Are you trying to tell me you are ok with redistribution of wealth?
I’ve never seen that “regularly”. I thought at one point in time that’s how Juan was using it until I chatted with him for some time privately and I’m only repeating what he has said to me in the past when it comes to the distinction between law and preference (I include objective facts here for particular facts are not law, but facts are strong reasons, yet, it doesn’t mean I need to agree with him. I can agree with facts, but the theory can arrange facts into a particular light of understanding).
well it’s a preference that Juan thinks is a fact, but Juan has never said it’s about law so how to support a preferred-value?
I’ve seen you ramp it up recently and you left for awhile so didn’t then.
Ok argue why I absolutely should have vanilla ice cream instead of chocolate.
I know I understand - do you?
sounds good
The “penalty” for apostasy is actually a corruption of the Quran and Islam- and directly contradicts the Quran. Support for it only comes from unsubstantiated hadith, people who don’t care to educate themselves on the subject and are ready to accept any justification for murder and control.
Here is what the Quran says about believing- [2:256] There shall be no compulsion in religion
[4:90] Exempted are those who join people with whom you have signed a peace treaty, and those who come to you wishing not to fight you, nor fight their relatives. Had GOD willed, He could have permitted them to fight against you. Therefore, if they leave you alone, refrain from fighting you, and offer you peace, then GOD gives you no excuse to fight them.
[10:99] Had your Lord willed, all the people on earth would have believed. Do you want to force the people to become believers? (the tone mocks the idea of forcing religion onto people)
[18:29] Proclaim: “This is the truth from your Lord,” then whoever wills let him believe, and whoever wills let him disbelieve
[88:21] You shall remind, for your mission is to deliver this reminder.
[88:22] You have no power over them.
Yes, but only voluntary redistribution.
The Quran is - like any other religious book - self contradictory. You can use it to defend any position you like by picking and choosing verses.
You say “only” - that’s a universal declaration, unless of course, you are ok with involuntary redistribution and you’re not being honest. Maybe you would like to give it another go and restate that?
No, claims of self-contradiction is just coming from someone who hasn’t taken the time to understand Quran. Its not about picking and choosing verses, its about understanding the meaning of the verses, and the context in which it is presented. Its a lot simpler than people think. Nowhere in the Quran will you find that disbelievers should be killed simply for disbelieving- this is a fabrication of HADITH(which is outside the Quran).
Do “muslim” governments promote the idea of a penalty for apostasy? Sure, but it is quiet obvious to anyone that takes a good look that they are as far removed from Islam as libertarianism is from communism.
I’m against force, including forcing people not to redistribute their wealth.
So you are absolutely against force? universal statement. Unless, you were mistaken and are ok with principles.
So what is the bottom line in the Quran? it’s obviously written by someone with interests in controlling the masses, and force upon them a specific way of life.
I don’t see how it’s “obvious” and “forc(ing)” according to the quotes of the Quran above.
Force exists in nature, so I can’t be absolutely against it. For example, by occupying space, I’m forcing other people not to enter that space.
That’s not coercion. You’re shifting the goal posts. So are you for involuntary redistribution?
I regard Islam is the biggest threat to freedom in Africa and the western world.
I’m calling revealed religion fraud and I’m using the word fraud accurately. Here :
People who make false assertions are engaging in deception. It’s as easy as that. And it get worse because this definition
also aplies to a good deal of revealed religions. Members of different churches use deceit in order to gain personal profit - of course, profit need not be monetary profit, though monetary profit is also usually involved.
Now, I’m not saying that this sort of fraud is something that should be dealt with using the legal system, unlike crimes against against person and property.
Of course, liberty student is dishonestly trying to put words in my mouth and is pretending I ‘might’ want to outlaw revealed religion. He’s using a dishonest tactic because he doesn’t have a real argument.
Finally, I’m not discussing preferences and this is not a matter of preference. I’m stating the fact that the bulk of revealed relgion was and is fraud.
I’m sure that few people would deny that the guys who run the church of scientology are fraudsters. The funny thing is that other revealed religions, which are not fundametally different from scientology, get a free passs.
and the U.S. has the biggest empire on record and the U.S. fights in the name of liberty - it’s a lie.
As I said, I’m not using “fraud” in the strict legal sense, but I think I’m fully justified in using the word in a more colloquial sense.
Juan,
As I stated above, I knew you would say these are facts. I can’t readily argue against that. I was using a simplistic categorization, admittedly over-simplistic, that all outside of law is “preference”. It doesn’t help with my clarity. I think the Roman Catholic Church is one of - if not regaining it’s strength - as the biggest fraud on the planet. That doesn’t mean the true Catholic religion (whatever that may be) is the Roman Catholic Church - I don’t want to spiral into a theological debate, because the Roman C.C. isn’t following anywhere near, at times, truth. It makes compromises and is daily involved with governments globally. There’s hardly a week that goes by that some deals are being made with Roman C.C. consent as government leaders visit with the pope. There’s quite a lot of mainstream coverage on the back pages in which the Roman C.C. is involved directly or indirectly (meaning they are in the food chain of consent somewhere along the way). So they are acting like any fascist business in this regard and using the coercive monopoly of the state to get their interests too. Now is that the true Christ way? I think that’s a whole other story that gets into a theological debate and leaves the political-lawful debate in the ties the Roman C.C. has with governments.
Providing the “colloquial” definition, as you did, in a forum that becomes restrictively static in what fraud means (meaning this forum usually defines it in legal terms) definitely helps clarify what you’re trying to say.
Life is more complicated than that. Anyone using Islam(or democracy) to justify their aggression always has another political agenda. There is no consensus on what Islam is- I use the Quran when following Islam so for me private property and non-aggression are extremely important principles. Others will use “sharia law”- which essentially, are based off of rumors, gossip, and extrapolations of Muhammad and his actions(nearly deifying him). Others will also mix in their own cultural habits that pre-date Islam(honor killings, female genital mutilation), and try to mix it in with Islam.
So those type of phenomenom such as the Taliban- they are a threat to freedom, and their actions are inherently un-Islamic. But trying to throw a blanket on the word Islam as if it is one singular movement is a bit childish. Also the idea that these people that come from the poorest countries on earth are actually a THREAT to the western world is beyond ludicrous.