fatwa (a misunderstood concept), halal, or acts by Islamic extremists: and on the other hand are very ill-informed about the cultures that inform them and the nuances involved. It's almost like the na"ve equation of female circumsion with Islam which I find funny since where I'm from some pagans engaged in it too, and some Muslim communities don't. But then again, it's not as if they aren't many precedents by Muslims and Muslim nations (eg the laws in Dubai, public segregation of males and females in UAE) which encourage such misconceptions.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 1:08:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 1:00:48 PM, Idealist wrote:

Here you are making the mistake of comparing culture with religion. Christianity also forbids these things. For centuries only Jews were allowed to commit "usury," the lending of money for profit. And Jesus said that to imagine sinful sex was no different from performing it. The main problem that most Christians have with Muhammad, I think, is that he became a rich and militant leader who conquered even Mecca, while Christ was benevolent and poor. Of course I'm not claiming to be an authority on this, it's simply my perception.

Response: Not at all. The comparison is in response to one who was making the comparison in religion, and I responded by stating that culture has nothing to do with it.

Regarding Muhammad and Mecca, Christians also accept Moses as a prophet and he also preached the same militancy as Muhammad. So it would be contradicting to accept Moses and not Muhammad. The Bible also talks about David as a prophet of God who also was militant.

However, Muhammad behaved like any person who is a leader of a nation would do when they are under attack and that is to defend the nation. So I do not see any logical reasoning for a Christian to object to that.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 1:12:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 1:06:45 PM, Iredia wrote:


It seems to me that such views are based on chequered views of Islam. On one hand, plain people are filled with news of the latest fatwa (a misunderstood concept), halal, or acts by Islamic extremists: and on the other hand are very ill-informed about the cultures that inform them and the nuances involved. It's almost like the na"ve equation of female circumsion with Islam which I find funny since where I'm from some pagans engaged in it too, and some Muslim communities don't. But then again, it's not as if they aren't many precedents by Muslims and Muslim nations (eg the laws in Dubai, public segregation of males and females in UAE) which encourage such misconceptions.

Response: A reasonable perspective. I would also add that some people confess to a different ideology than Islam and in an effort to support their own ideology as the correct one, they subject themselves to attributing negativity towards Muhammad. This way, their own belief sounds more logical, which is not the most honest approach to learning and advocating the truth.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 1:21:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 1:12:54 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 4/17/2014 1:06:45 PM, Iredia wrote:


It seems to me that such views are based on chequered views of Islam. On one hand, plain people are filled with news of the latest fatwa (a misunderstood concept), halal, or acts by Islamic extremists: and on the other hand are very ill-informed about the cultures that inform them and the nuances involved. It's almost like the na"ve equation of female circumsion with Islam which I find funny since where I'm from some pagans engaged in it too, and some Muslim communities don't. But then again, it's not as if they aren't many precedents by Muslims and Muslim nations (eg the laws in Dubai, public segregation of males and females in UAE) which encourage such misconceptions.

Response: A reasonable perspective. I would also add that some people confess to a different ideology than Islam and in an effort to support their own ideology as the correct one, they subject themselves to attributing negativity towards Muhammad. This way, their own belief sounds more logical, which is not the most honest approach to learning and advocating the truth.

Let's just bring the cat out of the hat. Many atheists and Christians are major culprits in the behaviour you just described. That said, why would you call Muhammad the greatest ?
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 1:22:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 1:08:40 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 4/17/2014 1:00:48 PM, Idealist wrote:

Here you are making the mistake of comparing culture with religion. Christianity also forbids these things. For centuries only Jews were allowed to commit "usury," the lending of money for profit. And Jesus said that to imagine sinful sex was no different from performing it. The main problem that most Christians have with Muhammad, I think, is that he became a rich and militant leader who conquered even Mecca, while Christ was benevolent and poor. Of course I'm not claiming to be an authority on this, it's simply my perception.

Response: Not at all. The comparison is in response to one who was making the comparison in religion, and I responded by stating that culture has nothing to do with it.

Regarding Muhammad and Mecca, Christians also accept Moses as a prophet and he also preached the same militancy as Muhammad. So it would be contradicting to accept Moses and not Muhammad. The Bible also talks about David as a prophet of God who also was militant.

Christians are followers of Christ, not Moses. In fact, very few Christians I've met have much interest at all in the Old Testament and seem to consider it superseded by Jesus and the New Testament.

However, Muhammad behaved like any person who is a leader of a nation would do when they are under attack and that is to defend the nation. So I do not see any logical reasoning for a Christian to object to that.

Muhammed began raiding caravans when he was driven out of Mecca by people who branded him a "blasphemer" for denouncing the Kaaba Shrine. He eventually gained enough power to force his return, whereupon he ordered the destruction of all existing religious idols except for the Black Stone.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 1:42:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 1:21:51 PM, Iredia wrote:


Let's just bring the cat out of the hat. Many atheists and Christians are major culprits in the behaviour you just described. That said, why would you call Muhammad the greatest ?

Response: The reason is based on the evidence. When you look at Islamic sources and compare them with non-Islamic sources and try to test them logically, the evidence always sides with Islam that Muhammad was a great person in regards to morals and character. For example, the issue of spreading Islam with the sword. The claim itself is illogical, for it is humanly impossible for one man to conquer a nation by himself with a sword. You couldn't out wrestle just five people without being subdued. So it is illogical to say that one can conquer a nation by themselves. If the objection is he had help, then the logic still applied because you cannot force a group of people to help you by yourself.

So when you actually put to the test all the negative claims against Muhammad, they actually do not add up and the more you analyze it, you come to learn that Muhammad's example and life story as being a humble, loving, caring, and charitable person is actual true in all regards.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 1:46:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 1:22:35 PM, Idealist wrote:


Christians are followers of Christ, not Moses. In fact, very few Christians I've met have much interest at all in the Old Testament and seem to consider it superseded by Jesus and the New Testament.



Muhammed began raiding caravans when he was driven out of Mecca by people who branded him a "blasphemer" for denouncing the Kaaba Shrine. He eventually gained enough power to force his return, whereupon he ordered the destruction of all existing religious idols except for the Black Stone.

Response: Christians still accept the Bible in its entirety as the inspired word of God and still claim the old testament is true. So if they accept Moses as a true follower of God despite his militancy, then Muhammad falls in the same category. Whether they accept the New testament supersedes the old or not does not change their acceptance that the Old is still true.

As for raiding caravans, what proof do you have of this, when there are also accounts that he did no such thing?
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 2:27:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 12:28:52 PM, ironsmile360 wrote:
At 4/17/2014 11:52:39 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 4/17/2014 8:35:54 AM, Fatihah wrote:
Through my comparative study, I've noticed that of all religious people within history, none shares as big of a difference in point of view in character and merit amongst people than Muhammad. While muslims see Muhammad as the prophet of islam, a honest, decent, loving messenger of God, and the greatest example for humanity on the best way to live, many non-muslims see Muhammad as not only a false prophet, but attribute some of the most degrading and immoral characteristics and behavior to Muhammad. Such a completely different view of muslims.


I've analyzed the the qur'an and sunnah of Muhammad thoroughly and compared it with other biographical and historical depictions of him from other sources and I have seen nothing to conclude the point of view that non-muslims share which makes me ask the question, "where do these differences come from?" Is Muhammad the greatest example of the best way to conduct ourselves? Let's have a discussion.

99% learning about this greatest person through the hating view - the media, from foxnews to BBC, pure propoganda. poeple are lazy to search the truth about him.

yes, yes, yes pop, and Christians believe the same things about Muslims, and Jews believe the same thing about Muslims & Christians, But could you please answer or correct my 3 main questions... Especially #3? The Sunnis can't peacefully agree with Shia brothers about the true interpretation of your holy Prophet & his writings w/o going to battle. Again, please educate me- if the writings are true and there's ZERO chance of misinterpretation ( as your highest Clerics agree) then why the violent clash within Islam?
I am an infidel, right? Speak the truth & convert + enlighten me.

Look im not a scholar to judge sunnis and shias, but first of all there should be no division between muslims:
3:103
And hold firmly to the rope of Allah (the Quran and the sunna - his messenger) all together and do not become divided.

its about political war, anyway there are many shia views that contradict the Quran, and many reject most of the companians of the prophet (the hadith from them..), even they curse his wife and his closest freind abu bakr. how the hell the best companians of the prophet, lived with him, they gave thier lifes to him, and such poeple can betray? most of them? and if you learn little bit about Abdullah ibn Saba - jew founder of shia inventing many things.

"Shia brothers about the true interpretation of your holy Prophet"

what true interpretation? which hadiths? they reject most of the companians and they are our sorce to know our beloved prophet (may peace be upon him) so i dont know what you trying to say here...
Never fart near dog
arielmessenger
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 3:40:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The problem is that one cannot reason with blind faith believers and that is what all Muslims are who blindly follow a 7th century Arab religious warmonger.

I've tried to reason with Muslims before and always they resort to diverting the subject when it comes to hard questions they cannot answer, such as why on earth any intelligent person in the 21st Century should pay heed to the ideas of the 7th Century about morality, social structure, physical knowledge of the world. When you go to a doctor for curing an illness, you don't go to a 7th Century medical knowledge "doctor" if your brain is working right and yet Muslims entrust their spiritual authority in a 7th Century man's holding, a man who tells them they cannot possibly have his knowledge as he alone has Allah's seal of all authority. Meanwhile, non-Muslims see zero reason why any non-Muslim should respect a religion of war starter whose social ideas are atrociously violent and against human rights and even human health as poor Muslim women are forced to cut off their vitamin D from sunlight on their skins.
This is what 7th Century knowledge does in the 21st Century. Drags back Muslims to BAD IDEAS in religious law form.

If your religion forbids you to think for yourself, it's false. No Muslim is allowed to think for himself. It is Taboo to ever question the IDOL.

So, no thanks, Muhammad has nothing worthwhile to offer except as an example of how easy it is to turn human minds into robot tape-recorders playing back an ancient dead man's world conquest fantasies to the detriment of world peace and human rights of believers in God in whatever why God reaches them.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 4:24:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 1:46:35 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 4/17/2014 1:22:35 PM, Idealist wrote:


Christians are followers of Christ, not Moses. In fact, very few Christians I've met have much interest at all in the Old Testament and seem to consider it superseded by Jesus and the New Testament.



Muhammed began raiding caravans when he was driven out of Mecca by people who branded him a "blasphemer" for denouncing the Kaaba Shrine. He eventually gained enough power to force his return, whereupon he ordered the destruction of all existing religious idols except for the Black Stone.

Response: Christians still accept the Bible in its entirety as the inspired word of God and still claim the old testament is true. So if they accept Moses as a true follower of God despite his militancy, then Muhammad falls in the same category. Whether they accept the New testament supersedes the old or not does not change their acceptance that the Old is still true.

So you're really going to be one of those people who ask for honest questions and comments but then argue against them all as if you have all the answers? I have been a member of three different Christian churches at different times when I was a younger man, and my mother and two of my sisters are still very involved. Yet you simply deny what I have to say about how they feel about the Old Testament, as if I just made it up?

As for raiding caravans, what proof do you have of this, when there are also accounts that he did no such thing?

I still have my textbooks from a college course I took two years ago, for one thing. A History of the Western World by Thomas H. Greer and Gavin Lewis, pp. 203-204. "[Muhammad] became especially unpopular in the city of Mecca, where a building known as the Kaaba housed idols and a black stone considered holy by the Arabs. When he denounced this shrine, he was branded a blasphemer and a disturber of the peace. Faced with this opposition, Muhammad left Mecca in 622, "shaking its dust from his feet," and fled northward to Yathrib (later renamed Medina, "City of the Prophet"). There he was able to preach freely, and his band of disciples began to grow, and to follow his example of seeking to convert others."

"Soon Muhammad was leading his followers on raids against desert caravans. The proud Meccans were at length compelled to yield, and the Prophet returned to Mecca in triumph. He ordered that all the idols in the city be destroyed, but he preserved the black stone as a symbol of the new faith. Attracted by his militant methods and by his vision of bringing the whole world under Islam, the desert tribes began to flock to his leadership."

So there are no accounts, huh? You should be more careful before making claims which aren't true. I thought you wanted to have a respectful discussion about how Christians view Muslims. :-/
ironsmile360
Posts: 42
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 4:59:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Y: At 4/17/2014 2:27:48 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 4/17/2014 12:28:52 PM, ironsmile360 wrote:
At 4/17/2014 11:52:39 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 4/17/2014 8:35:54 AM, Fatihah wrote:
Through my comparative study, I've noticed that of all religious people within history, none shares as big of a difference in point of view in character and merit amongst people than Muhammad. While muslims see Muhammad as the prophet of islam, a honest, decent, loving messenger of God, and the greatest example for humanity on the best way to live, many non-muslims see Muhammad as not only a false prophet, but attribute some of the most degrading and immoral characteristics and behavior to Muhammad. Such a completely different view of muslims.


I've analyzed the the qur'an and sunnah of Muhammad thoroughly and compared it with other biographical and historical depictions of him from other sources and I have seen nothing to conclude the point of view that non-muslims share which makes me ask the question, "where do these differences come from?" Is Muhammad the greatest example of the best way to conduct ourselves? Let's have a discussion.

99% learning about this greatest person through the hating view - the media, from foxnews to BBC, pure propoganda. poeple are lazy to search the truth about him.

yes, yes, yes pop, and Christians believe the same things about Muslims, and Jews believe the same thing about Muslims & Christians, But could you please answer or correct my 3 main questions... Especially #3? The Sunnis can't peacefully agree with Shia brothers about the true interpretation of your holy Prophet & his writings w/o going to battle. Again, please educate me- if the writings are true and there's ZERO chance of misinterpretation ( as your highest Clerics agree) then why the violent clash within Islam?
I am an infidel, right? Speak the truth & convert + enlighten me.

Look im not a scholar to judge sunnis and shias, but first of all there should be no division between muslims:
3:103
And hold firmly to the rope of Allah (the Quran and the sunna - his messenger) all together and do not become divided.

its about political war, anyway there are many shia views that contradict the Quran, and many reject most of the companians of the prophet (the hadith from them..), even they curse his wife and his closest freind abu bakr. how the hell the best companians of the prophet, lived with him, they gave thier lifes to him, and such poeple can betray? most of them? and if you learn little bit about Abdullah ibn Saba - jew founder of shia inventing many things.

"Shia brothers about the true interpretation of your holy Prophet"

what true interpretation? which hadiths? they reject most of the companians and they are our sorce to know our beloved prophet (may peace be upon him) so i dont know what you trying to say here...

pop... Honestly, look at what I first wrote. I'm not trying to say anything, and I wasn't trying to be sarcastic with my last comment. I was trying to use your terminology to get my point across. I really want to understand, which is why I asked my 3 main questions.
Ironsmile360
Fatihah
Posts: 7,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 5:12:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 3:40:16 PM, arielmessenger wrote:
The problem is that one cannot reason with blind faith believers and that is what all Muslims are who blindly follow a 7th century Arab religious warmonger.

I've tried to reason with Muslims before and always they resort to diverting the subject when it comes to hard questions they cannot answer, such as why on earth any intelligent person in the 21st Century should pay heed to the ideas of the 7th Century about morality, social structure, physical knowledge of the world. When you go to a doctor for curing an illness, you don't go to a 7th Century medical knowledge "doctor" if your brain is working right and yet Muslims entrust their spiritual authority in a 7th Century man's holding, a man who tells them they cannot possibly have his knowledge as he alone has Allah's seal of all authority. Meanwhile, non-Muslims see zero reason why any non-Muslim should respect a religion of war starter whose social ideas are atrociously violent and against human rights and even human health as poor Muslim women are forced to cut off their vitamin D from sunlight on their skins.
This is what 7th Century knowledge does in the 21st Century. Drags back Muslims to BAD IDEAS in religious law form.

If your religion forbids you to think for yourself, it's false. No Muslim is allowed to think for himself. It is Taboo to ever question the IDOL.

So, no thanks, Muhammad has nothing worthwhile to offer except as an example of how easy it is to turn human minds into robot tape-recorders playing back an ancient dead man's world conquest fantasies to the detriment of world peace and human rights of believers in God in whatever why God reaches them.

Response: Nothing in the Qur'an or sunnah says to ignore a doctor of today and rely on Muhammad for medical advice or healing. Nor is there any hadith that says Muhammad attacked anyone first or killed anyone innocent. So your whole position is feeble at best.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 5:35:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 4:24:37 PM, Idealist wrote:


So you're really going to be one of those people who ask for honest questions and comments but then argue against them all as if you have all the answers? I have been a member of three different Christian churches at different times when I was a younger man, and my mother and two of my sisters are still very involved. Yet you simply deny what I have to say about how they feel about the Old Testament, as if I just made it up?

Response: Nor are you the only person who knows a Christian or has Christian relatives. So it is not a case of me saying to know it all, but rather you saying you do and expect your view and perspective of Christians to be universal simply because your family members said something, and ignore the claims of Christian scholars themselves.

I still have my textbooks from a college course I took two years ago, for one thing. A History of the Western World by Thomas H. Greer and Gavin Lewis, pp. 203-204. "[Muhammad] became especially unpopular in the city of Mecca, where a building known as the Kaaba housed idols and a black stone considered holy by the Arabs. When he denounced this shrine, he was branded a blasphemer and a disturber of the peace. Faced with this opposition, Muhammad left Mecca in 622, "shaking its dust from his feet," and fled northward to Yathrib (later renamed Medina, "City of the Prophet"). There he was able to preach freely, and his band of disciples began to grow, and to follow his example of seeking to convert others."

"Soon Muhammad was leading his followers on raids against desert caravans. The proud Meccans were at length compelled to yield, and the Prophet returned to Mecca in triumph. He ordered that all the idols in the city be destroyed, but he preserved the black stone as a symbol of the new faith. Attracted by his militant methods and by his vision of bringing the whole world under Islam, the desert tribes began to flock to his leadership."

So there are no accounts, huh? You should be more careful before making claims which aren't true. I thought you wanted to have a respectful discussion about how Christians view Muslims. :-/

Response: I never said that there are no accounts, but that there are other accounts. So you should be more careful and considerate making claims which one can easily see are false. And a respectable discussion includes some logical reason as to why you accept the account of Muhammad above, and not the vast amount of accounts that say otherwise and state that Muhammad was persecuted by the Arabs of Mecca simply because he denounced the idols and told them to worship Allah. He was boycotted (him and the muslims) from food and assistance, beaten, tortured, and some were even killed, simply because they disbelieved in the idols. He fled to Yathrib (Medina) for safety after he heard his life was to be taken. Once in Yathrib, the leaders of Mecca cut off all trade with the muslims and sold their belonging that they left in Mecca. Muhammad and the Muslims went to get their own possessions back from the caravans, and were successful. The Meccans were outraged and wanted to do battle so they began to build an army to go to Medina and attack the Muslims. The battle of Badr, Uhud, and the Trench. Muhammad successfully won each time, forcing the leaders of Mecca to surrender to him once he returned to Mecca.

In short, Muhammad never robbed and raided caravans, but went to take back his and the muslims own belongings that were stolen by the Meccans to be sold. And Muhammad never started a battle, but fought in self-defense, and successfully defeated his enemies. Much different from what you stated. So the question still remains that you have yet to answer, which is on what logic or reason do you claim that your account is the correct one? So far, you've presented nothing, showing that the account is weak at best.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 5:36:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 5:12:19 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 4/17/2014 3:40:16 PM, arielmessenger wrote:
The problem is that one cannot reason with blind faith believers and that is what all Muslims are who blindly follow a 7th century Arab religious warmonger.

I've tried to reason with Muslims before and always they resort to diverting the subject when it comes to hard questions they cannot answer, such as why on earth any intelligent person in the 21st Century should pay heed to the ideas of the 7th Century about morality, social structure, physical knowledge of the world. When you go to a doctor for curing an illness, you don't go to a 7th Century medical knowledge "doctor" if your brain is working right and yet Muslims entrust their spiritual authority in a 7th Century man's holding, a man who tells them they cannot possibly have his knowledge as he alone has Allah's seal of all authority. Meanwhile, non-Muslims see zero reason why any non-Muslim should respect a religion of war starter whose social ideas are atrociously violent and against human rights and even human health as poor Muslim women are forced to cut off their vitamin D from sunlight on their skins.
This is what 7th Century knowledge does in the 21st Century. Drags back Muslims to BAD IDEAS in religious law form.

If your religion forbids you to think for yourself, it's false. No Muslim is allowed to think for himself. It is Taboo to ever question the IDOL.

So, no thanks, Muhammad has nothing worthwhile to offer except as an example of how easy it is to turn human minds into robot tape-recorders playing back an ancient dead man's world conquest fantasies to the detriment of world peace and human rights of believers in God in whatever why God reaches them.

Response: Nothing in the Qur'an or sunnah says to ignore a doctor of today and rely on Muhammad for medical advice or healing. Nor is there any hadith that says Muhammad attacked anyone first or killed anyone innocent. So your whole position is feeble at best.

Agreed. The Prophet Muhammad once said that "Allah did not create a disease for which He did not also create a cure." Muslims are therefore encouraged to explore and use traditional and modern forms of medicine, with faith that any cure is from Allah. This still doesn't change the fact that all it seems you want to do is defend Muhammad, not discuss his life seriously.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 5:40:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 5:36:51 PM, Idealist wrote:


Agreed. The Prophet Muhammad once said that "Allah did not create a disease for which He did not also create a cure." Muslims are therefore encouraged to explore and use traditional and modern forms of medicine, with faith that any cure is from Allah. This still doesn't change the fact that all it seems you want to do is defend Muhammad, not discuss his life seriously.

Response: Defending a position does not equal a non-serious discussion. So such a statement appears that it is your own position to accuse Muhammad and consider anyone who does not agree to your accusations as not being serious, a claim itself that shows a lack of serious discussion.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 6:06:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 5:35:14 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 4/17/2014 4:24:37 PM, Idealist wrote:


So you're really going to be one of those people who ask for honest questions and comments but then argue against them all as if you have all the answers? I have been a member of three different Christian churches at different times when I was a younger man, and my mother and two of my sisters are still very involved. Yet you simply deny what I have to say about how they feel about the Old Testament, as if I just made it up?

Response: Nor are you the only person who knows a Christian or has Christian relatives. So it is not a case of me saying to know it all, but rather you saying you do and expect your view and perspective of Christians to be universal simply because your family members said something, and ignore the claims of Christian scholars themselves.

Oh, so I'm being a know-it-all, am I? Let's quote what I said in my first post: "Of course I'm not claiming to be an authority on this, it's simply my perception." Does that sound like the words of someone who claims to be an authority? I also said that "very few Christians I've met have much interest at all in the Old Testament." Does that sound like I'm trying to be a "know-it-all"?

I still have my textbooks from a college course I took two years ago, for one thing. A History of the Western World by Thomas H. Greer and Gavin Lewis, pp. 203-204. "[Muhammad] became especially unpopular in the city of Mecca, where a building known as the Kaaba housed idols and a black stone considered holy by the Arabs. When he denounced this shrine, he was branded a blasphemer and a disturber of the peace. Faced with this opposition, Muhammad left Mecca in 622, "shaking its dust from his feet," and fled northward to Yathrib (later renamed Medina, "City of the Prophet"). There he was able to preach freely, and his band of disciples began to grow, and to follow his example of seeking to convert others."

"Soon Muhammad was leading his followers on raids against desert caravans. The proud Meccans were at length compelled to yield, and the Prophet returned to Mecca in triumph. He ordered that all the idols in the city be destroyed, but he preserved the black stone as a symbol of the new faith. Attracted by his militant methods and by his vision of bringing the whole world under Islam, the desert tribes began to flock to his leadership."

So there are no accounts, huh? You should be more careful before making claims which aren't true. I thought you wanted to have a respectful discussion about how Christians view Muslims. :-/

Response: I never said that there are no accounts, but that there are other accounts. So you should be more careful and considerate making claims which one can easily see are false. And a respectable discussion includes some logical reason as to why you accept the account of Muhammad above, and not the vast amount of accounts that say otherwise and state that Muhammad was persecuted by the Arabs of Mecca simply because he denounced the idols and told them to worship Allah. He was boycotted (him and the muslims) from food and assistance, beaten, tortured, and some were even killed, simply because they disbelieved in the idols. He fled to Yathrib (Medina) for safety after he heard his life was to be taken. Once in Yathrib, the leaders of Mecca cut off all trade with the muslims and sold their belonging that they left in Mecca. Muhammad and the Muslims went to get their own possessions back from the caravans, and were successful. The Meccans were outraged and wanted to do battle so they began to build an army to go to Medina and attack the Muslims. The battle of Badr, Uhud, and the Trench. Muhammad successfully won each time, forcing the leaders of Mecca to surrender to him once he returned to Mecca.

I respect it because I learned it in an institution of higher learning and we did a paper on it. I provided sources. Do you have any good sources? I'm always open to contradiction if it's based on facts. There is nothing you've described in the post above which I've seen sources for, other than on Muslim websites.

In short, Muhammad never robbed and raided caravans, but went to take back his and the muslims own belongings that were stolen by the Meccans to be sold. And Muhammad never started a battle, but fought in self-defense, and successfully defeated his enemies. Much different from what you stated. So the question still remains that you have yet to answer, which is on what logic or reason do you claim that your account is the correct one? So far, you've presented nothing, showing that the account is weak at best.

Muhammad may not have raided the caravans, no one is sure. But he did order the attacks, and he did it to raise money to support his movement. Of course you will simply refuse to listen to anything you don't want to hear. Why did you even start this thread if you were so sure you already knew all the answers? Did you do it because you are trying to convert people? I am honestly not trying to be offensive towards you, but I have yet to see you seriously discuss the topic at all. You've only defended Muhammad. You keep using that same term, saying "your account is weak at best" to more people than just me.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 6:09:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 5:40:52 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 4/17/2014 5:36:51 PM, Idealist wrote:


Agreed. The Prophet Muhammad once said that "Allah did not create a disease for which He did not also create a cure." Muslims are therefore encouraged to explore and use traditional and modern forms of medicine, with faith that any cure is from Allah. This still doesn't change the fact that all it seems you want to do is defend Muhammad, not discuss his life seriously.

Response: Defending a position does not equal a non-serious discussion. So such a statement appears that it is your own position to accuse Muhammad and consider anyone who does not agree to your accusations as not being serious, a claim itself that shows a lack of serious discussion.

Okay . . . by now your intent seems pretty obvious. You are just going to attack anyone who doesn't want to agree with your version of everything. I'm really not interested in that, but good luck with it all the same.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 6:23:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 6:06:42 PM, Idealist wrote:


I respect it because I learned it in an institution of higher learning and we did a paper on it. I provided sources. Do you have any good sources? I'm always open to contradiction if it's based on facts. There is nothing you've described in the post above which I've seen sources for, other than on Muslim websites.

Response: You acknowledge that there are other sources that say otherwise on Muslims websites. So you are aware that there are other accounts. There are also hadiths of Bukhari and Muslim that say otherwise, in which Muslim sites reference too and are from scholars, who are the highest in their field and have also established institutions of higher learning. The first university was a Muslim one. So the statement that it is more credible because it is taught in an institution of higher learning would not be valid when both sources are.

Muhammad may not have raided the caravans, no one is sure. But he did order the attacks, and he did it to raise money to support his movement. Of course you will simply refuse to listen to anything you don't want to hear. Why did you even start this thread if you were so sure you already knew all the answers? Did you do it because you are trying to convert people? I am honestly not trying to be offensive towards you, but I have yet to see you seriously discuss the topic at all. You've only defended Muhammad. You keep using that same term, saying "your account is weak at best" to more people than just me.

Response: Attacking a caravan to get your own belongings that were stolen from you back is a justified act. So your contention is still inaccurate.

The point of the thread is to deliver the true depiction of Muhammad. To do so requires understanding why others object him and bringing clarification. I have no intent to convert anyone. And it is you who states that Muhammad robbed caravans and that the story is true, with no logical reason to reject the accounts that say otherwise. So your redundancy of claiming that I am not having a serious discussion, when you are the one making accusations with not merit or reasoning is quite appalling.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 6:26:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 6:09:30 PM, Idealist wrote:


Okay . . . by now your intent seems pretty obvious. You are just going to attack anyone who doesn't want to agree with your version of everything. I'm really not interested in that, but good luck with it all the same.

Response: Simply stating a different perspective of your is not the definition of an attack. So the fact that you view it as such shows that you are simply finding it difficult to defend your own accusations and when a person shows this, you claim you are being attacked. But one's inability to defend their own position is not the definition of being attacked.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 6:46:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 6:26:12 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 4/17/2014 6:09:30 PM, Idealist wrote:


Okay . . . by now your intent seems pretty obvious. You are just going to attack anyone who doesn't want to agree with your version of everything. I'm really not interested in that, but good luck with it all the same.

Response: Simply stating a different perspective of your is not the definition of an attack. So the fact that you view it as such shows that you are simply finding it difficult to defend your own accusations and when a person shows this, you claim you are being attacked. But one's inability to defend their own position is not the definition of being attacked.

I really don't like to get into ugly discussions with people. It's just not fruitful, and does nothing but cause hurt. But this one has really been something. I can't help but be reminded of the Mormon defense of John Smith, who supposedly copied the Book of Mormon off of some golden tablets he found in a hat in some hidden cave. It's the only religion that has been proven by archeologists to be wrong, since it describes things in the ancient Americas which simply didn't exist, but I've never met a Mormon who wouldn't defend John Smith's writings nevertheless. All those religious books, and all of them right. Now that's a miracle. You don't need a book or a man to worship when you have a God.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2014 6:52:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/17/2014 6:46:15 PM, Idealist wrote:

I really don't like to get into ugly discussions with people. It's just not fruitful, and does nothing but cause hurt. But this one has really been something. I can't help but be reminded of the Mormon defense of John Smith, who supposedly copied the Book of Mormon off of some golden tablets he found in a hat in some hidden cave. It's the only religion that has been proven by archeologists to be wrong, since it describes things in the ancient Americas which simply didn't exist, but I've never met a Mormon who wouldn't defend John Smith's writings nevertheless. All those religious books, and all of them right. Now that's a miracle. You don't need a book or a man to worship when you have a God.

Response: It is not an ugly discussion at all. In the end, you will most likely not change your views and neither will I. But when expressing different views, you get to learn the other person's perspective which enables you to better deal with them. For me, that is very fruitful.