Islamic insecurities ?

[stingray]

You've been saying this for quite a while. What happens when a woman (or man) who has been converted to Islam changes mind or decides to leave for whatever reason?

They can leave.There is no compulsion in the islamic religion.

[Alex23]

[avxo]

Every man sins, that is what is meant by the term "born sinner" duh... like talking to 9 year old. No one is born with sin literally, it just means that soon after they are born they will sin.

That's not true - at least according to the Bible. We're all, supposedly, born sinners, tainted because of Adam & Eve.

[avxo]

Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Stefano]

They can leave.There is no compulsion in the islamic religion.

Ha ha yeah right. People who try to leave are shunned and recieve death threats. The ones who do convert or abandon religion altoghther switch to a different country to avoid the abuse. There wasa high profile case of one muslim who converted to christianity. The church decided to use him as an advertisement for their religion and he had to go underground thanks to all the death threats and abuse he recieved. Another case was a boy who had abandoned islam altoghther was almost killed by his so called best friends. Luckily his aunt had overheard their conversation and was able to warn him in time. When arrested they said islam allows the killing of those who abandon islam and those who do the killing of such deserters will be rewarded.

No compulsion my ass.

[Onetimehard]

That's not true - at least according to the Bible. We're all, supposedly, born sinners, tainted because of Adam & Eve.

Tainted by Adam yes but in the hereditary sense, like someone with the genetics to go bald, he is not born bald but going bald is unavoidable due to his hereditary qualities

[avxo]

Well Americans are so much better, they sent bombs down crumbling all Afghan homes.

A "my penis is bigger than yours" thing? Seriously? That's the best you can come up with?

It shows the ignorance of people. What do you know about the taliban besides what tv told you? Seriously? Have you ever actually talked to one or listened to one or met one? I haven't, but I've listened to interviews of them, it contrasts what the mainstream media indeed says or does.

Talk is cheap. Actions aren't. And the Taliban's actions speak louder than any interview.

[24KT]

Yeah because the taliban would have made sure that money got distributed to the needy.

Good to know that you agree with the statues being destroyed. No reason to preserve any historical remains.

I don't agree with the statues being destroyed. I simply said his explanation made perfect sense.

[avxo]

Tainted by Adam yes but in the hereditary sense, like someone with the genetics to go bald, he is not born bald but going bald is unavoidable due to his hereditary qualities

What does this mean, even? "In the hereditary sense"? Are you suggesting we are "predisposed" to sin? I'll simply quote Ayn Rand, as she explained it quite nicely. All emphasis mine:

Your code begins by damning man as evil, then demands that he practice a good which it defines as impossible for him to practice. It demands, as his first proof of virtue, that he accept his own depravity without proof. It demands that he start, not with a standard of value, but with a standard of evil, which is himself, by means of which he is then to define the good: the good is that which he is not.

It does not matter who then becomes the profiteer on his renounced glory and tormented soul, a mystic God with some incomprehensible design or any passer-by whose rotting sores are held as some inexplicable claim upon him—it does not matter, the good is not for him to understand, his duty is to crawl through years of penance, atoning for the guilt of his existence to any stray collector of unintelligible debts, his only concept of a value is a zero: the good is that which is non-man.

The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin.

A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man’s sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. To hold man’s nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of your code.

Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a “tendency” to evil. A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free.

What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge—he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil—he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor—he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire—he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy—all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was—that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love—he was not man.

Man’s fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he’s man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives.

They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man.

[Alex23]

maybe I have ADD but this board is fucking too much... get a life losers. 

[avxo]

I don't agree with the statues being destroyed. I simply said his explanation made perfect sense.

For some definition of perfect, at any rate.

[poldaktalos]

They can leave.There is no compulsion in the islamic religion.

What about Sahih Bukhari 4.260? I am no "theologian" or Islamic scholar but while it is not in the Qu'ran, it is still one considered of the pillars of Sunni Islam. Is there a certain interpretation to that?

[Onetimehard]

What does this mean, even? "In the hereditary sense"? Are you suggesting we are "predisposed" to sin? I'll simply quote Ayn Rand, as she explained it quite nicely. All emphasis mine:

Your code begins by damning man as evil, then demands that he practice a good which it defines as impossible for him to practice. It demands, as his first proof of virtue, that he accept his own depravity without proof. It demands that he start, not with a standard of value, but with a standard of evil, which is himself, by means of which he is then to define the good: the good is that which he is not.

It does not matter who then becomes the profiteer on his renounced glory and tormented soul, a mystic God with some incomprehensible design or any passer-by whose rotting sores are held as some inexplicable claim upon him—it does not matter, the good is not for him to understand, his duty is to crawl through years of penance, atoning for the guilt of his existence to any stray collector of unintelligible debts, his only concept of a value is a zero: the good is that which is non-man.

The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin.

A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man’s sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. To hold man’s nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of your code.

Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a “tendency” to evil. A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free.

What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge—he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil—he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor—he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire—he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy—all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was—that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love—he was not man.

Man’s fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he’s man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives.

They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man.

What does this mean, even? "In the hereditary sense"? Are you suggesting we are "predisposed" to sin? Yes that is what the Bible means bro, trust me a have nearly 10 000 hours studying the Bible.

The predisposed sin is a hereditary trait in the male that is passed down from father to son generation upon generation, that is why the Bible specifically says Adam, ...

   "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned"

 This is precisely the reason why Jesus was born of a virgin because Jesus had to be sinless in his entire life so had he had a male biological father he also would have inherited sin, you follow                              

[Stefano]

I don't agree with the statues being destroyed. I simply said his explanation made perfect sense.

Not suprising that the reasoning of a murderous regime like the taliban would make "perfect" sense to you.
Certain branches of islam support female cicumcision. That would make sense to you as well if achmutt or stingray back that much like they back taliban ideology.

[Onetimehard]

maybe I have ADD but this board is fucking too much... get a life losers. 

SILENCE 

[avxo]

What does this mean, even? "In the hereditary sense"? Are you suggesting we are "predisposed" to sin? Yes that is what the Bible means bro, trust me a have nearly 10 000 hours studying the Bible.

The predisposed sin is a hereditary trait in the male that is passed down from father to son generation upon generation, that is why the Bible specifically says Adam, ...

   "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned"

 This is precisely the reason why Jesus was born of a virgin because Jesus had to be sinless in his entire life so had he had a male biological father he also would have inherited sin, you follow                              

As Ayn Rand said: "Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a “tendency” to evil. A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free."

[Onetimehard]

As Ayn Rand said: "Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a “tendency” to evil. A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free."

There is still free will, you can minimize sin considerably, it is not an off or on button with only 2 options. The difference between a tiny sin once every ten years vs Hitler is astronomical, I would say we still have free will bro

[avxo]

There is still free will, you can minimize sin considerably, it is not an off or on button with only 2 options. The difference between a tiny sin once every ten years vs Hitler is astronomical, I would say we still have free will bro

Your God disagrees: one small sin, or a million large ones, it's all the same.

[Onetimehard]

Your God disagrees: one small sin, or a million large ones, it's all the same.

No it is not and yes I am aware James ch 2 vs 10, but God makes it clear we will be judged for every single sin on judgement day

[poldaktalos]

No it is not and yes I am aware James ch 2 vs 10, but God makes it clear we will be judged for every single sin on judgement day

No group discounts or repeat customer/sinner bonus?

[Onetimehard]

No group discounts or repeat customer/sinner bonus?

[Alex23]

SILENCE 

Calm Biden it's not that toupe serious.

[avxo]

No it is not and yes I am aware James ch 2 vs 10, but God makes it clear we will be judged for every single sin on judgement day

I meant it's all the same in the sense that one sin "costs" as much as a million.

[stingray]

Ha ha yeah right. People who try to leave are shunned and recieve death threats. The ones who do convert or abandon religion altoghther switch to a different country to avoid the abuse. There wasa high profile case of one muslim who converted to christianity. The church decided to use him as an advertisement for their religion and he had to go underground thanks to all the death threats and abuse he recieved. Another case was a boy who had abandoned islam altoghther was almost killed by his so called best friends. Luckily his aunt had overheard their conversation and was able to warn him in time. When arrested they said islam allows the killing of those who abandon islam and those who do the killing of such deserters will be rewarded.

No compulsion my ass.

I understand you have a billion stories about muslims, but at the end of the day, the prophet Mohamed is my teacher and i follow his teachings when it comes to religion.I wouldnt give a damn if every msulism for example stole, cheated, abused etc, the prophet Mohamed didnt teach us to steal, cheat, harm etc, so in essence he is my example.

And myself posting as a muslim, if somebody came to me and wants to leave islam, and not many people leave islam anyway, i would sit the person down and work out the issue he has.If the are adamant they were to leave, then i would feel sorry for them, and will disagree with his conclusion, but that doesnt give me the right to harm or abuse the person.At the end of the day, God will judge him.

Prophet Mohamed parents were non muslims, did he abuse or hurt them,NO.Prophet Mohameds uncle was a non muslim, his neighbours were non muslims, did he harm them because there not muslim, NO.

[E-Kul]

the prophet Mohamed is my teacher, so in essence he is my example.

HA HA, your role model is a pedo, shouldn't that be a crime, following in the footsteps of the worlds most famous paedophile.