Muhammad Rasheed's Blog, page 223

An Instant World View Just for You! Now in New Meme Size!

Tom Luth – [shared meme] Oh dear, and yet...


Harry Marks - Unfortunately, it will never happen.

Janet Valentine - It could, if people would open up their minds and realize that religion is mythology, and we don't kill one another over the antics of Thor or Loki or Gilgamesh? Do we?

Tom Luth - They might kill you for suggesting their one true religion is mythology.

Muhammad Rasheed - I don't think it's open-minded to 'realize" the One God is a mythology. An open mind would recognize that the message of the One God has endured throughout the ages, encompassed by numerous religions that, in their essence, say the same thing. The open mind would recognize that the One God is the only deity to address mankind directly, tell mankind exactly who He is, and instruct them on what they need in order to prosper. The false mythological deities conspicuously lack such a message.

Muhammad Rasheed - The most dangerous people are folk like this Betty Bowers, who actually think you can pull one sentence out of a 1,000 page book and understand the whole message in context. Is that not the exact same nonsense that other extremists routinely perform?

Muhammad Rasheed - Meme wrote: "Yours says to kill me! - Qur'an 2:191"

Full message: Qur'an 2:190-193
190 Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.

191 And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

192 But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

Muhammad Rasheed - Meme wrote: "Yours says I'm going to burn in hell! - Qur'an 4:115

Full message: Qur'an 4:113-116
113 But for the Grace of Allah to thee and his Mercy, a party of them would certainly have plotted to lead thee astray. But (in fact) they will only Lead their own souls astray, and to thee they can do no harm in the least. For Allah hath sent down to thee the Book and wisdom and taught thee what thou Knewest not (before): And great is the Grace of Allah unto thee.

114 In most of their secret talks there is no good: But if one exhorts to a deed of charity or justice or conciliation between men, (Secrecy is permissible): To him who does this, seeking the good pleasure of Allah, We shall soon give a reward of the highest (value).

115 If anyone contends with the Messenger even after guidance has been plainly conveyed to him, and follows a path other than that becoming to men of Faith, We shall leave him in the path he has chosen, and land him in Hell,- what an evil refuge!

116 Allah forgiveth not (The sin of) joining other gods with Him; but He forgiveth whom He pleaseth other sins than this: one who joins other gods with Allah, Hath strayed far, far away (from the right).

Muhammad Rasheed - Meme wrote: “Your Mohammed says I’m dirty loser! Qur’an 3:110/2:121”

Full message: Qur’an 3:110-117
110 Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors.

111 They will do you no harm, barring a trifling annoyance; if they come out to fight you, they will show you their backs, and no help shall they get.

112 Shame is pitched over them (Like a tent) wherever they are found, except when under a covenant (of protection) from Allah and from men; they draw on themselves wrath from Allah, and pitched over them is (the tent of) destitution. This because they rejected the Signs of Allah, and slew the prophets in defiance of right; this because they rebelled and transgressed beyond bounds.

113 Not all of them are alike: Of the People of the Book are a portion that stand (For the right): They rehearse the Signs of Allah all night long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration.

114 They believe in Allah and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong; and they hasten (in emulation) in (all) good works: They are in the ranks of the righteous.

115 Of the good that they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for Allah knoweth well those that do right.

116 Those who reject Faith,- neither their possessions nor their (numerous) progeny will avail them aught against Allah: They will be companions of the Fire,-dwelling therein (for ever).

117 What they spend in the life of this (material) world May be likened to a wind which brings a nipping frost: It strikes and destroys the harvest of men who have wronged their own souls: it is not Allah that hath wronged them, but they wrong themselves.

Full message: Qur’an 2:116-123
116 They say: "Allah hath begotten a son": Glory be to Him.-Nay, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth: everything renders worship to Him.

117 To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: When He decreeth a matter, He saith to it: "Be," and it is.

118 Say those without knowledge: "Why speaketh not Allah unto us? or why cometh not unto us a Sign?" So said the people before them words of similar import. Their hearts are alike. We have indeed made clear the Signs unto any people who hold firmly to Faith (in their hearts).

119 Verily We have sent thee in truth as a bearer of glad tidings and a warner: But of thee no question shall be asked of the Companions of the Blazing Fire.

120 Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion. Say: "The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) Guidance." Wert thou to follow their desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither Protector nor helper against Allah.

121 Those to whom We have sent the Book study it as it should be studied: They are the ones that believe therein: Those who reject faith therein,- the loss is their own.

122 O Children of Israel! call to mind the special favour which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all others (for My Message).

123 Then guard yourselves against a Day when one soul shall not avail another, nor shall compensation be accepted from her nor shall intercession profit her nor shall anyone be helped (from outside).

Muhammad Rasheed - Meme wrote: “Yours says to stone me! - Deuteronomy 13:6-10”

Full message:
6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

So how is a believer in the One God of Abraham telling another believer in the One God of Abraham to “serve other gods?” Did this Betty Bowers even bother to read that passage, or was she just willy-nilly shotgunning it, knowing no one would bother to check up on this stuff, but just blindly swallow it as is?

Tom Luth - It is just a meme, a launching point for consideration, or perhaps a discussion. I would trust that anyone curious of the cited scriptures would google them, as I had, and reach their own conclusions.

Muhammad Rasheed - Meme wrote: “So does yours! – Revelation 2:18”

Full message – Revelation 2:18-29
18 And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass;
19 I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first.
20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.
22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.
23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
24 But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden.
25 But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.
26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.
28 And I will give him the morning star.
29 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

This one is saying that if you follow the way of God and keep His works you will be saved, but if you give in to the temptations of the evil one, you will fail. How is this supposed to be a special admonishment to the Muslims from the Christian book?

Muhammad Rasheed - Meme wrote: “Your Jesus says I’m a dog! – Matthew 15:26”

Full message: Matthew 15:22-30
22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.
29 And Jesus departed from thence, and came nigh unto the sea of Galilee; and went up into a mountain, and sat down there.
30 And great multitudes came unto him, having with them those that were lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others, and cast them down at Jesus' feet; and he healed them:

These verses reveal a Jesus figure who was reluctant to stray outside of the bounds of his strict mission to the children of Israel; specifically to soften their hard-hearted “eye for an eye” doctrine and instruct them in performing mercy. The messages of all the prophets except Muhammad (peace be upon them all) were local messages, while the Qur’an was sent as the universal message to mankind.

Muhammad Rasheed - "Deven Green (born January 31) is a comedian, performer, and musician. Green is known for her video comedy parodies, including her performance as the satirical character Mrs. Betty Bowers, 'America's Best Christian.'"

Oh. Now it makes sense. Especially the slip-shod scholarship part.

Sumako Artist - I like this MEME...a lot! I hope it gets around more. Good findTom!

Muhammad Rasheed - lol

Broken Like Us

Muhammad Rasheed – [shared photo]


Because of our society's racist legacy (slavery, jim crow), our communities are severely psychologically damaged, and we've been passing that damage down through our descendants. The black communities demonstrate inferiority complexes over it, and the white communities demonstrate superiority complexes over it. This ex-army toon is perhaps showing a weak attempt to cure the imbalance by swinging the pendulum in the other direction, but I doubt any such attempt is actually going on in real life. Poorly thought out band aid measures like the broken 'Affirmative Action' policy have proven to be abysmal failures.
This vid clip featuring the heart-breaking Clark experiments provide a brief glimpse into the actual problem:  Dr. Kenneth Clark conducting the “Doll Test”
Rex May - No. Tests show that Black Americans have higher self-esteem than White Americans.

Muhammad Rasheed - That's interesting, considering the doll test shows the exact opposite of that. I'd love to see those tests. What are they called?

Rex May - I'll try to find it.

Rex May - Here's a reference to start from. Actually, it's hardly surprising, because the last few generations of Blacks in America have been taught that their shortcomings are due to White racism, and White kids have been taught the same thing, and told that they ought to feel guilty about it. The results are to be expected. Black-White Differences in Self-Esteem

Muhammad Rasheed - According to the page you posted, Rex, the illusion that blacks possess a higher self-esteem than whites is projected when a very specific questionnaire form is used (Likert), and that when the questioning is controlled, the illusion vanishes, revealing what the doll test showed all along.

The questionnaire discrepancy was caused by response styles between the two groups, not a high self-esteem in the blacks.

Muhammad Rasheed - What else do you have?

Supporting Hebdo: A Cartoonist's Critique of a Critique

In the Facebook group called Cartoonist's Cafe, someone asked how was depicting bigoted and offensive cartoons of the religion of Islam supposed to be used to show awareness of the Je suis Charlie movement:

Kristopher Vangalis - So because I'm a cartoonist, does that give me a free pass to start posting a bunch of racist depiction of muslims now that extremists killed 12 people in France, or is that just the rest of this group?

It was an interesting thread with a lot of diverse views, including the extreme, ever-present, profanity-laced "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out!" variety from the right wing American type.  At a certain point, I stopped typing so much and started posting cartoons of my views as my responses instead:


Western world, non-Muslim cartoonists demonstrate their moral high ground solidarity with the effective “let’s treat the thousands of Muslim ethnic groups around the world exactly the same” bigoted stereotype approach to activism.  That’ll teach those extremists what for! 






Before I could post this last one, however, I found I had been kicked out of the group. Apparently I was kicked out of the cartoonists' cartoon posting group because I posted cartoons. lol I'm genuinely interested in the justification for it. I'm going to assume it was because they weren't hateful enough, nor slanted against Islam enough.

As you can glean from the content of my critique, the ones that were allowed to stay were pretty harsh. This was interesting, and ironic considering the entire point of the group's encouragement of the cartoonists to come together was to support Free Speech.  Some free speech is more free than others.  In a free society, is there anything worse than a thought monopoly?

See Also:
Why Don’t More Moderate Muslims Denounce Extremism? by Rabbi Marc Schneier

RESPONSE - "A Message to President Obama from a Former Muslim"

Choosing Faith: Separating Wheat from Chaff

Tom Luth - "Never attempt to reason with people who know they are right!" ~Frank Herbert 
And this is at the heart of why I so utterly distrust religion. Most religious people know, with absolute certainty, that their belief is utterly infallible, and that they are always, without exception, 100% correct in every matter. They are doing God's work. Who or whatever that God may be. God told them that slavery and racism are good. God told them to take vengeance on heathens who have [false] beliefs different than their own. God wants them to kill in his name. They are right, all others are wrong.
We just saw the latest demonstration of such a belief system once again. Some say these are just a rogue group, and that all other Muslims are saints. Fine, believe that if that makes you happy. I believe what I see, and have seen,time and again. Religion, by-and-large, is horrendously evil, and prompts people towards evil acts. I want no part of it.
Randall Chambers - It's an insane logic...because even when someone is proven wrong they still seem to argue they're right. 
Ed Gauthier - Most of them only started to "believe" in the first place when they were kids, and some gomer in a school house or church house started talking about "religious" matters. But what if the same dopes had told them something entirely different? Yep, they'd "believe" THAT, instead. In short, like a blind man lost in the desert, they'd swallow anything. 
Tom Luth - I am a very slow learner, and it was not until the late seventies that I came to the inevitable conclusion that religion is not for me. I found I had to chose to hate the same people my church insisted I hate — blacks, jews, gays, liberals, etc. — or accept that religion and I have nothing in common. I didn't like the idea that to be a good Christian, I had to hate so many people, so I was done. 
Robert Waldo Brunelle Jr - Take care not to confuse what a religion actually says with what some of its followers misinterpret as saying.
Tom Luth - I hear ya, but every religion, insists they are the ONLY ones who truly follow God. Even in Christianity, where there are a few thousand variations of Christianity, each separate church insists that they, and they alone, hold the truth and are the only ones following Christ, and all others are evil fakes. I just don't need that drama. I try to be a good person (although I am told God doesn't give a shit how good we are, bummer) and keep my fingers crossed. 
Robert Waldo Brunelle Jr - Fortunately, God is much more ecumenical than we are. 
Tom Luth - I guess I will find out soon enough. Tea Baggers are, of course, praying that scum like me will burn in hell for eternity, but, hey, who knows? 
Dave Rawson - Even the non-religious are certain their view is the correct one and repeatedly promulgate it with a zealous ardor. 
The major difference between the two groups is that the non-religious don't lay it off on someone else as the source of good. 
The non-religious believe they are good ergo those who disagree are bad. 
But in general, groupings fail, in my opinion, because this type of behavior is endemic to deeply judgemental and moralistic humans whatever their stripe. 
Many people go through life without seeing evil wherever they look. Others seek it out as a kind of penitent self-flagellation, proof they are better the The Other. Somewhere in their psyche is the concept of Just Punishment for those who don't meet their standards. 
In my life, I've found people are people. I would hope others overlook my continuing "stupids", so ethically, I believe I should do the same. 
But that's just me, a tiny little nothing in the vast expanse of human behavior. I only have to satisfy myself, not everyone else. 
Tom Luth - I have seen a handful of super-athiests who treat their non-belief as a religion. ie: the nuts who spend their time protesting public nativity scenes, etc. Most people, outside of the deeply religious, are similar to myself, and shrug and say "I have no idea." People say agnostics are cowards for not taking a stand, which I find absurd. How is saying "I don't know" cowardly? It is like if someone asked me "what is the capital of Ethiopia," and I didn't know, then I should say "I don't know." Should I be brave and take a stand, even if it is almost certainly wrong? Okay then, the capital of Ethiopia is Oslo! I am courageous! I am an idiot, but I took a stand! 
Tom Luth - Religion, as I have seen it, is far more about who you are supposed to hate, and sharing that common hatred, than anything to do with peace or love. 
Dave Rawson - I recently ran across some quotes from one Paul Tillich on Faith and Certainty, Doubt and Religion (capitalized to represent ideas). He was of the opinion that Certainty was the opposite of Faith, or at least Doubt was necessary for the growth of understanding. 
Fundamentalists of all stripes (including secular) are locked into rigid world views. To doubt for a moment what they believe as bedrock understanding is to risk psychic breakdown. A shift in the axis of reality that opens them to caprice and arbitrary causality. They are flung into an unhinged emptiness where there is no ground of being. 
So doubt, that lack of rigid world-view, for some personalities is devastating and can't be risked because without the certainty of their world view to explain and make sense of all they see, they would be left alone. 
I've been to maybe a hundred different churches in my life. There was only one clearly fueled by hate. I could clearly see it in the contorted faces twisted with anger. In general, most churches are more conservative than secular organizations, but that's a long way from preaching hatred. 
When I went looking for Tillich quotes, I found this within someone's sermon, it appears. 
###
An Age-Old Dilemma 
Dealing with questions that life presents to faith was put into a classical formula in the 5th century by Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo in North Africa. Eventually it came to be known as “Fides quaerens intellectum.” In English that translates “Faith seeking understanding.” “For there are some things which we do not believe unless we understand them, and there are other things which we do not understand unless we believe them.” 
Later on in the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas would reverse that phrasing to read “Understanding seeking faith.” 
Doubts 
Six hundred years later Paul Tillich would declare that doubt is always an essential part of seeking to understand what faith is all about. “Doubt isn't the opposite of faith; it is an element of faith,” he said. And he would go on to describe the methodological, skeptical and existential sorts of doubting there are within human experience.
### 
It's a pretty good sermon, altogether. At least one I could stomach. Dunno if you'd be interested in the 5-minute read, but it's more typical than not. 
Faith Isn’t Certainty 
Ed Gauthier - I vividly recall as a junior altar boy at Our Lady Of Religious Silliness being flatly told several times that all Jews are doomed to hell. Most of us who dumped the church scene when we reached legal age don't pursue anything related to it with any particular ardor - we just want the holier than thou bible-bumpers to shut the heck up and leave us alone. 
Muhammad Rasheed - lol 
Why should you trust Frank Herbert's opinion on this matter anyway? Is he your god? 
Muhammad Rasheed - You're going to reject the Lord of the worlds and His religions because of what "Frank Herbert" said? Do you think Frank Herbert will save you from the wrath of God for rejecting Him?  
Good luck! 
Tom Luth - I think you have a very confused interpretation of just what that quote means. You seem to get confused a lot, actually. You seem to be the only person who has read my posts, and perceived them to to support police in shooting blacks. I honestly have no idea how you could reach that conclusion either. This thread here: Tom Luth shared - Deaths From Police Meme 
Muhammad Rasheed - It wasn't a critique against you, Tom, but towards the images the meme creator decided to use. You weren't the meme creator, were you? I agreed with your actual point, and often do on that issue. I was only attacking what I saw as an unfair subliminal message in the meme. In responding to a post from someone I usually agree with, the critique will usually come across as nitpicky and small. On matters in which we actually disagree (such as the merits of world religion) my responses will sound different, and more broad. 
In the above status post you actually say that the quote is the reason you reject religion. Whether I interpret Frank Herbert's line correctly or not is irrelevant; you have joined the ranks of the unrepentant hellbound over that man's quote, is what you are saying. Logically I don't think it is a good idea to gamble away your soul over the opinion of that guy. 
Tom Luth - Ah, okay. Attention to details. I never said Herbert's quote was the REASON I lost religion; I said it was at the heart of why I distrust religion. Herbert, btw, was not speaking about religion, but this was part of one of his science fiction novels. It applies in many situations. Remember, too, that there are hundreds of thousands of religions out there, and, at best, only one can be "the right one." And for each of these religions, there are people who are one-hundred percent positive, beyond any doubt, theirs is the one true religion. 
Whatever one may think of these terrorists, I think we can all agree, they were sincere about their beliefs, to be willing to die for Allah. And for every belief imaginable, there are people equally dedicated. 
But, to speed this up, let's say we have narrowed it down to Christianity. Okay, Christianity is indeed the one true religion. Oh wait… WHICH Christianity? Better pick carefully, or your soul will burn for all eternity because you were not all-knowing. Now choose: Catholic? Lutheran? Methodist? Baptist? Anglican? Pentecostal? Calvinism? Presbyterian? Choose carefully, very carefully. Your eternity is at stake. Anabaptist? Charismatic? Mormon? Seventh Day Adventist? Millerite? Unitarian? Christian Scientist? Evangelical? And tens of thousands I have neglected, my apologies. Which one? Now, the most devoted in each will say, "Are you kidding me? There is only ONE that is legitimate, and all the others are evil PHONY CHRISTIANS! I look forward to them spending eternity in Hell for guessing wrong!"  
But, for someone like myself, who is so mind-numbingly stupid to not be able to pick out the real deal from all the phonies, it is tough. Now, there are hundreds lining up to set me straight, and point me in the right direction. But, here is the scary thing. I will get as many instructions as there are people "helping" me. Each might say all the others are tools of Satan, deliberately leading me to destruction. Yeah, could be, I guess.  
Even reading the exact same Bible, it is amazing how many different interpretations of the same scriptures there are. When I worked in aerospace, the young woman at the desk in front of me belonged to a church in North Long Beach, CA. She was utterly convinced that her church was the ONLY church in the history of the world where the congregation will make it into heaven. Particularly impressive, as she, like millions of others, believes heaven is restricted to one hundred and forty-four thousand, and everyone else goes straight to hell. How fortunate she was born just a mile from the only real church in the world. 
I may sound sarcastic, but that is not my intention. My intention is to illustrate how impossible this decision is.  
I grew up Baptist, having Baptist Pastors on both sides of my family. As a child, I liked the church, but by high school, I found it becoming mean. Rude, insulting, hateful people were taking a larger part, and their views were being pushed in the church. By the late seventies, I found the church to be largely a hate group, with a never-ending list of people I had to hate to demonstrate I was a good Christian. I had to hate Jews, blacks, gays, liberals, the poor, etc., to show Jesus what a good boy I was. And that was the last straw for me. I am not an atheist, but I no longer have any religious conviction. I continue to listen, but I have not heard anything that says "this is it." haven't closed the doors, but I must say, religion and me? Unlikely. 
John Mark Sappenfield - I've found the Episcopal church more accepting. In fact, asking questions is encouraged. There's a lot more freedom.
Muhammad Rasheed - Tom Luth wrote: “Ah, okay. Attention to details. I never said Herbert's quote was the REASON I lost religion; I said it was at the heart of why I distrust religion.” 
I consider you an expert on coloring Groo comics, and would reasonably expect you to consider yourself ‘right’ on the methods to do so. So I should never attempt to reason with you in a discussion on that topic?  
The activating component in the belief systems is ‘faith’ by definition. There is a logic involved, but accepting the concepts of the faith as true is a given in those faiths. Approaching it outside of that concept would be fundamentally alien to the principles involved and would naturally lead to illogical intellectual conflict.  
Tom Luth wrote: “Herbert, btw, was not speaking about religion, but this was part of one of his science fiction novels. It applies in many situations. Remember, too, that there are hundreds of thousands of religions out there, and, at best, only one can be ‘the right one.’" 
That’s not necessarily true. There is only One God, with one message, and most of the religions out there are merely systems formed around that one message. The actual heart of the differences between them is political.  
Tom Luth wrote: “And for each of these religions, there are people who are one-hundred percent positive, beyond any doubt, theirs is the one true religion.” 
The majority of these people are followers on the basic level and aren’t subject matter experts in the material to have any deeper insight past the basic doctrine though. People like that are easily swayed by outside forces like politics, family tradition, etc., just as easily as the religion, and there is often crossover areas that they are unconsciously aware of since they don’t actually study the materials. 
Tom Luth wrote: “Whatever one may think of these terrorists, I think we can all agree, they were sincere about their beliefs, to be willing to die for Allah. And for every belief imaginable, there are people equally dedicated.” 
As an actual Muslim who is aware of what the texts instruct, they can be “sincere” all they wish, but that doesn’t mean their stance is correct. When the texts specifically say XYZ, yet they do ABC “in the name of” the texts with their whole hearts, they are still wrong. 
Muhammad Rasheed - Tom Luth wrote: “But, to speed this up…” 
…he said, at the beginning of a 475 word essay. lol 
Tom Luth wrote: “…let's say we have narrowed it down to Christianity. Okay, Christianity is indeed the one true religion. Oh wait… WHICH Christianity?” 
All of these denominations are under the banner of “Pauline Christianity,” and believe Jesus is divine, Jesus is the divine son, Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the world, Jesus was Resurrected, and that if we believe in him we will be redeemed from Original Sin. All of them believe that if you accept this as a truth and live your life “Christ-like,” you will get into heaven. The differences between them are political – a matter of applied technique in doctrine. It actually doesn’t matter at all which one you pick; as long as you believe in the above, and perform it in your life, you will meet the core qualifications of the religions. Arguing with the individual denominational theologians as to who is actually doing it best is irrelevant.  
Tom Luth wrote: “’There is only ONE that is legitimate, and all the others are evil PHONY CHRISTIANS! I look forward to them spending eternity in Hell for guessing wrong!’" 
That’s just the normal contentious divisiveness of being a human and has nothing to do with religion per se. The interested truth seeker can just study the materials for him/herself and discover the truth of the matter in the texts. It’s not really hard; you just have to be motivated to do so. For those who are concerned about the state of their soul, recognize the glory of the One God, and have a sincere thirst for truth, it will be worth it.  
Tom Luth wrote: “But, for someone like myself, who is so mind-numbingly stupid to not be able to pick out the real deal from all the phonies, it is tough. Now, there are hundreds lining up to set me straight, and point me in the right direction. But, here is the scary thing. I will get as many instructions as there are people "helping" me. Each might say all the others are tools of Satan, deliberately leading me to destruction. Yeah, could be, I guess.” 
In your research techniques it helps to use critical thinking tools such as root cause analysis to penetrate to the heart of the matter. In items such as this there is only one most important leading question: “What does my Lord require of me?” Sacred scripture actually answers that question, and when you know that there are numerous “sports agents” really, trying to recruit you to their team, it’s best to ignore the political doctrines and go directly to the texts themselves. “Study to show your own self approved.” Rely on your own intellect and understanding and demonstrate discernment. Don’t dismiss people “just because they are right,” because they are SUPPOSED to believe. But discern between the truth of the Lord’s message versus the political squabbling between sects. 
Tom Luth wrote: “Even reading the exact same Bible, it is amazing how many different interpretations of the same scriptures there are.”  
This is true when the human mind reads anything. God will judge you based on your own understanding and how you acted it out as an individual.  
Tom Luth wrote: “I may sound sarcastic, but that is not my intention. My intention is to illustrate how impossible this decision is.” 
I understand your point, but it’s not impossible. There are competent subject matter experts that can help guide you to a place where you can comfortably apply your own insight from a solid knowledge base of self-research. You don’t have to feel that way. You just have to want it and recognize upfront that anything worth having will be inherently challenging but not impossible to master. 
Tom Luth wrote: “I grew up Baptist, having Baptist Pastors on both sides of my family. As a child, I liked the church, but by high school, I found it becoming mean. Rude, insulting, hateful people were taking a larger part, and their views were being pushed in the church. By the late seventies, I found the church to be largely a hate group, with a never-ending list of people I had to hate to demonstrate I was a good Christian. I had to hate Jews, blacks, gays, liberals, the poor, etc., to show Jesus what a good boy I was. And that was the last straw for me. I am not an atheist, but I no longer have any religious conviction. I continue to listen, but I have not heard anything that says "this is it." haven't closed the doors, but I must say, religion and me? Unlikely.” 
God has clear and specific tenants He requires us to follow to be on the Path towards the success He wants for us to achieve. Finding out what those tenants actually are is your job as a believer, and should you find in gathering this knowledge that those tenants conflict with the behavior in the institution, you should at that point be able to safely discern what is from God and what is the flawed activities of man pretending to be from God. In every area and industry there are those who know what they are doing and are competent representatives, and there are those who do everything wrong, make no effort to correct their deficiencies, but say they are card-carrying members just as good as the first guy. There are also various shades in between the two. This is a truth inside of every field of human endeavor, and the religions are certainly no exception. I think it is unreasonable to allow the ‘shit birds’ in life to turn you off from worthwhile concepts and systems, especially when you have personal memories of people who actually performed those doctrinal precepts in ways that the original founders of the faiths would’ve approved of. Use those rightly-guided people as your example, and safely ignore the ‘shit birds’ and the incompetent the way you routinely do in every other field of interest. Are you equally willing to toss aside your favorite speculative fiction industries just because you come across the work of those creators who aren’t as competent as coloring as yourself? 
Theodora Nayler - I wholeheartedly agree with this and have nothing more to add.

A Challenge to Evolutionary Theory Proponents: "Defend Yourselves If You're Able"

Frank Rommey - Interesting: The most disparaging comments against beliefs come from people that declare "I *believe* there is no god"... Conversely, the most disparaging comments against science com from people that declare "I'm *not* a scientist"... And the most vitriolic comments against non-believers come from people that declare to be religious, but are ignorant of their own *religion*. We also find mischievous, those people that claim to be *Democrats*, but despise every Democratic accomplishment... If one does not believe in something, shouldn't be a problem to say to others, that one is a non-believer. Why we try to sugarcoat what we are? What we shouldn't do is to pretend to be what we are not... 
Herb Neu - Part of the solution would be meditation. It would help us to believe in ourselves. Once that happens, so does truth. Damn, I'm feeling so philosophical today. I found my wedding band out in the yard today. I dreamed that I'd find it today. It had fallen off my finger while doing yard work about 5 months ago, due to weight loss. But I digress. Ommmmm.  
Bill Dew - Religion is bad. Mmmmkay?

Muhammad Rasheed - The sheep in the pews believe there is actually "overwhelming evidence" for evolution theory, meanwhile the priests behind the curtain admit to no such a thing. The pro-evolutionary theory scientists don't like to debate it because they can't admit that their hand is weak in public, so that they may continue to get public support and institutional funding. 
Frank Rommey - @Muhammad, how you justify your assertion that evolutionary scientists "can't admit that their hand is weak, in public."? So far there is a complete agreement that evolutionary theory is the foundation of everything we study in biology and every related field... The few exceptions aren't even part of the scientific community. I am making reference to any creationist, or their brethen, the intelligent design gang. There is only a reason for the opposition to the evolutionay theory, and it is exclusively political, although it often hides under a flimsy religious mask.
Muhammad Rasheed - THEORY POINT #1: New species arise from biological populations being isolated by geographical barriers, such as mountain ranges, or open bodies of water, that force an ancestral population to diverge. 
SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT QUOTE: “While that model fits for many parts of the natural world, it doesn’t explain why some species appear to have evolved separately, within the same location, where there are no geographic barriers to gene flow.” ~Vicki Friesen, professor of biology (Science daily article, 20 Nov 2007) Doctor Friesen’s own research indicated that the band-rumped storm petrel shares its nesting sites in sequence with other petrels, with this conflicting with the standard view of evolutionary theory. 
CONCLUSION:  Speciation proceeds in both the presence and absence of geographic barriers, while evolutionary theory says that just such barriers are needed for it to function.
Muhammad Rasheed - THEORY POINT #2: Biological organisms engage in a continuous evolutionary process in which competing reproducing entities engage in a tournament of blind trial and error from which improvements automatically emerge, leading to the species transforming into other species slowly over time. 
SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT QUOTE: “Most of the fossil record does not support a strictly gradualistic account of evolution.” ~Robert Carroll, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution
"In sample sizes of more than one thousand individuals, there was no correlation between specific biological traits and either reproductive success or survival.  Important issues about selection remain unresolved.” ~Joel Kingsolver, The Strength of Phenotypic Selection in Natural Populations (2001) 
“Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds’ major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life’s history, the principal ‘types’ seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate ‘grades’ or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” ~Eugene Koonin, The Biological Big Bang Model for the Major Transitions in Evolution (2007)
“The general foundations for the evolution of ‘higher’ from ‘lower’ organisms seems so far to have largely eluded analysis.” Emile Zuckerkandl, Neutral and nonneutral mutations: the creative mix--evolution of complexity in gene interaction systems (1997)
CONCLUSION: The concept that species slowly evolve into different species, leaving behind a fossil record of numerous, partially transformed species growing more and more complex or specialized, is a fiction promoted as a blind faith doctrine unsupported by any facts. Experimentations on millions of fruit flies, as well as over 6,000 years of barnyard artificial selections have never left any trace of any of these organisms ever transforming into a new species. Ever.
Muhammad Rasheed - THEORY POINT #3:  Natural selection causes mutations to appear in the genetic code that enable a species to survive. 
SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT QUOTE: “The great majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level, as revealed by comparative studies of protein and DNA sequences, are caused not by Darwinian selection but by random drift of selectively neutral or nearly neutral mutations.” ~Motoo Kimura, The Neutral Theory of Molecular Biology (1983) 
CONCLUSION: Waves of probability ebb and flow throughout the molecular structure of a living organism. Whether a mutation is fixed within a population or whether it is simply washed away is 100% a matter of pure chance.
Muhammad Rasheed - The above Theory Points represent the heart & soul of evolutionary theory, and the facts... or the conspicuous absence of the facts as the case may be... absolutely don't even come close to supporting the blind faith belief of its proponents that there is actually any "overwhelming supporting evidence" for it. The idea is absurd.
The demand that the facts somehow support the theory is thus treated as it so often is in evolutionary theory by its true believers: As an inconvenience.
Muhammad Rasheed - I wait with baited breath to read your refutation to my challenge. 
Throw down your rod!
Evolutionary theory is not a scientific principle, but an ideology of blind faith unsupported by any facts and by the scientific community themselves. They have a shaky optimism that someday a fact might surface that will actually prove one of these major tenants of the evolutionary religion that they so desperately want to replace the concept of God with.
Herb Neu - Adaptation, and not the "fittest", ensures survival—ergo, "sudden" evolution.
Muhammad Rasheed - lol "Sudden evolution," eh? Is that why there are no strictly gradualistic fossils in the record, because evolution now magically functions as a "LET THERE BE LIGHT!" technique of biological organism appearance?
Muhammad Rasheed - Interesting.
Muhammad Rasheed - smh
Muhammad Rasheed - Good luck in your nonsense theory replacing God. Sounds like you are just trying to replace all of the biblical concepts with pseudo-scientific claptrap and pretend it’s your own.
Herb Neu - Actually, "sudden" can be hundreds of thousands of years for complex beings, or in the blink of the eye when it comes to bacteria and other organisms.
Muhammad Rasheed - Explain how this "sudden" shift in the theory still qualifies as "evolution" at all?
Muhammad Rasheed - A "sudden" appearance of entire new biological species with no record at all of gradual intermediary animals to get there from previous different species is the literal exact opposite of the theory -- the opposite of exactly what the proponents NEED in order for it to actually function the way they say. Do you recognize this? That's why they invented Piltdown Man as kind of a plastic place holder until their darwin god could somehow magically provide the missing data.
Herb Neu - You can find it yourself if you are really interested in other scientific pursuits on the subject. Creationism, intelligent design... a result of indoctrination.
Muhammad Rasheed - Herb Neu wrote: "You can find it yourself if..."
STOP.
No, I cannot, nor can YOU because it is 100% FICTION. Stop peddling your nonsense and pretending it is true. If there were in fact "overwhelming supporting evidence" for it you would have ZERO PROBLEM supporting it with just such "overwhelming" facts. Am I realistically supposed to believe that the "overwhelming facts" are right at your finger tips and you simply don't feel like providing them? lol 
Admit it. All you have is blind faith.
Frank Rommey - Muhammad, every theory point you presented "as accepted" are fake. That's your understanding. Not the Theory of Evolution on which details the biologists are working. When are you believers to understand that in science there are no absolutes but explanation of observations on which corroborating evidence is found. Theological philosophies are not applicable. Period... "Interesting" and "smh" work only within the flok of converts... You are asking the wrong questions what only reveals your lack of intention of ever considering a possible answer. Your wrong questions are on public record and debunked in hundreds of articles. But it haven't changed the questions... so let's end this here. Copy and paste (which is what you have done) of supposed critiques to a supposed definition of evolution is not what helps us to understand the motivation of those who engage in such behavior. But thanks for showing us an example of that behavior my status was addressing.
Muhammad Rasheed - Frank Rommey wrote: "@Muhammad, every theory point you presented "as accepted" are fake."
Based on what? lol
Because it conflicts with your evolutionary religion? awww...
Muhammad Rasheed - hahaha
Muhammad Rasheed - Show me how they are fake. What do you have that definitively refutes them in the wake of the fictional "overwhelming evidence" per Bill's meme?
Frank Rommey –

Muhammad Rasheed -  hahahahaha
That’s what I thought.  See how touchy people get when you challenge their religion?  Yikes!  lol

Abdur Rasheed - Where did you get those quotes from?  were they direct quotes or second hand from another source? 
Muhammad Rasheed - They are direct quotes from the books and scientific papers.  They are all PDFs or available as online articles. 
Abdur Rasheed – Ok 
so you don't believe in evolution at all? 
Muhammad Rasheed - I believe in a lesser form of evolution... behavioral evolution, emotional evolution, an evolution in maturity development from child to adult... but there's no evidence for Evolutionary Theory as being the catalyst for the origin of species as those proponents claim. In fact, their decades long desperation for it to be the concept that replaces the God origin of the universe and of life on earth makes me automatically biased and ungenerous towards it, so when I see the "behind the curtain" aspect of what they actually hold in their cards as "science," all I can do is point and laugh. 
Because it means -- in the absence of facts -- that they are blind faithin' it up just like the theists they make fun of. And worst! Because religion is SUPPOSED to run on belief/faith, while what they hold is SUPPOSED to be fact-driven science. 
Abdur Rasheed - Misconceptions About Evolution 
Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur's article wrote: "Today, we understand the genetic basis for the inheritance of traits..." 
The second SBE quote in Theory Point #2 shows that to be a lie. 
Abdur's article wrote: "...and we can study how evolution has shaped development at a molecular level." 
Theory Point #3 shows that to be a lie. 
Abdur's article wrote: "These advances — ones that Darwin likely could not have imagined..." 
What advances? The article is just 'talking,' and saying what the theorists have, but that they actually DON'T have. Where are the "corrections?" 
Many of these questions aren't my questions. I know what a "theory" is, for example. 
I'm only interested in penetrating to the direct heart of the actual tenants of the evolutionary faith. Those three items. What do the proponents  have that demonstrate the 'overwhelming evidence' for these three items to be scientific principles as "true as gravity?"  
Abdur Rasheed - Evidence for Evolution 
Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur's new article wrote: "During and since Darwin's time, people have been looking for and studying evidence in nature that teaches them more about evolution. Some types of evidence, such as fossils and similarities between related living organisms, were used by Darwin to develop his theory of natural selection..." 
That's not "evidence." That's what Jackals Home would call "spelling words out in the Alpha-bits." There's actually no evidence for his ideas to be true. 
Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur's new article wrote: " Others, such as DNA testing, were not available in Darwin's time, but are used by scientists today to learn more about evolution." 
The 3rd SBE quote in Theory Point #2 show that as a lie. 
Abdur's new article wrote: "Five types of evidence for evolution are discussed in this section:" 
I'm RIVETED. lol 
Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur's new article wrote: "Another important type of evidence that Darwin studied and that is still studied and used today is artificial selection, or breeding." 
You mean all the new species that farmers and dog/cat breeders have created from artificially selecting pets and barnyard animals for a trillion years? (see: Theory Point #2)  
Abdur Rasheed - Muhammad's wrote: "THEORY POINT #1: "While that model fits for many parts of the natural world...”  
scientists are still looking for the evidence for the gaps.  If there is NEW data introduced then they follow the data. 
Muhammad Rasheed - I know.  Therein lies their problem: Looking for evidence isn't quite the same as evidence innit?  You don't see the conflict? Evolutionary Theory says that IS the model for natural selection to work. The fact that speciation happens outside of that model at all means that the theory doesn't "have gaps," but it falls apart. 
Abdur Rasheed - if they find conflicting evidence then they follow where the evidence leads them.

Muhammad Rasheed - Well, "if they finds" shouldn't be used when people are describing the work as having "overwhelming supporting evidence" I should think...
Muhammad Rasheed - Her line "fits for many parts of the natural world" is just her covering her ass in that industry so it doesn't pointblank sound like she's rejecting it, so she doesn't get ostracized or something. 
Abdur Rasheed - thats not how it works Muhammad. 
Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur wrote: "if they find conflicting evidence then they follow where the evidence leads them." 
Actually they either stare at it dumbfounded, or cover it up: 
Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race 
Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur wrote: "thats not how it works Muhammad." 
Okay. You're right. I'm sorry for wasting your time. I see it now.  Thank you for helping me.  I'm glad I talked to you about it.  I don't know what I was thinking. Thank you so much. 
How's the family been? 
Abdur Rasheed - You have got to be SHITTING ME??  THIS CRAZY MOTHERFUCKER???? 
The Official Website of Forbidden Archeology by Michael Cremo
What in the fuck happened to my brother?  FUCK KUWAIT!!! 
Muhammad Rasheed – You are now demonstrating the "genetic fallacy." 
And I bought that book in 2008. Or 2007. 
Abdur Rasheed - So we're NOT brothers? 
Muhammad Rasheed – lol 
The genetic fallacy (Jackals Homes' pet fallacy) is when you ignore the material and attack the dude saying it as if it refutes the material. 
Muhammad Rasheed – [from Amazon] "After having spent best part of the last 6 months reading this juggernaut and cross-checking references, I can only say that the authors have done a tremendous job of proving that the evidence for the great antiquity of man is at least as strong as much of the evidence commonly accepted today as proof of human history. Those reviewers who claim the authors do not know their subject, or that they employ junk science or bad archaeology, quite simply have not read the book. Those claims are based more upon the (often very impressive) ignorance and preconceptions of the reviewers; do not be put off by them. Examine the evidence and judge for yourself." 
Muhammad Rasheed - *shrug* 
Abdur Rasheed - Did you know that David Duke gives health and diet advice? 
Muhammad Rasheed - Yes. 
Abdur Rasheed - Did you know that Micheal Cremo can make a living is by selling an against the grain batshit theory as truth?  What else is he gonna do?  The family is good. 
Muhammad Rasheed - You're trying to say that because he has interests in areas you disapprove of, it means his archaeology masterwork should be dismissed without addressing the points in anyway. 
Is that logical? 
Muhammad Rasheed - David Duke is also pretty good in algebra. Should I chuck algebra because he thinks you're a monkey? "FUCK ALGEBRA!!" 
That in a nutshell, is why the genetic fallacy is bad. 
Abdur Rasheed - yeah. 
Muhammad Rasheed - "Yeah" you should chuck algebra?  hahaha 
Abdur Rasheed - have you ever used Algebra in your adult life? 
Abdur Rasheed - Fuck no you haven't! Then FUCK ALGEBRA THEN!! 
Muhammad Rasheed - Dammit, I'm not a mathematician or a computer programmer or whatever!  hahaha   
Muhammad Rasheed - Counting the numbers on this ruler is as high up as I go in that math shit... lol 
Abdur Rasheed - just know that it ain't no more fun with a tape measure. 
Muhammad Rasheed - I use tape measures, too.  Mostly at work measuring walls for murals and such. 
Muhammad Rasheed - Stop performing the genetic fallacy. Leave that as Jackals Homes' shtick.  I don't feel like having the exact same argument when I talk to you two.  Pick a different fallacy as your signature super villain power.  Every time you use the genetic fallacy, it’s like The Riddler using an aquatic bird motif in his crime spree.  Get your own shit. 
Abdur Rasheed - do you remember my rant about Bill Whittle? 
Muhammad Rasheed - No.  When was that? 
Abdur Rasheed - before we started arguing about shiny rocks and shit, it was the last conversation I had with Kirby. 
Muhammad Rasheed - "Bill Whittle (born April 7, 1959) is an American conservative blogger, political commentator, director, screenwriter, editor, pilot, and author.”  That was someone Kirby was into?  Do you still have the argument? Perhaps stored in a convenient FB Note...? 
Abdur wrote: "before we started arguing about shiny rocks and shit…" 
That wasn't an argument. You just came in there to clown me. It's cool.   
Abdur Rasheed - "Michael Daniels wrote: "The genetic fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit" 
Very true Rev Michael, but what happens if you REPEATEDLY catch somebody in bait and switch lies time and time again and you go through all the trouble of exposing them time and time again? 
Are you STILL obligated to go through the motions of exposing them yet again? 
At what point do you say, "I SEE YOU, SATAN!" And be on your way not wasting your time with lies and intentional falsehoods? 
If someone is at work and you call them 3 different times and tell them that their house is on fire and they rush home to see you pointing and laughing at them. If they hang up on you the fourth time and dismiss your word does your definition of a "genetic fallacy" still come into play? 
Of course it doesn't. 
I'm not a fan of being repeatedly intentionally fooled.  When he justified the murder of that boy by slandering him with lies that he himself made up was enough for me. 
There is NO HONOR in Bill Whittle. 
If you two want to keep drinking his kool aide...knock yourselves out. 
If you have another source...post up. 
Whittle is a waste of my time.

Rah 
Abdur Rasheed - Kirby wrote: "I don't see how it shows that the argument in the video is false." 
Here's a better question: how could reading ANYTHING that I wrote above give you even the slightest impression that I could have possible watched another one of your bullshit Bill Whittle videos that you keep posting like gospel?  
The man had YOU convinced that Trayvon Martin was a "Leen" attic who was trying to beat poor Zimmerman to death and he was lucky that he killed the boy. 
What the fuck is wrong with you? 
Bill Whittle didn't just say what he had heard but he INITIATED the scam and ALL of the both Conservative websites AND ALL the White Supremacist web sites ALL used Bill Whittles lie to fool the stupid who don't have the magical ability to pause Bills video and see for yourself. 
When I showed YOU you were like, "Damn! I need to look closer into this. 
Out of every source for this blatant lie on all of the Internet They ALL site Bill Whittle as the source. 
And so did YOU. 
YOU keep watching his videos and keep believing his bullshit. 
You followed his lie as he justified killing that young boy as a "sex crazed hip hop thug" and supported it with blatant lies and now you want him to teach YOU about RACISM and where you can find it? 
I do believe I have lost all respect for what you call intelligence, Kirb.

Rah 
Abdur Rasheed - Afterburner w/Bill Whittle: The Lynching 
Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur responded: "Very true Rev Michael, but what happens if you REPEATEDLY catch somebody in bait and switch lies time and time again and you go through all the trouble of exposing them time and time again?" 
If we are specifically discussing XYZ, I quote something that supports my side of the argument, and you completely sidestep that support to misdirect towards the cocaine/hooker-fest that guy was engaged in, how did you address my point? The genetic fallacy is used as a legitimate tool in court cases in which witnesses will be discredited, but it is actually a petty technicality that literally doesn't address the point. Should Einstein's theory of relativity be chucked because we found his porn stash of chunky asian women? Really? 
Muhammad Rasheed - Abdur responded: "At what point do you say, 'I SEE YOU, SATAN!' And be on your way not wasting your time with lies and intentional falsehoods?" 
Science is meticulous. To find the truth in science you are obligated to search through EVERY. SINGLE. PIECE. OF. EVIDENCE... until you verify which one is real, and which one's are false. Every single one. The one that's real you keep. The verified falsehoods you discard. That is "how it works muhammad." 
Muhammad Rasheed - If this Bill Whittle cat was proven to be a liar by saying XYZ, then the points that were supposed to be supported by what he said would collapse. 
If he told the truth about ABC, and ABC was used to support Deac's argument, then it would be a genetic fallacy to discard his argument because Wittle said XYZ. 
As a truth seeker you would be obligated to only address ABC, regardless of who said it.  The other thing he said would be irrelevant in context and inadmissible to the argument.  Period. 
Abdur Rasheed - No. Eienstein's theory would not be suspect, but if Einstein had ZERO education or experience in science, astrophysics, math, or anything other than a Hari Krishna com pound of spiritual enlightenment and that he could spell words in his alphabet soup and then wrote a book on how light was the slowest thing in the universe and that all f the actual scientists were wrong... I would say, 'Yup. Batshit." 
Abdur Rasheed - and then get a chicken burrito or something. 
Muhammad Rasheed – lol 
The academic institutions do not have a monopoly on the research method. Anyone interested in a field can research and perform the scientific method and put together a competent body of work in areas they are interested in. 
That quote from the reviewer about Cremo's book is the heart & soul of that point.  He took the time to cross-reference the actual material and discovered it legit. 
Abdur Rasheed – k 
k 
Muhammad Rasheed - Dismissing the whole thing because you don't like Cremo's incense choices is not “science.”

The Boring Spectacle of Demonstrated Skill in Techniques

Muhammad Rasheed – [shared link] They call Floyd boring because he almost never plants his feet and actively tries to go for the KO unless he knows for SURE his opponent has nothing for him. Otherwise he's extremely protective of that "0."

In my opinion, as a Floyd fan myself, I am also protective of that "0" which makes my stress level go up when he does take even a glancing shot, especially now that he's older (both Floyd and Manny are past their primes btw, so I don't understand why Roy's opinion here is so lopsided in that regard).

Roy Jones, Jr. Calls Floyd Mayweather, Jr. a Boring Fighter - YouTube
Jerry Lee Brice - LOL!...I assumed Floyd and Roy are friends of each other, or at least fans!LOl...but Roy does not sound very impressed, but, well, I was a hardcore Roy fan and before he got knocked out, he was good for fighting tomato cans.
Muhammad Rasheed - I'm not sure about calling them "tomato cans." lol He was fighting the mandatory contenders, so even though they weren't big names that casual fans would recognize, they were definitely skilled solid boxers of good talent.
Brett Barton - The whole problem is that Floyd can pick and choose what he does.
One the business side it's genius on the other side it does merit some criticism.
Muhammad Rasheed - It's hard to take that kind of criticism seriously when champions MUST fight certain people in order to keep the titles. We've seen people get stripped of titles for refusing to fight people before, so it's not like we don't know what it actually looks like when it really does happen. Unfounded criticism is nonsense.
Brett Barton - Floyd breaks all the boxing norms from management etc. Choosing who, when, or how much $ is pretty much up to him. I wouldn't say it's unfounded from guys who did things differently in the game
Muhammad Rasheed - Choosing when is still limited when he's contractually obligated to fight within a certain time frame in order to keep the titles. Every champion has a certain amount of leeway inside of that time period. To suddenly shine the spotlight on that when Floyd does it just because it's Floyd is "Meh."
Yes, he gets to choose how much because he wears the business hat unlike the majority of other boxers in history. Hopefully this begins a permanent new trend. I'm all about the "creators" in any field shifting that particular power dynamic.
Choosing who is no different for Floyd than it is for any other fighter. He certainly would not be allowed to only fight "tomato cans" and duck all the top contenders and keep his belts at the same time.
Jerry Lee Brice - ...but fighters that he knew were not up to his skill level, and ones that he would puck and choose..and duck, based on how he matched up against them.
Muhammad Rasheed - Fighting people that are mandatory contenders that he knew were not at his skill level. Fighting people that the fans wanted to see him fight that he knew were not at his skill level.
Is that a real criticism? 
And who did he "duck?"
Muhammad Rasheed - Did he "duck" them because the fight fans that don't like him say that he ducked them, or because he actually ducked them?
Jerry Lee Brice - It's a convenient excuse.I remember Larry Holmes throwing one of his belts in the trash as a symbolic gesture of his lack of caring about a mandatory competitor versus fighting a big name dangerous challenger, which the fighter in him would not allow him to back down from for any reason.>>>I guess the old ways are not practiced in these days of prizefighting.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jerry Lee Brice wrote: "It's a convenient excuse. I remember Larry Holmes throwing one of his belts in the trash as a symbolic gesture of his lack of caring about a mandatory competitor versus fighting a big name dangerous challenger, which the fighter in him would not allow him to back down from for any reason."
That's one way of putting it. Another way is that he preferred to fight the guy that would net him a $3 million payout over the mandatory challenger that would only get him $2 million +. The WBC refused to sanction the fight that would've paid him more, so he symbolically demonstrated his loyalty for the money over the belt.
Jerry Lee Brice - M.O.B....Money Over Belts!
Muhammad Rasheed - ...especially since he'd already been reigning as champion for a million years.
Jerry Lee Brice - ..back in the 70's, a fighter would call out a champ like Ali, and three or four months later, they would be in the ring scrapping..that's where a lot of these fighters are coming from, because they are old enough to remember those times, even if they were little kids watching on TV...there was never any multi-year drama over making one prize fight.
Muhammad Rasheed - They were also broke as hell. lol
Jerry Lee Brice - Ali is still paid, so is Holmes...Frazier had money, heard he lost it later in life on bad investments...but Marciano, Moore, and many other a lister boxers back then, were well paid based on the time.
Muhammad Rasheed - Going through all of that drama, only to leave the game injured and broke isn't a bragging point to me.
Floyd is doing it correctly, and he's fought the top talent. All he has left to do is close the deal with Manny and his legacy is secured.
Jerry Lee Brice - ..so, angry and broke???..don't know who yu are talking about..but Ali, Frazier, Holmes, Marciano, Moore...etc.were paid, and stayed paid.Mr. Robinson, and Joe LOuis lost their dough due to taxes and bad business moves OUTSIDE the ring..but they were well paid fighters.Them being broke had nothing to do with their fight purses.
Muhammad Rasheed - Ali lost his fortune, and Lonnie hired a finance team to help him recapture it through speaking gigs until his Parkinson's made that impossible.
Holmes was always a superb businessman, with the majority of his fortune actually in real estate. 
The mob made sure Marciano was okay, and no one would dare touch him. What his books actually looked like is anyone's guess.
Jerry Lee Brice - He, and none of them lost their money in the ring, they lost it OUTSIDE of the ring.De le Hoya and his group seem to still be caked up.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jerry Lee Brice wrote: "He, and none of them lost their money in the ring, they lost it OUTSIDE of the ringt."
That's a strawman argument. However way they lost it, they lost it. They weren't smart with money, were poor in negotiation skills, and it was boxing tradition. There were a few exceptions, but the broke boxer archetype was the norm.
Jerry Lee Brice - No...their busines inside of the ring was tight, they lost their money due to bad investments outside of the ring..and they fought each other speedily, unless they were afraid of the challenge, and back in the day, they would rather risk being knocked out in the ring, than be seen as a guy ducking running and reaching for any old excuse or rationale to not fight any challenger.
Jerry Lee Brice - George Foreman once fought like 6 fighters back to back one night on TV!LOl...
Muhammad Rasheed - Jerry Lee Brice wrote: "No...their busines inside of the ring was tight..."
Psh. They let other people dictate their business inside of the ring and took what was decided for them.
Jerry Lee Brice wrote: "...they lost their money due to bad investments outside of the ring.."
And that's what happened to the little bit of money they did earn, compared to the mega-profits generated by the events. They received a small percentage on their sweat & blood, and wasted it soon after. That is the norm in boxing.
Jerry Lee Brice wrote: "...and they fought each other speedily..."
They had to in order to support the fast money, big spender lifestyles they were living. 
Jerry Lee Brice wrote: "...unless they were afraid of the challenge, and back in the day, they would rather risk being knocked out in the ring, than be seen as a guy ducking running and reaching for any old excuse or rationale to not fight any challenger."
They had no choice who they fought or when. When they did duck, it manifested itself as quitting the biz altogether, so the fans didn't recognize it as "ducking." The only champions that we know that actually ducked had their titles stripped because of the strict anti-ducking rules that are actually in place.
Jerry Lee Brice - I'm missing your point here, if we are actually still talking about fighting in the ring.I mean, I do business based on the hard lessons of artist that came before me..so that's logical for a thinking person,..but as far as what I do with my pencil and paper, that has NOTHING to do with how i choose to spend party or throw my money away after making it with that pencil and paper...so, I guess i am missing your point if it has to do with fighting.
Muhammad Rasheed - Basically it comes back to a disagreement as to whether Floyd is playing the game well compared to boxers of old. I disagree with your "they were well paid for the time" comment, and consider those guys as typical talent that had been taken advantage of by a predatory industry. 
I also disagree with the "ducking" myth. Boxing has very strict rules for champions when it comes to who they had better fight, and the list of fighters that Floyd has faced are certainly not "tomato cans." It's impossible to take those comments seriously.
Jerry Lee Brice - Oh, Ok, whatever!LOL..we will just have to adamantly disagree on this topic, no problem.
Muhammad Rasheed - lol I know, I was expecting you to show up wearing your Manny t-shirt.
Muhammad Rasheed - Soon as I posted it I was like, "Watch Jerry come in here shouting 'Tell 'em, Roy!!'"
Muhammad Rasheed - lol
Jerry Lee Brice - LOL!..well, Roy has been known to be a boxer.
Muhammad Rasheed - Roy has a history of dancing in the ring. Naturally he has very strong opinions as to who would be 'boring' or not. 
Obviously you were tuning in for the dancing. hahahaha
Jerry Lee Brice - Naw...actually I liked his rooster punches from behind his back.He knocked one dude out cold with a punch like that on the top of the head!LOL..the Knocked out dude may have been paying too much attention to the dancing.I like to see fights.
Jerry Lee Brice - ..but you know, as far as betting on fights is concerned, when Tarver knocked him out cold, he also knocked a lot of money cold out of my pockets!LOL...when betting goes bad.
Muhammad Rasheed - Roy is one of my favorites, but he cared about the 'entertainment' factor far more than Floyd, who only cares about the win. He's only going to go for the KO if he's sure there is no risk. Naturally that's not the most exciting spectacle for those at ringside, but that's never been the part I cared about as a fight fan. I like to see the demonstration of boxing as a functional martial art, so the win is the most important part for me, too.
Winky Wright was also like that; he cared more about the win, and his defensive style made people not want to fight him because it made them look bad.
Jerry Lee Brice - Okay, i get that..I generally watch MMA boughts for that level of competition and skill, ..very technical stuff...but as far as boxing is concerned, I tend to like fights like Hagler-Hearns!LOl...
Muhammad Rasheed - Yeah, I would never list that one as one of my favs. Watching Hearns let all of his form go out the window like that always pisses me off. (clubbing punches??? really, tommy???)
Muhammad Rasheed - Ugh.
Muhammad Rasheed - Speaking of MMA, at it's current level of development, the average fighter has poor technique with their hands during stand-up, and that's why many fans will groan when it goes to the ground and DOES get more technical. The fans rarely appreciate technique over wild, laying-it-on-the-line abandon.
Muhammad Rasheed - That's the part that makes it "exciting."
Muhammad Rasheed - I genuinely prefer the technique, and demonstrated mastery of skill, and will always root for the boxer-technician over the puncher-brawler any day.
Jerry Lee Brice - LOl!..i just want to see one fool get knocked out.
Muhammad Rasheed - hahahaha
Muhammad Rasheed - See, you can just watch those damn homeless wino brawls on YouTube for that, Jer. lol
Jerry Lee Brice - LOL!...
Muhammad Rasheed - That's why they created that 'Toughman Competition' show back in the day. No skill, just gloves flyin' everywhere...
Muhammad Rasheed - I can't watch that shit.
Jerry Lee Brice - LOl!..I hear you man.Actually, I hate that stuff as well, no skills.I like professional boxers who have skill on delivering those blows, knowing that leaves them open to take one!LOL..that's a tough decision to make,and when one does not do that, i know he's not about that life.So...he holds on to the belt for years, but, entertains none.
Muhammad Rasheed - To me it's a matter of the thinking martial artist versus the dumb jock.
Muhammad Rasheed - Talent comes in more areas than just the physical gifts.
Jerry Lee Brice - Boxers ARE dumb jocks!LOL, that's what got the sport to be popular...if folks fought like Floyd in the 50's, t60'70's etc?!?!?...we would not be here talking, hyping and anticipating ANY bought, but, we are, due to the pugilist of the past.Face it folks will PAY to see if Floyd will fight, hoping that when and if he does, he will get knocked out, OR knock somebody out.
Jerry Lee Brice - Fans like those video game knockouts!LOL..they would not buy an interactive fight game if all you got was Floyd style bouts...that's what they give you the super SMASH option when you fight in video games.My point here is that is what the fans want.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jerry Lee Brice wrote: "Boxers ARE dumb jocks!LOL, that's what got the sport to be popular...if folks fought like Floyd in the 50's, t60'70's etc?!?!?...we would not be here talking, hyping and anticipating ANY bought, but, we are, due to the pugilist of the past. "
Many are. A few aren't. Floyd isn't. He's a thinking fighter, despite the illiteracy controversy. Muhammad Ali wasn't a dumb jock either. And certainly Bonecrusher Smith wasn't; he was a "gentleman boxer," as they call them.
Boxers of the past had no choice as to how they played the game. They were "handled" like those music acts are handled by executives that dictate ALL the terms.
Jerry Lee Brice - All the fans are doing is reacting to what they see in the ring, NOT what some boxer does at a negotiation table.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jerry Lee Brice wrote: "My point here is that is what the fans want."
I know. Those are the folks that are spending all of that money on tickets, not the fans like me. I get it. Roy would've been wasting his time if he thought that dancing was getting MY attention. lol I just like the boxing technique part, and if the boxer happens to be heavy-handed, too, then that's just gravy.

Weak Meme

Dee Anne Moore - [shared meme]

Muhammad Rasheed - Muhammad was clearly a Muslim.
Dee Anne Moore - During his term in office, Reagan was not an x-pres. That happened after he left office.
Muhammad Rasheed - Neither you, nor "hopefulosophy," actually read the Qur'an which defines the word "Muslim."
Muhammad Rasheed - *sighhhh*
Muhammad Rasheed - Quit it, Dee.
Dee Anne Moore - Was the Qur'an written before Muhammad or, did Muhammad write the Qur'an? And, I have a copy of the Qur'an and try to read it as well as trying to read the 'bible'.... I have difficulty reading books by men about men for men and their rules and regulations for everybody else.
Dee Anne Moore - I will Mu. I am an equal opportunity critic of all the 'religions' that are mostly about rules and regulations and rituals... Just can't abide them and find all of them quite tiresome.. But I respect many of the people who do abide!
Muhammad Rasheed - Dee Anne Moore wrote: "Was the Qur'an written before Muhammad or, did Muhammad write the Qur'an?"
The Qur'an was revealed in its entirety during the 22 years of Muhammad's mission.
Dee Anne Moore wrote: "And, I have a copy of the Qur'an and try to read it as well as trying to read the 'bible'.... I have difficulty reading books by men about men for men and their rules and regulations for everybody else."
So you haven't read past the first 6 pages, but you're going to argue with me about what's in it?
Quit it, Dee.
Dee Anne Moore - I would never ague with you about what is in any book that I have not fully read. Religions are known by those that practice them. I find that Christianity is like an elephant being described by several blind men. One has hold of the tail and suggests that the elephant is like a rope. One may have arms wrapped around a mighty leg and profess that an elephant is surely like a tree...and so forth. I very much care for human beings in spite of their religious expressions. I'm a Cosmos fan. Jane Goodall is one of my hero's... Dr. King.... most innocent small children... mechanics that can figure out what is really wrong with cars and surgeons, like mechanics that can figure out how parts fit to make a 'whole'... I'm totally in awe of those who use their time on earth to go about their business doing... and doing what they can to make life a little bit better for other creatures... So, when I saw this bit of someone's 'wisdom', it reminded that most philosophers become what others perceive them to be and that in their pure state, they may be quite simply a good person trying to share their own experiences.
Muhammad Rasheed - Dee Anne Moore wrote: "I would never ague with you about what is in any book that I have not fully read."
Okay, well in the Qur'an the definition of "Muslim" is given, and all followers of God are referred to by that term within it. This includes Muhammad himself. Therefore the meme's third line is quite wrong.
Muhammad Rasheed - Oh, and regarding the last line in the meme:
The Holy Qur'an - Chapter 5:3"This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion."
Muhammad Rasheed - To me, when I read this meme, it just came across as very poorly researched.  The addition of the third, inaccurate line ruins the credibility of the meme maker.
***
Kamau Mkafele Mshale - [shared meme]

Muhammad Rasheed - *sighhh...*
Warren Eugene Merrick III - Buddha was an atheist, Mohammed was a warmonger, Jesus is the Christ, to put them in the same category as Jesus is insane. Love is of God, and an atheist denies God, Christ came and died for His enemies whilst Mohammed slaughtered his; of the three, only Christ taught love.
Kamau Mkafele Mshale - Lol u can change love to peace and it's more accurate right
Kamau Mkafele Mshale - Buddha didn't teach love
Kamau Mkafele Mshale - Wow muhammad a warmonger
Muhammad Rasheed - It was clear from the other thread that Warren doesn't even know his own religion well, can he realistically be expected to understand Islam or any other faith? Come on. Of COURSE he's just going to spew some slander he picked up from a conservative right, post 9/11 email forward. hahahahaha
Warren Eugene Merrick III - Says the man that gets his "knowledge" of Jesus from a book that has no truth in it, written by a false prophet pedophile.
Muhammad Rasheed - Notice that I referenced the story from Jesus himself that you deliberately downplayed, as well as I said my reference was from the official Christian scholars who compiled, edited, translated the bible, but you never took the bait. I guess you were afraid to. Instead, tellingly, you invented your own reason and decided to believe it as a truth as demonstrated here. You're an interesting piece of work there, Warren Eugene Merrick III.
Muhammad Rasheed - You should stick to acting, and leave the religious scholarship to your betters.
Warren Eugene Merrick III - I also noticed that you mentioned that I was protestant as though that invalidated the credibility of what I said. These "scholars" you get your knowledge from are no better than your prophet Muhammad, if they deny the death and resurrection. The reason I didn't "take the bait" as you say is because it wasn't worth my time. Here's a question for you, why would you trust these scholars over actual authors of the Bible, since you supposedly by your own admission only need the words of Jesus? It seems a little convenient that you would believe supposed Christian scholars millennia later that agree with your convoluted nonsense.
Warren Eugene Merrick III - When one shows up I might, but you're not even close.
Muhammad Rasheed - If you had actually "studied Islam" as you originally claimed, you wouldn't need to ask me that. I could just as seriously ask why you aren't following the letter of the Law as preached by the Pharisees.
Warren Eugene Merrick III - Buddy, I'm no longer under the law, I'm under grace. If you actually knew scripture you would know that.
Muhammad Rasheed - Warren Eugene Merrick III wrote: "I also noticed that you mentioned that I was protestant as though that invalidated the credibility of what I said."
Protestants believe a very specific thing as echoed by your painfully limited understanding of scripture. I mentioned I peeped that in you as a response to your "...you'd do well not to presume to think you know what I think" comment.
Warren Eugene Merrick III wrote: "These "scholars" you get your knowledge from are no better than your prophet Muhammad, if they deny the death and resurrection."
They are the very scholars who translated, edited, and compiled the bible for you, and are responsible in many ways for why you believe what you believe. I don't expect you to understand that so don't worry about it.
Warren Eugene Merrick III wrote: "The reason I didn't 'take the bait' as you say is because..."
You were either frightened, or because you didn't understand.
Warren Eugene Merrick III wrote: "Here's a question for you, why would you trust these scholars over actual authors of the Bible, since you supposedly by your own admission only need the words of Jesus?"
These scholars' work revealed the reason why there was a split in the early Christian community, where it came from, who was responsible, where it went, and why modern Christians believe what they believe in the first place. As a follower of the Abrahamic religions, that history is actually important to me, and it provides immense insight into sacred scripture and the actual message God wants mankind to know. For a believer to NOT inquire into these things is foolish.
Warren Eugene Merrick III wrote: "It seems a little convenient that you would believe supposed Christian scholars millennia later that agree with your convoluted nonsense."
"Millennia later?" You wouldn't even HAVE your book if it wasn't for that lot.
Warren Eugene Merrick III - Meanwhile with all that talk, my question remains unanswered, and for your clarity, Islam has not a thing to do with the Abrahamic religions, nothing at all. It's a false affiliation, Allah is an idol moon god and that's who Mohammed worshiped, not the God of the old and new testaments. Do your own research.
Muhammad Rasheed - Warren Eugene Merrick III wrote: "Buddy, I'm no longer under the law, I'm under grace. If you actually knew scripture you would know that."
My point went directly over your head. lol Let me take you by the hand and show you. (actors... sheesh)
If you had studied Islam truly, you would've learned that Muhammad was the messenger of God, and the Qur'an is the final message. God confirmed and fulfilled the message from the previous prophets, and explained how their message was allowed to go astray by you all and your slipshod guardianship. When your very own scholars do the research for me and discover, obviously to their surprise and annoyance, that the facts of history regarding the origins and development of Christianity back up exactly what God in the Qur'an said about that very faith, why wouldn't I believe those scholars? Their research confirms what the Lord Most High already revealed as true.
But you don't know that stuff and prefer to be happy in your ignorance, embracing instead the message of the figure whose entire life corresponds to the bible's definition of "false prophet" while you slander Muhammad and Islam in turn. Good luck with that path on the Day of Judgment.
Muhammad Rasheed - Warren Eugene Merrick III wrote: "Meanwhile with all that talk, my question remains unanswered..."
Again, very ironic coming from you.
Warren Eugene Merrick III - Muhammad was as much a messenger of God as the Pope is, which is to say he's not.
Muhammad Rasheed - Warren Eugene Merrick III wrote: "...and for your clarity, Islam has not a thing to do with the Abrahamic religions, nothing at all. It's a false affiliation, Allah is an idol moon god and that's who Mohammed worshiped, not the God of the old and new testaments. Do your own research."
Unlike you, I don't get all of my religious knowledge by "researching" from anti-Islam email forwards from the tea party, so forgive me if I simply ignore your weak digs at my faith. We both know you don't have anything to back it up with so you might as well stop.
Warren Eugene Merrick III - As they say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. You may continue to ignore me and follow your false religion and count on your good works to save you from the wrath of a holy and righteous God, that is your choice and you will see exactly what that gets you in the end. When you stand before Christ, and it is Him whom you will stand before, you will have to give an account for your unbelief and how it was that you thought good works could earn you redemption when Christ Himself said that "There are none who are good, there are none who seek after righteousness." Hell is hot, and neither Mohammad nor his god can save you from it, Only Christ can.
Muhammad Rasheed - Warren Eugene Merrick III wrote: "Muhammad was as much a messenger of God as the Pope is, which is to say he..."
Yeah, take a dig at your denomination's ideological enemy, too. Who didn't see that coming?
Muhammad Rasheed - Warren Eugene Merrick III wrote: "As they say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink."
Right. I left the door open for you to prove your claims about Islam, and you respond with a tired cliche. That's your whole argument in a nutshell.
Warren Eugene Merrick III wrote: "You may continue to ignore me..."
I'll ignore Paul's foolishness. You're a lot further down on the totem pole.
Warren Eugene Merrick III wrote: "...and follow your false religion and count on your good works to save you from the wrath of a holy and righteous God, that is your choice and you will see exactly what that gets you in the end. When you stand before Christ, and it is Him whom you will stand before, you will have to give an account for your unbelief and how it was that you thought good works could earn you redemption when Christ Himself said that "There are none who are good, there are none who seek after righteousness." Hell is hot, and neither Mohammad nor his god can save you from it, Only Christ can."
Everything you believe has been demonstrated to be false by your own scholars and the facts of sacred scripture history. You literally have nothing to stand on. Between us, I am the only one who recognizes the message of Jesus to be true. Your impotent and foolish beliefs have not a leg to stand upon. Repent of the 'divine son' blasphemy, bow down to your Guardian Lord who made you, and show yourself approved that you may prosper and know Peace.
Warren Eugene Merrick III - It seems you (Islam) and the Catholic church have a few things in common, namely being false religions and being works based. You do know that in this context, being further down on the totem pole is a compliment, the base holds everything up, so being further down actually contradicts your "No leg to stand on" metaphor. You recognize nothing, you've bought into the lies of Islam and blaspheme the God that made you and think you do Him honor. I know peace, His name is Jesus, He's the Son of the Most High, second member of the triune Godhead, the Christ, Messiah, the anointed One.
Muhammad Rasheed - Warren Eugene Merrick III wrote: "It seems you (Islam) and the Catholic church have a few things in common, namely being false religions and being works based."
You know that Catholicism birthed Protestantism, right? You are both pauline Christians, you realize that, right? In every way they are false, you would be false as well.
Warren Eugene Merrick III wrote: "You do know that in this context, being further down on the totem pole is a compliment, the base holds everything up, so being further down actually contradicts your "No leg to stand on" metaphor."
The false prophet is on the top of this totem pole, and you, as a peasant, uneducated sheep blindly echoing his false message, continues to hold it up in the land. False prophet at the top, peasant sheep at the bottom. What is underneath YOU?
Warren Eugene Merrick III - Before there was either protestant or Catholic, there was just Christian. Catholicism did not come about until around 300 A.D.. First century Christians were taught by the apostles and those whom the apostles taught and so forth, Protestantism is the same faith as that of the early church. To call Paul a false prophet is to expose your ignorance, as the other disciples took no issue with any of his teaching, he even publically corrected Peter to his face. It's clear that you really don't know what you're talking about.
Muhammad Rasheed - Warren Eugene Merrick III wrote: "First century Christians were taught by the apostles and those whom the apostles taught and so forth, Protestantism is the same faith as that of the early church."
lol You wish. Protestantism is just a trimmed down, baby version of Catholicism. The earliest forms of Christianity were nearly indistinguishable from Judaism in comparison.
Warren Eugene Merrick III wrote: "To call Paul a false prophet is to expose your ignorance, as the other disciples took no issue with any of his teaching..."
Meanwhile he was the rival to the message of the 12 apostles and died as their avowed enemy.
Warren Eugene Merrick III wrote: "...he even publically corrected Peter to his face."
What was Peter's side to that story? Tell me if you know.
Warren Eugene Merrick III wrote: "It's clear that you really don't know what you're talking about."
Sure.
Warren Eugene Merrick III - I don't hate anyone, it is out love that I preach the gospel. You're offended because I've said what I did about Mohammad, truth does that, you say yours is a religion of love, tell that to the people who call themselves Muslim and blow other's up or the one ones who hack off the heads of Christians. If you want to know a religion look to its founder, Mohammed was a man of violence, is it any wonder that many of his followers are the same? Jesus loved all, even those society deemed beneath them. Islam says "You will die for what I believe! " whilst Christianity says "I will die for what I believe!" Christians aren't blowing up innocent people, hacking off their heads and raping women, Muslims are, why? Because they are following in the steps of their founder. You can say whatever you wish to clear up my supposed "misunderstanding", but they must be getting the idea to behave as such from somewhere, yet Jesus said to love your enemies, and so we do. It's kind of hard to misinterpret that. Jesus said you would know a tree by its fruit, so anyone claiming to follow Christ that demonstrates nothing but hate, unforgivness and impatience is lying, what's the litmus test for Muslims? Now any Muslim can come to Christ, but Islam itself has no part with Him, none at all. It's a false, works based religion that leads to hell and damnation, whatever it is you think you know about Jesus, whatever secret knowledge you claim to possess is a lie. There is no more revelation, when Christ was on the cross and said "It is finished." That was it, His purpose was fulfilled, no one was coming after Him to complete salvation, it was finished. All we have to do is repent and believe, that's it, just like the thief on the cross. Now, you'll no doubt contest everything I've said which is your right, but as for this thread, I'm done. Have a good day. May the savior of the world open your eyes that both of you may see.
Muhammad Rasheed - The funniest part is where you just make up stuff out of your own head, present it as some kind of truth, and then just expect other people to just accept it too. What IS that?
Muhammad Rasheed - At the very least I hope these two threads have cured you of going around saying you've "studied other faiths." Cut that out.
Muhammad Rasheed - Warren Eugene Merrick III wrote: “I don't hate anyone, it is out love that I preach the gospel. You're offended because I've said what I did about Mohammad…”
Do you consider Abraham and Joshua to be warmongers too?
Warren Eugene Merrick III wrote: “…truth does that, you say yours is a religion of love, tell that to the people who call themselves Muslim and blow other's up or the one ones who hack off the heads of Christians.”
What would that have to do with Islam? The American whites who lynched blacks and treated them less than human because of their race were Christians, but I would be a damned fool to blame that behavior on Christianity. You lack basic powers of discernment, and would not know truth if you saw it.
Warren Eugene Merrick III wrote: “If you want to know a religion look to its founder, Mohammed was a man of violence…”
Warren you don’t know anything about Islam, and you are a fool.
Warren Eugene Merrick III wrote: “…is it any wonder that many of his followers are the same? Jesus loved all…”
Jesus is not the founder of your faith. Paul is. Jesus is the founder of the rival sect that no longer exists. Islam is the true heir to Jesus’ message now.
Warren Eugene Merrick III wrote: “…even those society deemed beneath them. Islam says "You will die for what I believe! " whilst Christianity says "I will die for what I believe!" Christians aren't blowing up innocent people, hacking off their heads and raping women…”
http://www.thestar.com/.../christian_......
Warren Eugene Merrick III wrote: “…Muslims are, why? Because they are following in the steps of their founder. You can say whatever you wish to clear up my supposed "misunderstanding", but they must be getting the idea to behave as such from somewhere, yet Jesus said to love your enemies, and so we do. It's kind of hard to misinterpret that. Jesus said you would know a tree by its fruit, so anyone claiming to follow Christ that demonstrates nothing but hate, unforgivness and impatience is lying, what's the litmus test for Muslims?”
It’s exactly the same. God said let there be peace in the land, and defend yourself if someone attacks you. If they stop, then you stop and let peace reign again. People who attack for nothing, or just to attain wealth and as a land grab, are not behaving Islamic. If you studied Islam as you claimed you would know this. Making up stuff in your own head doesn’t count as studying, Warren.
Warren Eugene Merrick III wrote: “Now any Muslim can come to Christ, but Islam itself has no part with Him, none at all.”
The Christ Jesus is mentioned in the Qur’an as the messenger of God who preached the Gospel to his people. I recognize his message as truth that comes from my Lord and love and believe in him.
Warren Eugene Merrick III wrote: “It's a false, works based religion…”
Notice that in your own book Jesus never condemned good works, but in fact instructed the rich man to do good works in order for him to be saved. You are a very confused person.
Warren Eugene Merrick III wrote: “…that leads to hell and damnation…”
Meanwhile Jesus Christ himself said it leads to the exact opposite of that as stated in your own book.
Warren Eugene Merrick III wrote: “…whatever it is you think you know about Jesus…”
I know it from your own book, from the very incident that causes you this confusion.
Warren Eugene Merrick III wrote: “…whatever secret knowledge you claim to possess is a lie.”
So you admit you don’t follow Jesus at all but instead follow Paul as your savior? Got it. In hell you will dwell. Good luck.
Warren Eugene Merrick III wrote: “There is no more revelation, when Christ was on the cross and said "It is finished." That was it, His purpose was fulfilled, no one was coming after Him to complete salvation, it was finished.”
In your own book, Jesus told his companions that he couldn’t stay because the comforter was coming after him. For centuries Christians were waiting for a new messenger to come ("Are you 'that prophet...?'") because of that, and then got jealous and mad when he showed up in Arabia. Then their theologians retconned it to mean something else, but you can’t hide the Truth from God. The comforter Jesus prophesized was Muhammad, and his message was the Qur’an. Accept it so you may be saved from your recent blasphemies.

The Separation of the Material & the Immaterial within the Science Institution

Before the advent of the British Royal Society, science (i.e., the study of natural phenomena) and theology (i.e., the study of spirit) were inseparable.  The two were not separate repositories of knowledge, but natural correlatives.  In Confession of Nature, Gottfried Wilheim Leibniz established the centrality of God to science.  According to Leibniz, the proximate origins of “magnitude, figure, and motion,” which constitute the “primary qualities” of bodies, “cannot be found in the essence of the body.”
Linda de Hoyos reveals the point at which science finds a dilemma:
The problem arises when the scientist asks why the body fills this space and not another; for example, why it should be three feet long rather than two or square rather than round.  This cannot be explained by the nature of the bodies themselves, since the matter is indeterminate as to any definite figure, whether square or round.  For the scientist who refuses to resort to an incorporeal cause, there can be only two answers.  Either the body has been this way since eternity, or it has been made square by the impact of another body.  “Eternity” is no answer, since the body could’ve been round for eternity also.  If the answer is “the impact of another body,” there remains the question of why it should have had any determinate figure before such motion acted upon it.  This question can then be asked again and again, backwards to infinity.  Therefore, it appears that the reason for a certain figure and magnitude in bodies can never be found in the nature of the bodies themselves.
The same can be said for the body’s cohesion and firmness, which left Leibniz with the following conclusion:
Since we have demonstrated that bodies cannot have a determinate figure, quantity or motion, without an incorporeal being, it readily becomes apparent that this incorporeal being is one for all, because of the harmony of things among themselves, especially since bodies are moved not individually by this incorporeal being but by each other.  But no reason can be given why this incorporeal being chooses one magnitude, figure, and motion rather than another, unless he is intelligent and wise with regard to the beauty of things and powerful with regard to their obedience to their command.  Therefore such an incorporeal being be a mind ruling the whole world, that is, God.
This argument refutes the claim that the physical universe constitutes the “totality of reality.”  Guenon recapitulates:
The truth is that the corporeal world cannot be regarded as being a whole sufficient to itself, nor as being isolated from the totality of universal manifestation: on the contrary, whatever the present state of things may look like as a result of “solidification,” the corporeal world proceeds entirely from the subtle order, in which it can be said to have its immediate principle, and through that order as intermediary it is attached successively to formless manifestation and finally to the non-manifested.  If it were not so, its existence could be nothing but a pure illusion, a sort of phantasmagoria behind which there would be nothing at all, which amounts to saying that it would not really exist in any way.  That being the case, there cannot be anything in the corporeal world such that its existence does not depend directly on elements belonging to the subtle order, and beyond them, on some principle that can be called “spiritual,” for without the latter no manifestation of any kind is possible, on any level whatsoever.
~The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship: An Examination of Epistemic Autocracy, From the 19th to the 21st Century by Paul Collins  [excerpt]

BOOK REVIEW: Black Genesis: The Prehistoric Origins of Ancient Egypt

A caucasian friend of mine saw the title of this in my office and dismissed it, thinking it was yet another afrocentric rant or something, but I don't collect those. Black Genesis was written by Robert Bauval (he's French/Greek or something like that and born in Egypt) who is a top-notch scholar. The book shows the truly ancient remains of a people who lived and thrived on the African continent during a time period when the Sahara Desert was fertile. Paintings of people and tropical animals on boulders in the currently 100% inhospitable areas of the legendary desert lands, as well as megalithic structures that, as usual, line up with the stars from some ancient date far back on the Precessional long-count calendar. This is the data that goes hand-in-hand with the work of Ivan van Sertima and Cheikh Anta Diop representing more pieces of the puzzle of the mysterious past of the ancient human being.

This is actually a wonderful book for people genuinely interested in examining the clues of ancient prehistory, which presents data greatly in need of more dedicated professional archaeologists to build upon … honest truth seekers, who are not half-blinded by institutionalized agendas, and over-biased ideologies to block the way.

BOOK REVIEW - The Short Path

Clesson H. Harvey's Short Path is the companion to his website pyramidtexts.com. Composed of a assembled lectures he conducted on the topic, it is mostly an autobiographical sketch of his life showing how after years of studying the meditative practices of the different cultures from all over the world, he discovered that the actual point of meditating in the first place is not general knowledge. The source of the world's meditative practices are the Pyramid Texts themselves. Called "The Book of Coming into Light" these writings show how, through correct meditation, one can open the Third Eye and achieve Enlightenment. The Short Path tells how C. H. Harvey acquired the knowledge, his studies on it, and his detailed account of the actual spiritual "sights" encountered when you first open the eye. Because he is a physics professor from a big university, Harveywrites in a very no nonsense, no mystic metaphors type style. He's not trying to be spiritually "deep" with you. He just wants the reader to one, two, three get the facts about becoming enlightened. I HIGHLY recommend this to folks who are seeking the Truth in spirituality.
See Also:Awakening the Atrophied Eye: A Personal Quest to Find the Followers of Second Sight