The infidels:

Discussion about the Quran, hadith, the history of Islam, etc.
User avatar
JPCusickSr
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 7:50 am
Location: 20636
Contact:

Re: The infidels:

Post by JPCusickSr » Tue Mar 21, 2017 11:34 am

outhouse wrote: Academic knowledge is based on evidence and reasoning, not belief with a lack of both.
I have very little respect for academic knowledge.

Yes it serves its own useful purpose, but it lacks the higher levels of faith and revelation and fun.

Still I do know that there is no way to get you or others around that restrictive obstacle of academic knowledge.
outhouse wrote: You are speaking of "some" scientific terms in this context. I disagree with said findings.
I was thinking about such disciplines as Biblical Criticism where the Muslims and Jews are far more open to that, while Christianity is not.

The Second Vatican Council under Pope Paul VI (1965) embraced Biblical Criticism but they did not pursue it any further after that.

Of course no religion of any merit accepts the ignorant interpretations of the Biblical Criticism as promoted by the heathen and Atheist and infidels.
outhouse wrote: Reality dictates factually islam requires more fanaticism and fundamentalism then all combined.
In my view reality is another name for God, and reality dictating anything can only be God dictating, of course there must be accurate interpretations.

Again - in my view = things like fanaticism and fundamentalism are high virtues to be praised and encouraged.

It is very reasonable that the huge and dynamic growth of Islam nationwide and worldwide is because of those virtues of fanaticism and fundamentalism.

The reason Christianity is so lacking is because it lacks fanaticism and fundamentalism, which is dying off in Christianity.
outhouse wrote: All of islam, YEC and orthodox jews have high levels of nuttiness.
The entire human race is made up of nuttiness and low character and with widespread ignorance and barbarians.

Outside of religion is the same and worse.
outhouse wrote: But orthodox and YEC are minorities in each faith.
That is no surprise, because the orthodoxies and the YEC are not correctly based on the true scriptures.
SIGNATURE:
JP Cusick Sr.

outhouse
Posts: 3532
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The infidels:

Post by outhouse » Wed Mar 22, 2017 8:31 am

JPCusickSr wrote:[I have very little respect for academic knowledge.

.

That is a personal problem and you may want to find another forum because this one is not an apologetic faith based discussion board.

outhouse
Posts: 3532
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The infidels:

Post by outhouse » Wed Mar 22, 2017 8:34 am

JPCusickSr wrote: I was thinking about such disciplines as Biblical Criticism where the Muslims and Jews are far more open to that, while Christianity is not.
.

That answer is not honest and very hypocritical.

Muslims are not open at all to koran criticism, in no part in any way at all. As to where many Christians enjoy biblical criticism, Marcus Borg attracted many, as well as many other scholars.

Many if not most Jews are not orthodox, and spend a lot of time wanting to learn real biblical text.

Moderation is key here, and islam has the least amount of moderation

User avatar
JPCusickSr
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 7:50 am
Location: 20636
Contact:

Re: The infidels:

Post by JPCusickSr » Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:16 pm

outhouse wrote:
JPCusickSr wrote:I have very little respect for academic knowledge.
That is a personal problem and you may want to find another forum because this one is not an apologetic faith based discussion board.
This forum does (as far as I can see) not claim to be just academic and no apologetics, but there still is that possibility that you are the forum owner in disguise? or maybe the spoiled relative of the owner so that you get to bully any member who you disapprove of?

I have been booted off of other forums based on assorted version of their intolerance, and I have quit a bunch of forums too, so it is all trial and error.

The one true problem with Biblical Criticism and with history is the stubborn restrictions of academics which shut out the better parts of any discussion on the subjects by claiming it is not science or not math or not physics, etc etc etc.

We are not to be robots or automatons or unfeeling Vulcans, so when you remove the human experience then the academics is just for fools.

Albert Einstein said it best = "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
outhouse wrote:
JPCusickSr wrote: I was thinking about such disciplines as Biblical Criticism where the Muslims and Jews are far more open to that, while Christianity is not.
That answer is not honest and very hypocritical.
Well I actually deal with religious people and it is a big part of my life, so I did say that as true and honest as I find it to be.

I am not orthodox and I belong to no denomination so I see no hypocrisy in my words.
outhouse wrote: Muslims are not open at all to koran criticism, in no part in any way at all. As to where many Christians enjoy biblical criticism, Marcus Borg attracted many, as well as many other scholars.
Yes - I did mean only Biblical Criticism, and not the Qur'an, and the Qur'an is not to be so critically evaluated as done to the Bible. Like apples and oranges.

There are some relatively few Christians who embrace scholarly Biblical Criticism, not counting the Vatican II, but the vast majority do not. We need only remember what Protestant Christians did to crush the "Jesus Seminar" to know that reality.
outhouse wrote: Many if not most Jews are not orthodox, and spend a lot of time wanting to learn real biblical text.
Some of them do.

Unfortunately Judaism has other big problems which override everything else, including any effort they might make.

And like most of humanity - most people claim to seek when in fact they do not want the truth, and will fight against anyone who offers the truth.
outhouse wrote: Moderation is key here, and islam has the least amount of moderation
You throw words around like daggers, when moderation is okay in some worldly ways, but in religion then moderation is to be spit out, see "Lukewarm" here = Revelations 3:15-17

I am not moderate.

To be moderate in religion is to be a sheep amongst wolves.
SIGNATURE:
JP Cusick Sr.

outhouse
Posts: 3532
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The infidels:

Post by outhouse » Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:49 pm

JPCusickSr wrote:This forum does (as far as I can see) not claim to be just academic and no apologetics, but there still is that possibility that you are the forum owner in disguise? or maybe the spoiled relative of the owner so that you get to bully any member who you disapprove of?

.

No one is bullying you. I warned you personally from the very beginning that apologetic rhetoric does not fly in ANY scholarly circles.

Biblical criticism and apologetic rhetoric do not mix at all. One is evidence based and the other faith based. You don't get to mix the two.

You had the owner tell you he has no part in my replies and that he is light handed moderating. My Name is John Winford and I have never taken credit for Peter Kirby's great work here.
I have been booted off of other forums based on assorted version of their intolerance,
Here it is easy to expose the lack of intellect, or lack of education of those who make up religion as they go. We are strong on evidence, reason and logic. Faith is not a tool welcomed or used here in any way.

Post as you like but don't cry when you get hammered for apologetic rhetoric. I gave you an honest and reasonable dialogue to get your point across. You did, your an apologist, not a historian.

Here we care about history. Not pseudohistory.

User avatar
JPCusickSr
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 7:50 am
Location: 20636
Contact:

Re: The infidels:

Post by JPCusickSr » Wed Mar 22, 2017 2:31 pm

outhouse wrote: You don't get to mix the two.

I get to mix whatever I choose, and it is not for you to dictate otherwise.

As I have said a couple times = "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Einstein is saying to mix it up.

So do I follow the affirmation from Einstein? or do I follow the rules of the outhouse? Just take a guess which one.
outhouse wrote: We are strong on evidence, reason and logic. Faith is not a tool welcomed or used here in any way.

... I gave you an honest and reasonable dialogue to get your point across.

Here we care about history. Not pseudohistory.
You certainly toot your own horn well enough.

Real faith is for the strong, and accurate faith makes a person strong, and true faith is not for the timid.

And even though you fail to see it = you are expressing your own faith in academics, and so your faith is simply misguided and incomplete.

The ancients gave us the knowledge needed to transcend our limited academics.
SIGNATURE:
JP Cusick Sr.

outhouse
Posts: 3532
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The infidels:

Post by outhouse » Wed Mar 22, 2017 5:07 pm

JPCusickSr wrote: As I have said a couple times = "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

.

That is your personal opinion, but thanks to different branches of science that has helped historical studies, now show clearly how man made all gods in great detail.

It has showed how only people define gods and change the definition by political changes alone.

Monotheism was born because of political changes alone under King Josiah.

outhouse
Posts: 3532
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The infidels:

Post by outhouse » Wed Mar 22, 2017 5:10 pm

JPCusickSr wrote:You throw words around like daggers,.

The idiocy still promoted by most theist, needs to be addressed as humans are supposed to learn from past mistakes, not to keep repeating them.

You cannot argue that fanaticism and fundamentalism are good for humanity.

User avatar
JPCusickSr
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 7:50 am
Location: 20636
Contact:

Re: The infidels:

Post by JPCusickSr » Thu Mar 23, 2017 12:52 pm

outhouse wrote: Monotheism was born because of political changes alone under King Josiah.
I can not see why you or others view that as so conclusive or so important.

My finding is that monotheism is not true, and it is not based on any credible scripture or on reasoning or on any common sense.

If there is an Angel or a Demon or a Saint or any other life-form in the spirit realm then they are all Gods to humans.

The old Greeks were very intelligent in their view of the many Gods and demigods and human-gods.

There is an old theory going back as far as the 14th century that the Greek Gods are referenced in the Bible Genesis 6:2-5, but Christianity rejected that notion with suppression.

The Bible words of "Yahweh Elohim" is correctly translated as Father-of-the-Gods (Elohim = plural).
So the Bible declares that there is a hierarchy of Deities.

And in fact humans are children of God, which means that each person is a God too, see "ye are gods" John 10:34-35

The so-called "Kingdom of God" means a form of government (a Kingdom) having higher ranking and lower ranking members.

The human idea of monotheism was just a vain claim that their one God is better than the other Gods.
outhouse wrote: You cannot argue that fanaticism and fundamentalism are good for humanity.
I have argued that those are better for the individual(s).

As to humanity - that is not a true concern.
SIGNATURE:
JP Cusick Sr.

outhouse
Posts: 3532
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The infidels:

Post by outhouse » Thu Mar 23, 2017 6:33 pm

JPCusickSr wrote: The Bible words of "Yahweh Elohim" is correctly translated as Father-of-the-Gods (Elohim = plural).
So the Bible declares that there is a hierarchy of Deities.
.

Incomplete. Time is key here and changes context. After monotheistic redaction to the text, Elohim was the new definition, but Elohim goes back further and had a different definition before the redactions. At one time it meant accepting El under henotheism.

El is not Yahweh and that is a fact not up for debate.

During the factual monotheistic redactions they were fused together, but some traditions started as early as 800 BC or a hair before.

Post Reply