Do you believe in God?

[Famine]

I believe that jealousy is protective jealousy.

Jealousy is, specifically, the fear (and associated anger) that what others have diminishes or devalues what you have.

That's an intensely curious state for an all-powerful deity.

 

[Joey D]

(and the fourth one too... Mormons, although I think they call it "Spirit Prison")

Finally my learning in Utah is paying off. The Spirit Prison is along the lines of purgatory and is supposed to be a temporary place for "wicked" people to go before the final judgement. The eternal place for those who don't pass the final judgement is the Outer Darkness, which is along the lines of hell.

The Plan of Salvation is really strange, even for Mormons.

 

[AdamA998]

Ok, great. Protective jealousy over the notion of worshiping other gods is... narcissism.

No it's not, he presents the people the answer to their origin and demands they worship him or emulate his attributes on earth. He does not disregard anyones feelings, instead calls them forward to present their feelings and demands to him in prayer. He has answered to peoples disputes with him or misunderstandings or criticisms of him in the text.

So... coming back around to the point. Great, you don't believe in hell. That's fine. Whatever punishment you think sinners and non-believers get, you must believe it applies to those who break the rule of worshiping false gods right? Infidels deserve some kind of punishment right? What kind of god demands love and obedience at the threat of punishment?

Hell is real in Islam, eternal damnation is not. Islam goes a lot more into detail than just polytheism or monotheism. Just because you believe in One God does not guarantee you will evade hell. It is way deeper than that, depends on your intentions, values, actions, ability to refrain from sinning, how you treat others(normal people in your life), etc.... Many factors are taken into account. God does not blackmail, he does punish but he tells those who don't want to believe to go on their own path they think is superior. And that's what we see throughout history, he leaves people to make their decisions with exceptions of certain Prophet's that he grants success to in order to complete a religion or make it clear to people.

Jealousy is, specifically, the fear (and associated anger) that what others have diminishes or devalues what you have.

That's an intensely curious state for an all-powerful deity.

https://islamqa.info/en/161451

.......

 

[Famine]

https://islamqa.info/en/161451

I'd no more click on an absolutely unreferenced and obfuscated link in a forum post than I would in my email inbox.

 

[AdamA998]

I'd no more click on an absolutely unreferenced and obfuscated link in a forum post than I would in my email inbox.

You wanted clarification on what 'protective jealousy' is understood as, I gave you the link with references. Here is one:

1. It was narrated from Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) from the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) that he said: “Allah has protective jealousy, and the protective jealousy of Allah is provoked when the believer does something that Allah has forbidden.”

Narrated by al-Bukhaari (4925) and Muslim (2761).


......

Sahih Muslim and Sahih Al Bukhari are two of the four major narration or Hadith books in Sunni Islam, so there are definitely references.

 

[Famine]

You wanted clarification on what 'protective jealousy' is understood as

Nope. I stated what jealousy is and said it's a curious behaviour to exhibit for an all powerful being. At no point did I request any clarification.

I gave you the link with references.

But the link was obscured (there was no descriptor in the link, just numerals) and you gave absolutely no context for providing that link, giving me no reason whatsoever for clicking on it. So I didn't.

If you're going to post links, at least explain what they are.

 

[AdamA998]

I'm attempting to.


Nope.



No I didn't make an assumption. I said 'it seems', assumption would be 'you are'.

I'm not sure if this is down to a language barrier, but I most certainly didn't assume I simply put across how your responses could be read.



Then why did you offer to do so:

"Well I have a different perspective(as opposed to mainstream Muslim beliefs on him) on Prophet Mohammed, and if you'd like I could share that. I am most familiar with him."

Those are your words and all I did was reply OK, you had not at that point said you did not want to go into detail on Mohammed, quite the opposite.


You don't need to recognise the authority of the text to re-enforce the analogy it is.



I am 100% not.


Which is why I said 'it seems', not 'you are'.


Sorry, but you don't get to tell others what they should post, I will reply to your posts in the manner I wish to, and as long as its within the AUP its not going to be an issue.

Yes you did lie. I did not 'reinforce' that verse, I first clarified I don't regard it authentic. I then was interested as to why your focus is on enabling one wrong doing to counter another one and suggested your immediate intention should to promote respect going both ways between parents and children.

You can say 'it seems' or whatever, you came to a conclusion that also be described as an assumption. Just because your assumption wasn't confirmed doesn't make it not an assumption.

So whatever discussion you want to have, we would have to start from scratch. But, I gotta go for now.

Nope. I stated what jealousy is and said it's a curious behaviour to exhibit for an all powerful being. At no point did I request any clarification.
.

Then don't quote me if you weren't requesting a clarification.

 

[Danoff]

No it's not, he presents the people the answer to their origin and demands they worship him or emulate his attributes on earth.

That's not narcissistic? If I were going to emulate his attributes, I'd demand that my children worship me and emulate me, and that they... do horrible things... to people that don't. I'd be jealous if they didn't. If I were going to emulate his attributes, I'd demand things that were contradictory to my previous demands, and tell my children that I will do horrible things to them if they do not obey. I'd forgive them, but only if they worshiped me.

Hell is real in Islam, eternal damnation is not.

Ok. I think I addressed that

So... coming back around to the point. Great, you don't believe in hell. That's fine. Whatever punishment you think sinners and non-believers get, you must believe it applies to those who break the rule of worshiping false gods right? Infidels deserve some kind of punishment right? What kind of god demands love and obedience at the threat of punishment?

Then don't quote me if you weren't requesting a clarification.

 

[Scaff]

Yes you did lie. I did not 'reinforce' that verse, I first clarified I don't regard it authentic. I then was interested as to why your focus is on enabling one wrong doing to counter another one and suggested your immediate intention should to promote respect going both ways between parents and children.

No its not a lie.

A lie would be asking if a subject is OK for you to cover, me saying 'OK' and you then claiming you didn't want to talk about it at all.

Now that would be a lie.

You can say 'it seems' or whatever, you came to a conclusion that also be described as an assumption. Just because your assumption wasn't confirmed doesn't make it not an assumption.

Not in the English language its not.

Then don't quote me if you weren't requesting a clarification.

Cut the attitude.

 

[Famine]

Then don't quote me if you weren't requesting a clarification.

I quoted you because you said your deity exhibited jealousy. I was responding to your comments - pointing out that it's a very strange behaviour for an all-powerful being to be afraid that what others have diminishes what it has - thus I was quoting you. Your comment, you get quoted.

I didn't ask you for anything in my response, much less your 'clarification' (I'm quite clear on the meaning of the word "jealousy", thank you), or a completely unreferenced link.


Aside from that, I - and anyone else - can quote anyone they please, and your appalling attitude about it will not get you very far.

 

[AdamA998]

No its not a lie.

A lie would be asking if a subject is OK for you to cover, me saying 'OK' and you then claiming you didn't want to talk about it at all.

Now that would be a lie.

So now after you're lying you're going to pretend I wasn't referring to that biblical verse about executing children who curse their parents and instead make it about the other part of our discussion about whether you want me to describe Mohammed's traits. I'm referring you to lying about me reinforcing that biblical verse regarding children disobeying their parents. And you know that, stop pretending like you don't.

Not in the English language its not.

Born in an English speaking country and speak English, you made an assumption that wasn't confirmed.

Cut the attitude.

Being a moderator doesn't make you right, so if you can't man up and just admit you lied in one case and made an assumption in other, and pursue to ban me for your inability to own up to what you said, then that just makes you an unethical person. And it makes me an ethically superior one, as I owned up to an assumption I made and corrected my mistake in the discussion I had with you.

I quoted you because you said your deity exhibited jealousy. I was responding to your comments - pointing out that it's a very strange behaviour for an all-powerful being to be afraid that what others have diminishes what it has - thus I was quoting you. Your comment, you get quoted.

I didn't ask you for anything in my response, much less your 'clarification' (I'm quite clear on the meaning of the word "jealousy", thank you), or a completely unreferenced link.


Aside from that, I - and anyone else - can quote anyone they please, and your appalling attitude about it will not get you very far.

You quoted me so that comment could be directed at me for further debate. I gave you a link to explain what it means in my faith. You got rude and stated you won't click on the link just as you won't click on spam mail in your inbox. You should have thus not quoted me and made a post for others to view and agree with your point. So don't blame me for your mistake.

And I'm not worried about your threat to ban me. It will, however, show the audience here that certain moderators and admins abuse their powers and are not tolerant of someone speaking in favor of the Abrahamic God. As clearly some got offended by a discussion they weren't involved in and then decided to go on tantrums quoting me and then decided to threaten to ban me for rejecting those tantrums.

 

[Famine]

You quoted me so that comment could be directed at me for further debate.

Nope. I already explained why I quoted you.

I gave you a link to explain what it means in my faith. You got rude and stated you won't click on the link just as you won't click on spam mail in your inbox.

Nope. I already explained why I won't click on an anonymous link provided with no context.

You should have thus not quoted me and made a post for others to view and agree with your point.

Nope. I already explained why I quoted you.

And I'm not worried about your threat to ban me.

Nope. No-one's threatened you with anything.

It will, however, show the audience here that certain moderators and admins abuse their powers and are not tolerant of someone speaking in favor of the Abrahamic God.

Nope. We've been discussing it for a decade.

As clearly some got offended by a discussion they weren't involved in and then decided to go on tantrums quoting me and then decided to threaten to ban me for rejecting those tantrums.

Nope. No-one's threatened you with anything.

Want to try again? If you wanted to respond to my comment about jealousy being a strange emotion for an omnipotent deity, perhaps explain why you think it isn't strange rather than firing a random link at me without any context or reason for me to click on it.

 

[AdamA998]

'Cut the attitude' , 'Your appalling attitude will not get you far' .... on any forum that's a warning that you are soon to be banned. I explained myself and the viewers can judge on their own. As for protective jealousy being a strange emotion, don't see why, doesn't contradict God being All powerful. Just means he is mysterious and we do not know much about his attributes in depth.

 

[Famine]

'Cut the attitude' , 'Your appalling attitude will not get you far' .... on any forum that's a warning that you are soon to be banned.

Nope. A warning in your inbox is a warning that you may soon be banned.

As for protective jealousy being a strange emotion, don't see why, doesn't contradict God being All powerful.

Jealousy is the fear (and associated anger) that what someone else has diminishes what you have. It's distinct from envy in that envy is simply wanting what someone else has, whereas jealousy has the added emotion and the concept that what they have harms you or what you have by virtue of them having it. A man can be envious of another's girlfriend, but jealous if it's his wife. Jealousy is a fear response.

It's incredible odd that a being with limitless power can be afraid that someone else has something that diminishes them - when they have the power to possess that thing at a whim. And what other individual could possess things and make a deity afraid?


"Protective jealousy" is a behaviour of dogs. They fear that when you stroke another dog - or sometimes another human being - they'll lose you from their pack and will guard you against the other dog or person. It's a useful behaviour in a guard animal, but something we tend to train out of pets because they can behave aggressively towards the humans you interact with (spouse, children) otherwise.

I have no idea what use this behaviour would be in a deity.

 

[huskeR32]

It will, however, show the audience here that certain moderators and admins abuse their powers and are not tolerant of someone speaking in favor of the Abrahamic God.

I, for one, am not seeing anything of the sort.

 

[Joey D]

And I'm not worried about your threat to ban me. It will, however, show the audience here that certain moderators and admins abuse their powers and are not tolerant of someone speaking in favor of the Abrahamic God. As clearly some got offended by a discussion they weren't involved in and then decided to go on tantrums quoting me and then decided to threaten to ban me for rejecting those tantrums.

It's a discussion, some might agree with you while others don't. You have given your position, yes, but folks have the right to question it. It's the backbone of a discussion board.

 

[Scaff]

So now after you're lying you're going to pretend I wasn't referring to that biblical verse about executing children who curse their parents and instead make it about the other part of our discussion about whether you want me to describe Mohammed's traits. I'm referring you to lying about me reinforcing that biblical verse regarding children disobeying their parents. And you know that, stop pretending like you don't.

Nope.

In regards to the quote about killing kids who disrespected parents I said I was surprised you focused on the children's behaviour rather than the murder.

The quote your behaviour re-enforced was the one about taking the plank out of your own eye before taking another to task over a twig in theirs.

So no I didn't lie and as such I expect a correction from you.

Born in an English speaking country and speak English, you made an assumption that wasn't confirmed.

Then you have no excuse.

Oh and it wasn't an assumption in this case either it was a supposition. As I said 'I suspect....'.

Being a moderator doesn't make you right, so if you can't man up and just admit you lied in one case and made an assumption in other, and pursue to ban me for your inability to own up to what you said, then that just makes you an unethical person. And it makes me an ethically superior one, as I owned up to an assumption I made and corrected my mistake in the discussion I had with you.

Except I didn't lie.

You got two parts of my posts mixed up an accused me of a serious AUP violation, that doesn't make me unethical or you ethically superior.

 

[Imari]

What do we reckon the over under is? Page 693 before he does something bannable?

 

[AdamA998]

It's a discussion, some might agree with you while others don't. You have given your position, yes, but folks have the right to question it. It's the backbone of a discussion board.

Yes, but it seemed like some people wanted to get involved in the discussion but didn't find another way other than to quote me. Most people are sharing their perspectives and not questioning anything. So not sure why they're quoting me. I wouldn't mind it if it is sharing each others thoughts, but it's arguing and trying to prove a point.

Nope.

In regards to the quote about killing kids who disrespected parents I said I was surprised you focused on the children's behaviour rather than the murder.

The quote your behaviour re-enforced was the one about taking the plank out of your own eye before taking another to task over a twig in theirs.

So no I didn't lie and as such I expect a correction from you.

This is the third time you changed your reason about 'reinforcing the verse' fiasco. No amount of rambling is going to change the fact you lied. You can have a million people thank your posts or you can ramble forever, and you can have the last word if that makes you feel better. Will not change that you lied.

Oh and it wasn't an assumption in this case either it was a supposition. As I said 'I suspect....'.

Nope, if it was uncertain you wouldn't follow through with 'as evident by your defensiveness ...'. You made an assumption and even if you believe it was a supposition, you would correct yourself. You didn't.

You got two parts of my posts mixed up an accused me of a serious AUP violation, that doesn't make me unethical or you ethically superior.

Lol, what violation did I accuse you of? Whatever the case you need not to think about that, because I am no weak person who resorts to dirty tactics like you do(like changing your reasoning behind a lie 3 times). And I will definitely not request to silence you like you threatened towards me. And I won't crash a thread rambling about a having a tattoo looking for cookie points from people as I never grew up succumbing to peer pressure or trying to get affirmation from people just for the sake of feeling good or for attention.

What do we reckon the over under is? Page 693 before he does something bannable?

^^^

Weak person that resorts to belittling because of his lack of ethics.

 

[UKMikey]

Weak person that resorts to belittling because of his lack of ethics.

So why are you belittling him?

 

[AdamA998]

So why are you belittling him?

Because it's the right thing to do in this case. Same reason I would stop a bully from bullying a victim or stop one from sexually assaulting a woman. Or any other uncalled for belittling/attacks. Why didn't you focus on what he said, just curious?

 

[Famine]

Because it's the right thing to do in this case.

Guess again:

You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack any individual or any group.

A prediction of your behaviour patterns is not necessarily equivalent to insulting you. However you've responded with insulting that user.

Every post you're making you're almost looking for an excuse to start a fight with someone. You're capable of responding without doing so - I've seen it - but you don't seem willing to.

Reread this and start again: https://www.gtplanet.net/aup

 

[AdamA998]

Guess again:

A prediction of your behaviour patterns is not necessarily equivalent to insulting you. However you've responded with insulting that user.

Every post you're making you're almost looking for an excuse to start a fight with someone. You're capable of responding without doing so - I've seen it - but you don't seem willing to.

Reread this and start again: https://www.gtplanet.net/aup

So belittling/flaming is acceptable as long as no 'insults' are used? Just ban me already since I'm violating the rules. I said earlier I don't hold small transgressions any less than big ones. Because I'm a sincere believer in God and only with God can humanity find justice. You guys aren't believers in justice and good, you are believers in efficiency. And that means all you have to do is find loopholes and more efficient, convenient ways to carry on with wrongdoings. I'm not frustrated over this little thing but rather frustrated with the overall state of humanity. Nevertheless ban me and save from continuing on this pointless discussion.

 

[UKMikey]

Why didn't you focus on what he said, just curious?

Okay, I will.

I'm thinking page 692.

You guys aren't believers in justice and good, you are believers in efficiency. And that means all you have to do is find loopholes and more efficient, convenient ways to carry on with wrongdoings.

I'm not sure joining a decade-long conversation solely in order to berate everyone else for being less righteous than yourself is either just or good but it certainly sounds pretty Abrahamic to me. As I recall, much of the early part of the Old Testament consisted of the tribes of Israel picking fights with everyone they met too.

 

[Joey D]

So belittling/flaming is acceptable as long as no 'insults' are used? Just ban me already since I'm violating the rules. I said earlier I don't hold small transgressions any less than big ones. Because I'm a sincere believer in God and only with God can humanity find justice. You guys aren't believers in justice and good, you are believers in efficiency. And that means all you have to do is find loopholes and more efficient, convenient ways to carry on with wrongdoings. I'm not frustrated over this little thing but rather frustrated with the overall state of humanity. Nevertheless ban me and save from continuing on this pointless discussion.

I think most of us are believers in justice and good. To hold those beliefs one doesn't need to be religious, they just needn't be a jerk.

But since you believe in Mohammad's word, I am curious, what are your thoughts on violence against non-believers? If the Quran is truly God's word through Mohammad, then it must be a true command yes?

[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."
Quran 8:12

 

[Famine]

So belittling/flaming is acceptable as long as no 'insults' are used?

It depends on context. Insults only have one context: to be insulting.

Just ban me already since I'm violating the rules.

That's our decision to make, not yours.

Because I'm a sincere believer in God and only with God can humanity find justice.

A deity that calls for execution for not recognising it is not a source of justice.

You guys aren't believers in justice and good, you are believers in efficiency.

That's an interesting and unsupportable conclusion. I don't believe in anything, really. I don't know about the other 250,000 members though - I can only speak for my own beliefs, or lack of them. As can you.

And that means all you have to do is find loopholes and more efficient, convenient ways to carry on with wrongdoings.

Give me an example of these wrongdoings I'm doing and loopholes I'm finding to do so.

I'm not frustrated over this little thing but rather frustrated with the overall state of humanity.

Perhaps if you interacted with humanity in a far less combative manner, you would be less frustrated.

Nevertheless ban me and save from continuing on this pointless discussion.

You are choosing to participate of your own free will. No-one is forcing you. If it is so frustrating to the point where you abuse other users, perhaps you should save yourself.

 

[Dotini]

@AdamA998, may I respectfully ask you for any remarks you would care to make regarding the Djinn, please? I've read over most of the references to them in the Koran. Im particularly interested if you could add, or say if you think they may be yet present and with us here in reality, here on Earth now. Thank you for your time away from your main discussion. I hope you find a way to avoid banishment. I know you could do it if you really wanted to.

 

[Scaff]

This is the third time you changed your reason about 'reinforcing the verse' fiasco. No amount of rambling is going to change the fact you lied. You can have a million people thank your posts or you can ramble forever, and you can have the last word if that makes you feel better. Will not change that you lied.

Then you will have no problem at all quoting me doing so.

I expect to the solid evidence that I have deliberately mislead the community.

I've not rambled, I've been quite specific and attempted to illustrate exactly which of my posts related to which of the two Ambrhamic quotes. You have refused to accept any of that and resorted to the same baseless accusation.

I have no reason to lie about this, nor have I changed my reason once, the chain of posts is quite clear and the mistake lies with you.

The chain of events:

Conversation A
Me: I provided a list of example of common situations with rather extreme punishments in Abrehamic texts (at this stage you had only identified as believing in an Abrehamic god).

You: Do you want judgement or advise?

Me: No thanks, you stated gods model was the one to follow, what do you think of these.

You: Show the text that says any of that, at which point you identify as a Muslim.

Me: OK you didn't say you were Muslim, I then provide the relevant chapter and verse, as you had asked for it. At no point did I say it was Islamic, I said it was Abrehamic (as it is).

You: Muslims don't literally believe those texts, are you saying kids shouldn't be good?

Me: I didn't assume you did, I was just discussing it. I then asked why you focused on the ids behavior and not the parents killing them. The reason being that's not the part I personally would initially raise an issue with.

You: What makes you think I would raise kids in a certain way

Me: I didn't say anything about that, I just asked why you focused on that bit?
End of conversation A

Conversation B
Me: Why is your God right and all of the other ones wrong?

You: There's only one God, he's not an idol nor a man nor an object in space. I am arguing for God(the one that is most plausible to most people) and his model, not for my specific religion. Nevertheless I do believe my religion is the truth.

Me: Going to have to ask you for some proof of that factual statement. Your arguing for his model but seem to not know parts of it, its your religion but you don't know that much of its borrowed from other faiths, you claim that its the most plausible but offer nothing to support that.

It all sounds a bit like you don't know it quite as well as you are making out.

You: I think we can all agree that if people believed in a God, it is referring to a supernatural higher being that is not an idol or man or the Sun or anything else like that.

Me: That doesn't actually answer any of my questions at all. Nor can you say that we all agree on the point you have just made. I hold no belief in any form of god, gods or deity. The lack of evidence for all of them is equally (and amount to zero).

You: Well good for you, I was as clear and concise as I could be. You aren't looking for answer, that I can tell.

Me: And once again I get attitude from a perfectly reasonable post.

Ask yourself this, given that I have been polite and resonable in all my posts to you, and you are the one being defensive, thinking the worst of others, assuming you know what I am thinking and how I am going to react. Who exactly is it that has the poor morale outlook here? The theist or the atheist? Abrehamic texts even have a saying for this kind of attitude:

Matthew 7:5 "You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

You: It doesn't work that way, I told you that the God most refer to or are in search for is a being or energy as some people outside of our realm or the God considered to be the creator. I'm sure those in debate religion sites are debating over that kind of God and not the Sun or a sculpture on earth. So if you want to argue for the sake of arguing, then you're not looking for my perspective and giving me no reason to go on with the discussion.

Me: I'm not arguming for the sake of arguing.
I'm simply saying that I don;t hold to any of those beliefs or favour one over the other. I have an absence of belief in any god, gods or form of deity.
The form god/gods are said to take or not doesn't change or influence that in any way at all; that's my perspective and if that offends you to the degree that you feel I am being disrespectful then I can do nothing about that, but be assured that is a presumption you are making nor one I am making.

You: Not offended by you at all, you're just a waste of my energy and time at this point. You threw a certain biblical verse at me that had no relevance to the discussion and didn't establish any argument or explain the reasoning behind that.

Me: An Abrehamic verse that you have just re-enforced to a very large degree.
It's seems you don't want to discuss but rather minister and convert, given the totally defensive nature you have turned to.
Please don't claim to not be offended, when you quite clearly are by even the most basic level of discussion.

You: No I didn't, I don't recognize authenticity of that text in order to 'reinforce' it. That post you are referring to was attention to detail on my part. There was no 'reinforcing' going on.

Me: Do you still not see that you entire post here is (as you don't like a particular quote) a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

You: You lied about me justifying a text that I don't recognize in to be authentic in the first place.
End of Conversation B

At this point you seem to have mixed up the quote from conversation A, with the quote from conversation B.

I have no idea why as conversation A was done at this point, and I was quite clearly talking about the verse from Matthew, as I re-phrased it as 'the pot calling the kettle black'. You even quoted my post with the re-phrase in it as you started to call me a liar!

At which point you have then gone on to repeatedly call me a liar and refuse to accept any attempt by me to point out that you had got the two mixed up.

Nope, if it was uncertain you wouldn't follow through with 'as evident by your defensiveness ...'. You made an assumption and even if you believe it was a supposition, you would correct yourself. You didn't.

Evidence from your actions that lead to that supposition, one doesn;t make a supposition based on nothing.

Lol, what violation did I accuse you of?

Do you not recall the AUP that you stated you had read, understood and agreed to follow when you joined?

It contains this: "You will not knowingly post any material that is false, misleading, or inaccurate."

As such, yes you have accused me of a serious AUP violation, as such I expect you to support that accusation with some quite compelling evidence.

Whatever the case you need not to think about that, because I am no weak person who resorts to dirty tactics like you do(like changing your reasoning behind a lie 3 times).

More accusations without evidence.

And I will definitely not request to silence you like you threatened towards me.

I've not threatened you, I've reminded you of the AUP you agreed to follow when you joined.

And I won't crash a thread rambling about a having a tattoo looking for cookie points from people as I never grew up succumbing to peer pressure or trying to get affirmation from people just for the sake of feeling good or for attention.

Now who is making assumptions!

You have no idea at all why I got my tattoos and under what circumstances, nor do you know the personal meanings to me behind them.

As for crashing a thread? Have you any idea how long I've been contributing to the discussion in this thread?

 

[AdamA998]

I think most of us are believers in justice and good. To hold those beliefs one doesn't need to be religious, they just needn't be a jerk.

It's my fault I'm not making it clear that I don't categorize people as religious vs. non- religious or Muslim vs. non-Muslim. I hold no bias towards Muslims and find a lot people in the Muslim world to be oppressive and I disagree with their priorities. For example many of them focus on converting people, I am of opposite philosophy and think they need to work on themselves. They have their faults in their own ways and others have faults in their ways as well. So my distinction is literally between those who promote or enable or support things I find unjust and they can be simple things to things like supporting unnecessary violence or war.

But since you believe in Mohammad's word, I am curious, what are your thoughts on violence against non-believers? If the Quran is truly God's word through Mohammad, then it must be a true command yes?

[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."
Quran 8:12

I don't believe this regards disbelievers in general but specifically the disbelievers at the time this verse was revealed. Mohammed was born in Mecca and lived most of his life there. He preached there for his first 10 years of prophethood and eventually migrated to Medina(another city north of Mecca in modern day Saudi Arabia). This is where local tribes from Mecca confronted Mohammed and his followers in Medina in battle known as the battle of Badr. Muslims were losing the battle and Mohammed supplicated to God in a plea telling God that if he could not get his assistance there Islam would not survive and no one would worship God. After that supplication that verse you provided was revealed to him and that is God responding with 'I am with you ...'. And he granted them help of angels.

It depends on context. Insults only have one context: to be insulting.

That's our decision to make, not yours.

Fair enough.

A deity that calls for execution for not recognising it is not a source of justice.

Which deity?

That's an interesting and unsupportable conclusion. I don't believe in anything, really. I don't know about the other 250,000 members though - I can only speak for my own beliefs, or lack of them. As can you.

Please refer to my response to Joey.

Perhaps if you interacted with humanity in a far less combative manner, you would be less frustrated.

This is good wisdom that I read over several times and I have no problem learning things from others, appreciate it.

You are choosing to participate of your own free will. No-one is forcing you. If it is so frustrating to the point where you abuse other users, perhaps you should save yourself.

If you believe I abused others you can ban me, I don't mind a break right now, lol. I think it went downhill when me and Scaff got into an discussion with misunderstandings of each others posts.

@AdamA998, may I respectfully ask you for any remarks you would care to make regarding the Djinn, please? I've read over most of the references to them in the Koran. Im particularly interested if you could add, or say if you think they may be yet present and with us here in reality, here on Earth now. Thank you for your time away from your main discussion. I hope you find a way to avoid banishment. I know you could do it if you really wanted to.

Sure, I'm assuming you're referring to Jinn, those other beings? I do not pay attention to the concept of jinns nor consider them important in the faith. They are real entities according to Islam but I wouldn't take any possession stories or anything like that seriously.

 

[Imari]

Weak person that resorts to belittling because of his lack of ethics.

Ah, abuse.

What ethical lapses exactly have I shown? Seems like I've made a pretty accurate prediction of your posting trajectory. You can choose to take that as information that perhaps your method of communication isn't having the desired effect (or perhaps it is?), or any other way you like.

But it's hardly belittling to note that you posts in the last couple of pages have been quite aggressive and very close to the line in many cases. Having been a member here for a while, I know what the usual end game is for people who behave as you are.

Again, just an observation. You can choose to think that it doesn't apply to you, or you can consider what you really want to achieve here and whether what you're doing is the best way of going about it.

...trying to get affirmation from people just for the sake of feeling good or for attention.

What exactly are you doing here? Looking for an echo chamber? Looking for a fight? Or looking for civil discussion with people who don't necessarily share your beliefs?